trying to get affordable housing to. thank you. president olague is there additional public comment on the appeal? >> yes. i just want to verify the statement from the mayor's office. i work for hud, and it hud is in full support of the project. the issue on the environmental review was an economy issue. the city was contemplating using funds for acquisition. and the timing for hud's environmental review did not jive with the city's timing. hud has no issues with the project itself and of the environmental review requirement no longer applies since the city was not requesting funds for acquisition. president olague thank you.

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. i have a lot of concerns, but i will go into the specific concern that the appropriate time. but i do have some questions about some of the issues that were raised on the neg dec. the first issue is the fact that whether or not the comments pe riod was long enough, because of the dozens of state or federal issues, then it is supposed to be at 30-day period. i do not know of legal counsel or someone can comment on that, because it is on state highway. we did hear that hud did not contribute any money to it, but they were not able to do a review. i am not sure about that or not. the historical aspects, oliver russo is the architect. very good architect, did interior patio's. i do not think that there's a lot of disturbance to the

structure that would change it historically, so i do not know that that is the ballot, nor do i agree with the concerns about the noise or the geotechnical. however, what was brought -- what was brought up is troubling. it seems like, from my reading of the analysis, it was based on 24 occupants, but there could be as many as 48. it is a 14-day time span for a guest. you could conceivably have two guests in a month, each for 14 days. so you could have 48 people staying there. the analysis was done on a smaller number. i think that might warrant further analysis for the impact speed of the other thing that cannot have been foreseen ahead of time was the america's cup and the fact that the analysis did not include that, because we did not know what was happening during the construction time. but it will have a significantly different impact, given the traffic that will exist for the america's cup.

finally, i guess there were solutions to the ada corrections to make it compliant. i am not sure that would trigger additional analysis or not. i am not one that looks for more environmental analysis on most things, but i think the opponents have made some good points on some of these things. and there have been some noticing questions here. vice president miguel: i would move to uphold the neg dec. >> second. commissioner moore: with respect to one of commissioner antonini 's questions about the america's cup, i think the environmental report has to be based on baseline conditions that exist today, if i am not mistaken. so anything in the future is not taken into consideration, is that correct? >> good afternoon, sarah jones

with the planning department. we do need to take into consideration the environmental review cumulative projects, which the america's cup is a reasonably foreseeable project at this time, because we have all of our applications in and we are reviewing it. we did, and you'll see in your packet, add some language to the text of the negative declaration regarding the america's cup. clearly, the america's cup will result in some significant environmental impacts, but this project is not a sufficient size to contribute in any considerable way to many cumulative impacts from that. commissioner antonini: maybe you can answer my first question regarding the noticing period. it seems to me that being on highway 101 would require a longer noticing period. it was only 20 days, apparently.

>> yes, that is correct. it was a 20-date noticing period. that was the proper -- it was a 20-day noticing period. we went over the issues. we can address it in detail. but on the highway 101 issue, that is triggered when there is ingress or egress on to the state highway, and in this case, there is a nonesuch access. commissioner antonini: ok, thank you. president olague: did you have more to add? >> in terms of the 30-day notice requirement and whether the property being located adjacent to caltrans jurisdiction triggering that 30-day requirement, it would only be triggered if the subject

property had direct ingress and egress onto highway 101. there is no type of ingress to or egress directly onto highway 101, and therefore, caltrans -- it was not necessary to notify caltrans of this project. does that answer your question? commissioner antonini: yeah, that does. i guess again talk about the issue of analysis and the number of occupants, which is based on a lower number. i understand that it could be two in a room most of the time. >> absolutely. that is a comment that we did get during our review of the project, and which we did consider. and in addressing that, i spoke with the project sponsor who made it clear that there would be -- although the planning code does allow for two beds per

room, there's only adequate space for one bed per room. so there is only going to be one resident per unit at any given time. so based on that, in our transportation analysis, we did account for 24 residents, one manager, for a total of 25 residents. we also accounted for visitors in the transportation analysis. under ceqa, we analyze a project as proposed by the project sponsor, who has stated that there are going to be 25 residents at one time. commissioner antonini but there -- commissioner antonini: but their guests allowed? >> there are guests allow. previously, they allow for overnight guests. in secret, we look at the change between previous conditions and the proposed projects, and in

analyzing the project, the number of overnight guests was negligible between the two projects. commissioner antonini: i guess the appellants were speaking more to the impacts to their residents, because i believe they referred to some additional environmental analysis that has to be done when people who are public tenants and have to have adequate housing, and the analysis has to include whether they are overcrowded or not. you know, if we had 48 people there, that could be considered an overcrowded condition. that is the part where i wonder if there is enough analysis. >> in terms of ceqa, overcrowding does refer to density. it does sort of referred to density and land use issues. in the ceqa document and the

appeal response, we have looked at their proposed density of the project. the increase of approximately eight group housing units, and we did not feel that that increase resulted in overcrowding. commissioner antonini: ok, thank you. could i ask the appellate that same question, please? go ahead. >> excuse me, i just wanted to add a couple of things. one was, i did want to clarify that this project is not a public housing project. so any requirements related to public housing projects are not applicable to this project. it would be an affordable housing project, but it is not a public housing project. it would be privately developed and operated. and then with regard to the number of tenants, we analyzed

the use as proposed, which is 24 units of group housing. any residential use, all of the analysis assumes some amount of visitor activity as well. and that also applies here. commissioner antonini mr: mr. hammond. >> yes, one concern is the very small size of the kitchen. there is 73 square feet proposed, which would include, of course, all of the cabinetry. there is no way that 25 people will be able to cook their meals there. and that means that you're going to see hot plates and cooking equipment in their rooms. that raises an air quality issue that i believe is appropriately addressed by ceqa. let me also state that although

the project sponsor has said there will be 25 units, i am unaware that the project sponsor has declared there will only be 25 residents. and i believe this is an extremely important distinction that should be fully vetted, both in the ceqa process and considered as a conditional use restriction. commissioner antonini: thank you, sir. >> finally, i would like to see the staging area for construction, if there is no ingress or egress, there will be staging concerns during construction. there will be on the highway or nearby, and caltrans should have been notified. commissioner antonini: thank you. president olague: staff, did you want to comment? commissioner moore: i would like to indicate that the commission has not found substantial evidence supporting a fair

argument that a significant environmental effect may occur as a result of the project that would warrant the preparation of an eir. >> accepted. commissioner moore: are we also incorporating the findings, staff? >> do we did the findings now? >> with the project. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to uphold the preliminary negative declaration with the comments as read into the record by commissioner sugaya. commissioner antonini. >> no. >> aye.

>> >> so moved, commissioners, the motion passes, 5-1. that pleases you on items 6a and b for those cases. 3151 through 3155 scott stream -- street. request for a conditional use authorization. >> i have some additional e- mails that came in. president olague: before we begin, i would like to ask those who are standing up to please relocate to room 416, were the

hearing is being televised, and we will allow you time to come up for testimony. so any of those folks standing up, please relocate to room 416. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am department staff, and i will be presenting this case today. the project before you is the conversion of community housing partnership of the vacant three- story 29 room tourist hotel known as the edwards ii inn. 24 affordable group housing units for transitional aged between 18 and 24 who are in a maximum of 50% of the area median income. the group housing facility would also include a residence manager unit, at the kitchen, dining room, and rooms for programmatic needs on the ground floor. and a common room, laundry room,

and a bicycle storage in the basement. exterior changes to the 1914 building would be limited to when the replacement, a painting, a new sign it, and some of the saw enhancements. the buildings envelope, including its height, would not change. the subject property is at the southwest corner of lombard and scott streets in the zoning district which lines the lombard street corridor and within a 40-x. it is in the marina district within" smelt -- proximity of the chestnut street district in the unit neighborhood commercial distributor to the south of the property, residential zone properties contain dwelling units. the project as proposed requires the following actions by the planning commission to proceed. first, a recommendation that the board of supervisors adopt amendments to the planning code and the zoning map to create the lombard and scott street

affordable group housing special use district as it overlay of the existing nc3 zoning on the site. the sud would allow a group haunting density of one unit for the lot area -- it would change the unit amount for a total of 24 group housing units as opposed to 16 group housing units. the sud would also eliminate the rear yard requirement for the site, eliminate the use of all open space requirement for the site, and modify the unit exposure requirement for approximately half the units on the site. the sud legislation includes a provision that these exceptions from otherwise applicable requirements with the planning code would require a conditional use authorization by the planning commission. secondly, the approval -- the project to proceed must receive the approval of a conditional

use authorization to allow the exceptions for density, every year, open space, and a unit exposure, described previously. the commission will hear much public comment today regarding the project. issues raised include potential negative impact on the quality of life for the existing neighborhood, residents, and businesses, negative effects on neighborhood property values and the negative effects created by increased density on this side, and negative effects on neighborhood parking, negative effects of the project's lack of open space, and the inadequacy of the subject building for the proposed use. it is the department's position that, on balance, the project is consistent with relevant objectives and policies of the general plan and the prior to policies of planning code section 101.1.

the general plans objections and policies that encourage the -- and objectives for affordable housing. the residential uses compatible with the nearby residential neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial districts. the project is well-served by public transit, and its use is unlikely to attract residents with cars. the project site is also within proximity of a number of open spaces, including the presidio, the marina green, and the recreation center. it is the department's recommendation that the commission approved a resolution that recommends that the board of supervisors and into the planning code by creating the lombard and scott street affordable group housing special use district and to amend the zoning map to include the special use district. it is also the department's recommendation that the commission approved the conditional use authorization with conditions to allow exceptions to the density, rear yard, open space, and unit

exposure requirements of the planning code for this project. that concludes my presentation, and i am open for questions. president olague: thank you, project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my name is gail, executive director of community housing partnership. i will like to thank the planning staff for all their work today. committee housing partnership, for the last 21 years, as solely been dedicated to developing, operating, and providing services in permanent supportive housing. we currently manage and own 800 units of housing, stretching from treasure island through to the western addition. touching multiple districts in neighborhoods here in san francisco. we believe the civic engagement, employment opportunities, and the stability of home is what brings people to move their lives from being at-risk or

experiencing homelessness. supportive housing, which this project is, is the most cost- effective intervention to homelessness. according to the comptroller's office, supportive housing, on average, costs about $9,000 to operate with a full platform of services and to operate housing. the city and county of san francisco spends over $20,000 per individual when they're on our streets are emergency shelters. community housing partnership is thrilled that we have this opportunity today to create a state of the art dedicated housing in the marina district in san francisco. in 2009, the mayor's office of housing issued a notice of funding availability. they asked developers like us to step forward and to create a small dedicated housing project for k use ages 18 to 24. we applied for that funding. we did an exhaustive search of

property. we applied with the intent of hoping we would be funded. we were told by the mayor's office of housing in late to dozen in that we were granted funds, and we began to negotiation in the purchase agreement for the property of their bad words ii, located on lombard and scott. the minute our funding was announced, the minute when it the project was not speculative and moving forward, we began a sense of community outreach, which was in the packet we provided. you might say, why this building? why this location? first, it required a small building, and this building, within its envelope, could be within the range of 20 to 40 units that they were requesting. also, the building would be delivered vacant. we need to remember that as an affordable housing provider, we would never purchased a lot or building with existing tenants who then it themselves might become homeless due to our development. and then we look at the other requirements. it was requesting that the housing be cited by non-

traditional neighborhoods. it had a preference to be outside of the tenderloin, south of market, and mission, and an area with low crime. i would like to present recent crime statistics for the past three months, comparing tenderloin, south of market, and mission to the marina street corridor. there is a map and a bar chart. we also look for a property on a major transit corridor and had open space. the presidio, a marine agreeing, and others, we felt this was ideal. we feel that we will operate this building effectively. 20 per our property management staffing. 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. of front lobby services, doorman and availability. a live-in manager available for emergency response. chp has been recognized nationally from enterprise community foundations corporation for supportive housing as best practices in property management and

operations. there'll be house rules, and there will be a lease. this is not a free ride. there will pay rent to the mattresses in their lives to be good neighbors and a good tenants in the property. i would now like to invite up our architect to explain to you the many amenities and community spaces we have incorporated into the property. >> thank you. my firm is here in san francisco. we have been here for over 30 years. we made a commitment, for the last 20 years, to specialize and commit ourselves to the goal of providing affordable supportive housing. we have renovated over 1400 units in san francisco. we're proud of that and proud of this project in front of you.

waiting for the image. >> there you go. great. this first slide is a rendering of the corner of lombard and scott. lombard is on the right. scott is on the left. the key issues we made in the improvements to the building and for security and maintenance is to normalize the front of scott. right now, there are a lot of recesses, which not good things to have in buildings. so we have one single entrance to the building for the residences. halfway up the building on scott street. that is different than the entrance rice now -- for now,

which is on the corner and very exposed to traffic and noise. this is a very good location for that. this is the ground floor. and the color coding of the yellow areas are the common spaces and the program spaces on the ground floor. one thing that is important is that the ground floor will now be a single use or, rather than the broken up with many levels like it had previously. a key thing on the bottom of the drawing, which is scott street, there is an entrance. immediately as you enter the building, as your buzzed through the door, there is a reception desk in a property manager. that is very important for the security of the building. to the left of the entry is a program room. service provider offices. on the right hand side are

common spaces on the ground floor, which total about 1850 square feet, including the resident managers unit on the floor. included in that is the community kitchen, dining and a lounge spaces. the kitchen and dining space is 521 square feet and a design to have multiple accommodations, both for cooking and for dining throughout the day. so there is adequate space for that. as i said, the total program space for this floor is 1850 square feet. this is the basement. we have included an elevator to the building, which it presently does not have. it allows us to access the basement and include a more common space for the residents. on this level, there is a community room, a laundry room, and bike storage. 690 square feet of common resident use on this level, including storage for the

residences. next, please. this is the second floor, which is also a accessible by the elevator. the blue units are the minutes that we have identified as accessible. we have reviewed our accessibility requirements and the mayor's office of disability, and we were very forthcoming with our plan, our specific details of our approach, and we have received a knowledge but that this is the proper way to proceed, and we will be continuing that process. the white units are a standard unit, which we're not making any changes to. the excess of the requirements is 5% of the units, which comes out to two. we have four for this building. plus, the manager of armin on the ground floor is fully accessible. this is the third floor. we're using limited use, a limited access elevator, which takes us from the basement to the second floor.

that is for the economy to save money. it is also specifically agree -- geared for people who need access. the first floor is all standard 12 units. we have 12 units on the third floor and 12 units on the second floor. this is the elevation on scott street. and on the middle, you can see that there is a canopy that identifies the address. that is at the point of the new recessed entry for the building. we had to spit coloring finishes and upgrades to the building. -- we anticipate coloring finishes and upgrades to the building. on lombard street, we are reserving the character, but we're also working on the acoustics and security needs, lightings and cameras. that concludes my presentation. i can answer questions. i would like to introduce the

next speaker from market street. >> as executive director of larkin street youth services. we have been around for 27 years to provide as that of housing, shelter, medical care, and education employment services for runaway and homeless youth in san francisco. we have to dig ever shelters. we have 10 housing programs. we have a wide array of education and employment programs to help young people get off the streets and to be about to build the skills they need towards independence. our goal is to help used to reach their full potential. the need for these kinds of services in san francisco is alarming. we estimate that their 5700 young people each year in san francisco at risk for homelessness. we were a part of the san francisco -- [chime]