about a year, but that would give me time right now to finish up the structural report and proceed with the construction. president miguel: thank you. is there public comment on this? >> this is a similar project but was on 949 polk street. it was designed by the same architect. it is an almost identical design. 949 polk street is an almost identical project. i believe this one is a 24-unit senior housing. president miguel: thank you. >> randy shaw, director of the tenderloin housing clinic. the reason we strongly oppose

granting another extension is that this was not a permit granted in 2007 or 2008. this was granted in 2004, when things were booming in san francisco, yet they did not build in 2004. they did not build in 2005 or 2006. those are three of the biggest boom years in the history of the world housing market. now he wants us to believe that based on some computations he said he did yesterday he is going to get this funded in 2012. i do not see it. it is not an economically viable project. allowing us to have to suffer with these eyesore parking lots -- if you go a few blocks down, across from the phoenix hotel, between larkin and polk, you see the building next door. that was an eyesore block. once they filled in that parking lot, that bloch's taken off. it is thriving. we think that block can be as

well, but not if we have an owner who has no ability to build. he says he is partnering with nonprofits. i have never heard of a nonprofit. i know housing nonprofits in the tenderloin to work there. i have never heard any interest there. this claims to be an affordable senior project, but he is not a non-profit. i am not sure the economics of a private developer is going to give the government money for a project. we want to give him a shot, but it is six years. there is a harm to the community to give him three more years to do more back of the envelope. we review this every day. it is a hard time to get financing. a 48-unit two-building affordable senior project with no subsidies -- that is not finance a ball -- that is not

financeable. it is like land banking. there is an element here of waiting for some entitlement. maybe downtown will need an off site exclusionary they can use. this really is not a viable project. if he does not get it, you may support another product he brings back to you. he may realize this is not real. he will sell it to somebody who will build there. let us not let him -- he cannot get this done. at some point, the commission has to look did this and say, "i know you tried. you are not going to get it done. give the community a chance for someone else to get it done." thank you very much. president miguel: isabel marshall.

>> good evening, commissioners. as a tenant next door to this project, i am stating my case opposed to this extension. this parking lot area is an eyesore. it is also a place for drug users to hide between cars and defecate and use street drugs. those activities are visually seen by children who live in our building, right outside our apartment windows. we believe that it brings an element to our neighborhood. there is also a children's playground across the street. it creates a spot popular to sell and do drugs, possibly endangering the families and children living in our buildings. another reason to get started on this project as soon as

possible is the bottom line -- construction costs. in three years, they are going to be higher. the partnership, as mr. shaw pointed out -- building an apartment in a farming parking lot did change that entire neighborhood. community housing partnership had the ability and the viability and the partnerships to be able to build this and to partner with other non profits. php has built an excellent reputation in operating affordable housing and has successfully turned several people's lives around in doing that. as we know, a lot of senior citizens have lost their pension funds.

they are now in conditions where they cannot afford to live the way they used to. that is the necessity of building more senior housing and more housing all around. that is another reason. thank you. that is all i have. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, my name is isabel marshall. we oppose the parking lot. we know for a fact that the parking lot consists of a lot of unsafe, unsanitary, unattended, and watched spaces where people do all sorts of activities, including drugs and crime.

we cannot seem to get the parking lot gate to where it can close and lock. it is open all the time. we have tried for years. i have been a manager for 10 years there. we try to keep it secure, but it is unattended. they are doing all sorts of things. community helping partnership is a nonprofit agency helping the homeless community. they may be taking a while to get it together, but we would like to put two buildings there for seniors. we have been successful in the past with doing this type of operation. it may be taking a little longer than we expected, but we would appreciate if you give us a chance to try to change this community. it does change the community

when we build nice, affordable, clean, decent, safe houses. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner olague? vice president olague: as time goes on here, i am becoming more cautious about granting some many extensions to these projects, in part because we do not have a liking ordinance in place. i go down central market all the time. between market and mission, there is another project week entitled a few years ago. these bacon plots just sit there. it is an eyesore. there is potential that may be untapped because someone is just sort of sitting on the side. i agree with mr. shaw's letter

that he had this property that was entitled a few years ago in the heights. there were many opportunities at that point and none of those opportunities were taken advantage of at that time. also, it seems to me that this is a private developer, as was mentioned. it seems that a project like this might be better kept in the hands of a nonprofit developer who has experienced financing and making something like this happen. i am going to go ahead and move that we do not grant an extension. i guess we have to frame the motion because of the language of the approval with condition. i employed to move to disapprove. -- i am going to move to disapprove. >> a motion with intent to disapprove and to adopt findings? vice president olague: that is

my motion. commissioner borden: second. commissioner moore: i want to mention my concerns that we are more and more pushed into the corner with no bright crystal ball forecast on economic recovery. other approvals are coming back for re-approval which have been hanging on for a long time. it is very difficult to continue to say yes, we will continue. we find there are quite a few of vacant buildings, boarded up buildings, demolished lots, and no interim strategies. there is a significant citywide lighting effect. we are losing retail tenants. we are having storefronts' partially empty. i believe we need to take stock of offering opportunities to those who, particularly in

senior housing and affordable housing, are doing things. i would agree that this is one of the candidates where we should basically cut bait. commissioner borden: i have a question for the project sponsor, one question. have you personally, or your company, ever developed affordable housing for senior housing? >> i have not. i have been in development for the last five years. commissioner borden: affordable? you have never developed any affordable housing? >> i have researched it. i brought some contracts here. i was in contract with at least three different organizations. at least one of them is community housing. i talked to them as recently as last year. commissioner borden: i talked to them recently and there were not familiar with this. i typically support extension, but in this case, because of the

neighborhood you're in, the fact that you have no experience doing affordable housing, and the fact that there are other organizations in the community that could develop a lot, i personally am not in support of this extension. you can sit down. commissioner antonini: i have a question for staff. if we grant the extension, of course this could be built or it could be sold to someone else with the entitlement, which is for the two affordable housing units, each on the specific site, which are actually even lower than the possible density for senior housing. if i look at the design from something else they did, it looked pretty good. if we deny it, it still would be salable, but at a lower price, one would presume, because there would be no entitlement. >> commissioner, i could not

necessarily speak to the selling price of the lot. the entitlements would be extinguished, so someone would need to come forward with a new project proposal. commissioner antonini: the other thing was that they would not necessarily have to have an entitlement for an affordable senior project. they could bring any kind of project for which there wanted to. perhaps someone could come up with the project were one of them was market rate and the other one was affordable. they might be able to get financing in an easier way if they had a source of funding through part of it, or as was mentioned the could partner with somebody with the offset. i see a lot of possibilities here. i am not entirely -- i usually think that extension is a good thing. but i would hopefully like to see something creative being done. we did things before. one of the classics was the palms of many years ago, where

there was an offset in market rate which was offset by the improvements to the building. these are things that might make a lot of sense here. i think the climate is getting better for those types of things. i am kind of torn on this one, but i wanted to get your input whether i am characterizing this correctly. >> you are correct. other than the existing entitlements before you, there is no special restriction on the properties that mandates a be senior affordable units. a new project could propose a market rate or some combination of market rate and affordable units. any permutation in the planning code. commissioner antonini: there was a staff recommendation on this. i guess there was a rationale in here. i guess the bases was that things are going to get better and they could get financing in the future. >> the basis of the staff recommendation was an acknowledgement of the difficulties of obtaining financing for any sort of

project, let alone a senior affordable housing project, in this climate, and also the social benefits of the project, the mere fact that it is an existing entitlement for senior affordable housing. that could potentially be developed in the future, with existing conditions. commissioner antonini: i could go either way on this. i have seen many projects that have gone quite a few years and have been developed with the next upturn occurs. the fact that it is a private developer instead of a nonprofit -- they should be able to do things just as well. but i think there is a compelling case for possibly having something else be entitled on here. it is kind of a tossup for me. thank you. commissioner sugaya: sorry. i had the same issues as commissioner antonini. >> i would just like to clarify that if the commission does pass

a motion of intent to disapprove, when we are drafting the findings it would be helpful to understand that the commission's goal is that the entitlements are not extended, that the entitlement is essentially revoked, and that any future project would come before us for new entitlements. we would make sure to get that in the findings. commissioner borden: i just want to say to the project sponsor -- i want to reiterate that in the climate we were in in 2006, when anybody could get a loan, it is kind of suspicious you could not get funding there at a time when people with very low salaries were getting very high mortgages. that is the reason that we have issues with this, among others. >> on the motion of intent to disapprove and make findings for revocation -- commissioner antonini: no.

commissioner borden: aye. aye. -- commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. vice president olague: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes six-one. president miguel: please include designing administrators comments. vice president olague: definitely. >> on the matter of the variance request, my inclination is to deny the request. however, i will withhold the variants decision letter until after the commission has had the opportunity to adopt findings. that will come at a different date and is publicly appealable. the public hearing is closed. thank you. >> that will put us on items 15 a and b for case number 2009-

1170. this is for 35 lloyd street. the commission continued this item from october 14 to december 2. the public hearing remains open. >> good evening, members of the commission. aaron starr, department's staff. this is a proposal to construct a new four-story two-unit building on a vacant lot in a rh3 district and a 40-x height and bulk district. they are requesting a variance from the planning code which will be heard after your action on the case. the concern is mainly over the

proposed building's height and how will affect privacy and access to light. i also believe the building is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. at the october 14 hearing, the commission asked the sponsors to work together to come to consensus on the scale and design of the proposed building. the parties have met on three separate occasions. consensus between the parties was not reached. several changes were made to the proposed design by the project sponsor in response to the commission and the dr requestor's concerns, including removing the stairwell to the penthouse, reducing the building height while retaining a four stories, and reducing the height of the street beside to 26 feet from 29 feet. the removed the two side facing lending -- facing windows. they added one bedroom to the

lower unit and moldings to the front facade. they added a pitched roof detail at the front of the building. staff finds that the proposed -- that the revised proposal with lowered height and windows at the rear of the building have improved the proposal. however, some of the changes -- staff recommends approval of the revised proposal today, but to direct the project sponsor to continue to work with staff on improving the design of the front facade. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> the other microphone is the

one you want to use. >> are you going to be able to hear me? >> we are going to hear you better through that microphone than the other one. >> todd mavis, project owner. after the october 14 hearing, we met with two of the three dr the quaestors many times and made numerous concessions. we did not meet with and because she never attended any of the meetings with us. she never made herself available. however, we did make numerous concessions in the building based on the requests we heard from you. we removed the stair penthouse. we submerged the stairs leading to the roof deck, leaving them exterior. we lowered the building height significantly from 40 feet to 36

feet to address the height and mass concerns. we accomplished this by changing two 12-inch joists to a seven-inch. we also did this by additional excavation and by reducing the ceiling heights from 9 feet to 8 feet 5 inches. we also added cornices to the front facade to make the building less boxy. we added additional window moldings and window mullions to make the window appear less expansive and to blend in with the adjacent buildings on the left and right side. in addition, we eliminated three of the east-facing windows to address the privacy concerns of our neighbors. in addition on the east side of the building, we have frosted some of the glass. we changed some of the windows to transom style and also added guard rails in front of certain

windows to further address privacy concerns. for the dr requestors, this was not enough. what they would really like is that we eliminate all the windows on the east side so all the would have is a blank wall. we felt that was an inappropriate response to the private -- to the privacy concerns. we felt that adding transom windows, where the window is horizontal at the top of the wall -- you cannot see out of it. that is inappropriate way to do with privacy concerns. lastly, we added an additional bedroom to the lower unit to make the lower ut a 3-bedroom unit. "we are proposing for you today are two 3-bedroom units. our architect says we can do a three story with two-units -- with two units using three- bedrooms, but this is not possible.

we've been asked to create a light well of 30 feet. we do not think that is appropriate. we have matched the light well of the neighborhood by the amount the planning code requires and the planning department asked us to do. we do not block any windows with our building that are light ports. despite these concessions, we have not been able to reach agreement with the neighbors. one reason is because anne never even made herself available to speak with us and address her concerns. in addition, i spoke with one of the neighbors that lives across the street on lloyd street. he thinks the design is much improved but believes we have not reached agreement because some of the neighbors would prefer that nothing be built. lastly, i would point out that

after each of the three meetings we had this since the october 14 hearing, their demands became harder and more impossible to meet. for excess of book, they started off requesting us to build a 31 foot tall building with a 9 ft. penthouse. after a subsequent meeting, they asked us to build a 25-foot building only. joe butler, the architect hired by the requestors, has submitted a design we know is not possible to build. our architect and structural engineer are prepared to demonstrate that if one were to attempt to build it, it would result in ceiling heights which are 7 feet 6 inches tall in order to get into a 25 foot tall building. i remind you that the planning department, residential design team, and historical research evaluation team all support our project in its design. these impartial advocates, these

impartial professionals, have always been. after extensive review of our building, they have said it should be approved as designed. we are proposing a 25-foot tall building on a lot is on for 30 feet. there are no exceptional circumstances. for that reason, we advocate that you support this building. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. robert denuncio? this is the dr. excuse me. i have been on a conditional use for so long. dr requestors?

>> commissioners, thank you for taking the time to meet with us yet again. my name is chris volker. i lived adjacent and to the west of the proposed project. as you know since the last hearing, the sponsor has made a set of revisions unilaterally to their project, which we feel did not address the bulk of the neighbors' concerns, and which nobody is happy with. the neighbors are not satisfied because we think it is still out of scale with the rest of the street. we think it is still out of character with the rest of the street. it does not address our light well concerns. because of the excavation, it adds a steep ramp to the garage that the cars will have to get

out of on a narrow and steep street, which we think is a potential detriment to the design. the staff is not happy with the new proposal. they have asked to approve it but let the staff make additional changes. you already see in their earlier briefly recommended that you not take discretionary review because they preferred the old design. even the sponsors do not like the new design. they offered to donate $100,000 to the part if we would forget all of this and let them build their original building because they do not like the new design. they devote a significant amount of their own brief to telling you how horrible their new design is from their view. they tell you it is going to be extremely expensive. they tell you how costly it will be. they tell you it will require unprecedented construction complexity. the reason it requires that complexity is because they are

still trying to squeeze a four story building in a space that really wants a three story building. we fill a three story building would not require unprecedented complexity and would be more appropriate to the street. furthermore, in their brief, once they have told you why their new plans are bad, the repeat all the reasons you should not take dr on a building that every commissioner at the last hearing expressed concerns about. the mix and match to wrap their brief and tell you why their new plants are a good idea, but then they of quotes that tell you why the plans on file are actually a good idea and that is why you should not take dr. they try to do is switch around, if you will. my concerns, being at 45 lloyd street -- we have concerns about the lack of a matching light well.