Building do think the june 16 version with those other versions go meet use of materials breaking it up etc. , can actually work . As context because width no. I dont think subject i believe the challenges the department choses and the discussions i had denied informal off the record discussions just about architecture with some other people in the Department Just deal with on detail and emphasis which is less than emphatic than what we see you. It does not have to be as aggressive or loud of building as it is. There are good parts about it when you put them into a large of a quantity they become overbearing. He. One last question. Because we have two commissioners that were at the june 1626 it is her building in the city that reminds you of the building i could reference because look at this on these little a. 5 x 11 is hard for me. I really dont like the september version. Is everything we dont want it to be. There is one building, if the building of similar scale. We have no buildings of this size at this height anywhere in downtown on Market Street but [inaudible] did a beautiful building on pacific which we approved and we were all specifically on pacific and jacks. Thats a lovely go get that building is just so strong and its skillfulness and what it does, again to street [inaudible] two different environments would uses on the subject i can only think of that building of been really good example of how to design a modern building and the projects in this particular street of jackson street and stewart jessica do a good job do you think today we get this project through which i would like to, we could send it to as you said the Small Working Group a couple of commissioners the project sponsor mr. Joslyn, director ramp to make it moving more towards what you just said . This one up on pacific . Im using the pacific street as an example with this building should look at good im using as an example of it works. It works. Okay. But i do believe that since this project has already been discussed for three years is that what you said mr. Joslyn [inaudible] [off mic] there may be a little that of a disconnect here between some of the people who are talking to each other. Thats all i can say. I would not bei do not [inaudible] given that i want to move to approve the building. Is there a motion can i ask a question of the motion please commissioner hillis. I heard you say about the water but i do not hear and of the other issues raised by staff. Is that part of your motion . Of the approve the ordinance as proposed. Just with the change. They look at the valuemaybe we could clarify the other recommendations. Commissioners, there are four proposed amendment to the ordinance. Two of which you bespoke it is specifically today. The first being the gray water requirements and the recommendation from staff that waiver be eliminated. From the ordinance. He second being the clarification that 1. 8 million is the correct figure that would be paid in connection with the jobs housing linkage fee. That is the fee that appears in the ordinance despite the actual calculations. We are recommending 1. 8 declare five is the correct figure. The remaining two are more technical but they are important. The first being that the amis unsightly area median incomes for the offsite units be consistent between the two offsite options currently the ordinance is silent on one. We think that the drafting or recipient the final recommendation was that skate excuse me simply that we make the technical adjustments to the ordinance such that the project under either option is indeed required to participate in one of the afford of housing options. Currently, it is not required to. We would urge to adopt all four but of course commissioners, this is your decision. I take the last two that i think the first to get caught up in the issue of whetherwhat the value of that exemption is good because of its 1. 7 million, i think this is weve made a tradeoff with the ordinance with the ordinance is making a tradeoff of some requirements for a more Affordable Housing and offsite alternative. So its hard to look at the specifically and pick off one or two and change them without changing the entire package. So i take the recommendations on the last two and stick with my recommendation to look at the value of the Potable Water exemption. That value isnt that 3. 5 5 million. I figure of the supervisors going back and look at some these other tweaks to recapture that. And make sure that is equivalent to the inclusionary fee or the inclusionary onsite fee. Followup thought that no im thinking i will second the motion commissioner jonathan [inaudible] director rahm if theyve commissioners decide to move ahead become a discussion on the design and recognizing that i think the primary concern is if i could on this issue and the design issue was relationship to the tenderloin more than i think to be fair within the relationship on Market Street. It was the scale of the tenderloin and want to make sure that scale was properly address. So having said that, theres lots we can do it the commission chooses to move ahead to get the design in a form that commissioners will are more comfortable with thank you. Commissioner richards i like to recommend amending the motion to include mr. Jeff joslins suggestion of the entryways. He had i think articulated very well. Okay if it is acceptable. Commissioner jonathan okay, sorry. If it does look like this is good to go back for some sort of subsequent review the decision tonight i would enter into my thoughts that i do think the design as propose which is what were talking about because i think would talk about september and june [inaudible] i think it works well. If you walk along Market Street that night 50 block nine are block right now, the articulation comes the variation in the storefronts have different banners but you take those away it is one of long twothreestory building all the way up to the theater. I think this does a good job writing some articulation providing some interest and what can happen on the street level really depends what you do with the retail spaces. In terms of occupancy and what is there. Unless about the design could i would actually have some restraint on that in those subsequent conversation. Commissioner hillis we often cant talk about what the building looks like but most people experience it to your point commissioner moore, use. City hall on this to get it feels monolithic. Its a great design building if you step back and look at it but theres not a lot on the ground floor whereas if you walk around the Flood Building you dont get that same feeling because its broken up into retail opponents. The ground floor tends to be what the most important of the buildings. Commissioners, theres a motion seconded and im not sure i got the entire motion correctly. So ill let you restate what my understanding is that the motion seconded to who approve the project with conditionswith staff modifications to the planning Code Amendment recommending only the ami for offsite be consistent and to for it to be required in participate in Affordable Housing component and the board look at the value concurrence with the door Potable Water exemption. As proposed by staff . It in the ordinance. When they value that in the ordinance. So he was to look at the value of the graywater components the graywater component commissioners, if i may commissioner hillis did you also want to address the jobs housing linkage fee in that the entire aspect. Just the value of the nonPotable Water exemption is 1. 7 million. I think the board is going to make not make tweaks to the new. Its 3. 5 or 5 million, they are likely to. So we are talking out the ami to be consistent, the graywater issue, and then the Affordable Housing component. As those three recommendations staff modifications and the planning Code Amendment i think with the commissioner is saying that hes not exactly pick up staffs recommendation on the great water. With the job housing linkage. Basically recommending the board should look at the value of those two items considered that in their final [inaudible] right so the Potable Water great water issue youre just recommending the board of supervisors continue looking at it . And value that exemption understood. So commissioners the amendment on the ground floor entryways i was just referring to the planning Code Amendment. As far as the commissioner use authorization the dozen project authorization the droning was because of variances. Were adding the condition that staff and projects on to continue working on the design including stats recommendations regarding the entryways. We want that to be part of the motion not part of the recommendation of the working group. As a condition of approval. Conditions of approval are to continue working on design and conditioning the entryways right. As mr. Joslyn outlined if i may can you clarify that were talking about defining the june 2016 designs we got some direction . We want to conclude this design exercise quickly and not start from scratch i think the motion june 2016 design was a starting point to further refine that was my intent commissioner mcnamara could you clarify one more time is what are not the commission is supporting 20 departments recommendations on those items are there only there are only two that the motion as i understand it are being recommended to be modified the planning Code Amendment. He was anti the evaluation is a recommendation for the board to look at i dont understand why this commission is not capable of taking a stage and were only making a recommendation. The supervisors can themselves figure out as to whether not they need to [inaudible] but i personally find it very unusual that we are deferring the decision when were asked to take a stand. There is nothing of our skin to make a recommendation to support what the department is recommending. Thats not to say to be plenty of time to do the calculation at the board and their legislative aides to come up with a new recommendation indecision which is ultimately made in the board of supervisors but if we cannot even agree on supporting staff then im not quite sure why we are not doing that. I was very clear that i really appreciate the strong benefits package and what supports it brings from the community. On the other hand, the very valid question asking who is really paying for the . I cannot move away from that assessment perhaps does not have the [inaudible] what commissioner hillis is suggested that i believe as a commission we are asked to work with our own department as closely as again and bring something forward which the board has the privilege to reject and modify. Commissioner hillis i share those concerns but again [inaudible] portions of the whole ordinance affect other portions of the ordinance. There are things that are justwere baked into this ordinance to provide more Affordable Housing good i think if you push on one there is a legitimate concern that the project sponsor may have with the community that they should reduce something else. I dont think im prepared to make that choice good idea for Affordable Housing is a priority i think this ordinance prioritizes Affordable Housing by making some exemption to nonAffordable Housing requirement could i just question how dateif we value those good i think the board values him and they dug up it is always out thats great but if they dont it could be an opportunity to get more funding to fill the gap or maybe less. I just dont know the data can we be clear what we are trying to do so when you just that would be in excess perceived value was at 1. 7, should be considered the capture of . Thats what your intent is . Sure. I think also moly they are trying to have the value of the proposed ordinance equaled the value of the current inclusionary onsite requirements. To the extent theyre not valued equal there should be some recapture of that. That make sense commissioner melgar weve talked about this a lot. Just to chime in because im somewhat familiar with Affordable Housing thing. The land dedication is something weve not used so much whereas inclusionary we have a framework for valuing the difference between market rate and affordable. Theres a framework. With this one its been hit or miss when we used it in my opinion. So i do think that putting a value that does allow us to compare apples to applesi actually liked that idea. I also im a little bit afraid of these one offs things that allow for developers to not meet their full obligation because we have not quite figured it out how to value things. So whereas i do support with the staff was going with this i also think it is especially because we have not really fully baked the framework to allow for these valuing in understanding what were you are getting when we are doing [inaudible] i think your motion is good. Commissioner richards can we rephrase it to what commissioner hillis said is the intent. Anything valued what we currently wouldve got under the existing regulations would recommend it be recaptured somehow. That would be the intent of what we are trying to say. Director rahm or sorry mr. Johns and sorry just want to check in this discussion about june versus september schemes for the civic reason is that part of what i heard in the making of the motion was that it was understood part of that cleaning was an understanding that was the architects preference. Thats not what i think i heard here. We had staff at a very specific set of reasons for pushing it in a different direction and specifically to do that contextual response with acknowledging this site has an obligation [inaudible] tenderloin and market which is a gateway to both as well as having this other esteemed neighbor, the work feels just a graphic relation to. Thats what drove those decisions. Its part of what how we got there together. I guess i would simply suggest that perhaps its worth a quick check in with the design team before locking in a scheme that day as well as we will wait from quite a while ago. Also, given i heard roughly 5050 split on that tendency on the part of the commissioners. If i may come i just went to clarify. We worked hard to get toour preferences the june scheme. Thats what the other is a little heavyhanded. We like the preference of the june scheme gives us. Again to address commissioner richards, and we had a choice to go back it would be great to incorporate more of the june 2016 scheme into the design i agree. Width commissioner richards i guess these commissioner moores point, do you feel you can be skillful in our up to understand the impact of the design in the tenderloin however use some elements of the june design to still make it more skillful and playful but still respect where it is sitting . Does that make sense . Bind it to but combining the two solutions, somehow. Color and texture . Meeting halfway between the two would be tricky. I think the strength of the june concept was that it was a strong concept. It was a very bold statement that we try to make. Chopping it up or trying to introduce other elements its a common device and weve used it before. I think this is an instance where we try to limit that, those devices or try to limit [inaudible] commissioner moore i would refer the commission to listen to the department both mr. Jocelyn who very well summarize the challenges that the department has posed and i consider them to be correct and i do believe that dir. Rahm stance with the department as a starting position and in deposition there are number of things they cant change but to go all the way back to an unsolvable situation which is been tossed awake around for years i think is completely counterproductive and is not the support we 02 the department in this particular battle. If i may commissioners, in order to move this along, perhaps the best thing to do is not referred to either scheme. I dont hear any concern from the commissioners about the mass and the height of this building. I think i would suggest that you leave that open to for further discussion and then i would specifically suggest you include that commissioners, that to commissioners be involved in these discussions so we can resolve this and the subsequent discussion and i would suggest its not critical to refer to either scheme at this point. Do we simply have this discussion as we move toward understand the mass in the bulk of the building will not change agreed. I think thats a great suggestion [inaudible] we cant spend another year doing that. [inaudible] [off mic] right. Because we really believed in passionate about design and architecture think we need to let the architect create Something Interesting. Its a concept that needs to stand. When you look at each city block in each architect has an opportunity to great Something Interesting for it. Otherwise if we cut it up the building into smaller sections in every box looks the same. Each block. We want to create interesting architecture for San Francisco. We want to draw their attention so this is an opportunity for us to be bold to do Something Interesting for the city and that is my plead, please i mean i am comfortable with the motion standing at the start import as the june 2016 scheme. I dont know with the commissions preference is good again, i go back if you look at this rendering, 3. 2, which shows the kind of building that is before us with the articulated to building schemes , i still dont see that kind of responding to the more fine grained 810 different buildings of similar architecture on the other side on the north side of that building should i get the need to articulate i can i get the need to have a strong breakup of the ground floor but im not sure that does with all due respect to the architect and department, does what we think we are intending to do. So ill ultimately been the director sam but start with the june 2016 [inaudible] secondary agree with that . Okay. Commissioner johns and okay. Theres a motion seconded. Shall i call the question . One other thing i would encourage the project sponsor to work with Lgbt Community to make a Historic District realize. Thats all. I think that is an easy one. Thank you okay. There is a motion