>> welcome back. i like to remind everyone to turn off any mobile devices that make sound off during the proceedings. when speaking to that commission spector the into the microphone.

we will continue with the regular calendar. item 16, case 2011. request for a conditional use authorization. kraska afternoon. a trout -- part of before you is a request for the proposed project at 14 01 howard st.. pursuant to planning code, the proposed project 62 change the use of the building to office resale -- retail. 1401 howard street is landmark number one 20 is located outside of the designated historic district and outside the service of his sister. that building is vacant. the project would result in 18,002 marder 60 square feet of office space, 1300 square feet of retail and 2500 square feet of assembly space.

key components include the repair and repetition of the exterior, strengthening of the of church and construction of an interior freestanding mezzanine. the historic preservation commission reviewed the proposed projects and granted a certificate of appropriateness for exterior work is provided a determination of the ability to enhance the feasibility of preserving the building. they review proposed a -- i found the part of to be compliant with secretary of interior standards and noted their strong support for the efforts of this prius. as noted in the staff report of the department has received several phone calls on the project in one letter of support which has been included in your packet. , focused on the request for additional information and clarification of the assembly use. after analyzing all the aspects of the project, this department

finds the project to be desirable and necessary. the project would rehabilitate a city landmark and would maintain the property's historic character and address the deteriorated state of the building if been. including the existing windows and architectural elements. it would maintain the economic base and promote use throughout the south of market neighborhood as noted. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> brajah sponsor. -- project sponsor. >> ia m the -- i am the project sponsor along with brian spears. the project started as a residential project but what we realized after working with

staff and is maintaining the grandeur is an important element. we created a new design which is in front of you. that is to take a building completed in 1913 in need of a seismic upgrade and make it a 22,000 square foot office building with all the associated uses. in working with planning staff and trouble we have come up with a solution for this building that is unique and will take care of the blighted corner. this property has been blighted for 25 years. it has been vacant for 25 years. what we have also done is we integrated the neighborhood. a very complicated project. a complicated project to move forward. it involved newmarket tax credits in most likely mills

act. we found a local organization. they do a lot of work with gang violence and prevention of violence in the schools. they help children and young adults to make a transition into instead of being on the street, working and having good jobs and the alternatives to things that happen on the street. i also have turnbull and the design company. i am available for questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment? >> good afternoon. i am here on the next item. i did not notice this was on.

there represent the naburn property -- neighboring property and we wanted to express our strong support. >> is there additional public comment? commissioner moore: this is extremely exciting to see something so unusual especially in the is constrained times. it was a bright spot for me. this is a very european. there are many civic buildings from churches to temples to whatever which have been reused and uses do not accommodate the previous space. it is exciting the way it is done and i appreciate the description you gave us and its purpose and i commend everybody for taking this project, adopting it and bringing it forward.

i could not be more supportive. commissioner sugaya: i am supportive and i will vote for the project. i think it is a great project. to planning staff i have one question that was prompted. by your memo. it has something to do with this project but more in general. it says on february 1, this year, hsbc approved exterior work. why wasn't the interior of the structure considered to be important? >> the designating ordinance for the landmark is limited to only the exterior property. so we did factor the interior within the environmental the termination of the project but it was not subject to the ceqa. >> there was consideration of what could be considered a historic interior? >> yes. commissioner antonini: i think

this is a great project. i've always noticed how rich we're in san francisco with many of our buildings being churches, particularly catholics, but of all denominations that are outstanding architecturally. being able to preserve and restore them if dance to the richness of san francisco. this is a good project. it will produce jobs and will be a use that allows the interior space to maintain much of its grandeur. commissioner moore: i want to add a comment which reminds me and perhaps the commission about a similar case on larkin where are church of significant value was basically being the tureen while no one could figure out what to do with it. darrius is and i would like to [unintelligible] doing this to a higher level and

suggest when people have situations like that they are prepared to take on or stay off it. i am sorry to say that. i would like to suggest that we move to approve. >> second. >> i am glad you mentioned that last item. it was also brought to my mind and i am sure all bus -- i watched that deteriorates in an area that has been deteriorating for 25 years. something that will bring it up to the status of all lot of south of market has been moving in recent years will be greatly appreciated. taking a look at the plan, your concept of the region have done

-- outrage. -- outreach. if you have passed the quarter and noticed it, it is very pleasing that you are coming to us with a project that looks feasible. an adaptive reuse of the type of building that should be kept in san francisco. really appreciate it. >> on that motion to approve. so moved. that motion passes unanimously. the places you on item 17. -- that places you want item 17. -- that places you on item 17.

>> i.s. to be reduces on -- recused on this -- i asked to be recused on this item because i live one block away. crack second. -- th>> second. >> so moved. commissioner wu has been accused. >> good afternoon. mrs. allowing the project to pay the affordable housing fee instead of providing a thrill for housing units. this was approved with up to 17 polling units. 13 residential parking spaces and to karcher spaces prevailed

original project elected to provide the natoma site. the rate was 12%. the sponsor elected to provide three on-site at resulting in arrays of 18%. by choosing to elect [unintelligible] the program is a fee first program that allows projects to allow housing on site if they meet acceptable criteria. they are allowing the flexibility that goes necessary to contain construction financing. at the time the case report was published, the department had not received any public comment. since that time we have received 6 e-mails about -- of opposition from neighbors who feel the unit should be provided on site to insure the neighborhood is recouping its beer -- fair

share of affordable housing. the department recommends approval because allowing the project to pay affordable housing will not modify the design of the project or impact its consistency with the planning code. the affordable housing fee is currently the first option for new developments and the department has little control over which option the sponsor may choose to satisfy the affordable housing program. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and consistent with the missionary plan and the general plan. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again. i am working with the successor brajah sponsor.

this project was approved in 2008. -- i am working with the successor project sponsor. they are seismic shifts. we had the recession and we had the unfortunate and i say that because i do feel this way pommard decision which has limited the options. in addition to the recession, the palmer decision, between the two of them have shaken the financial world and loans are hard to come by. my clients who are here today for the property at the end of 2010, we immediately addressed some design issues and programming issues. we converted the loft tenants which were not very practical. infilled those lofts and fix some security problems and always knew as we approach the planning department and work through those issues that we

would need to come back to you to address this issue in the conditional use permit. knowing what this issue and tails, i wanted to do their homework. i personally went and spoke to scott wiener, the supervisor. i spoke to olsen lee who had moved to the head of the mayor's office of housing. not knowing what was coming, i spoke at witchcraft with christina olague who was the president of the commission at the time. perhaps wrongly i thought the one most interested in affordable housing in the mission. it was only getting -- after getting the positive not from the sources that we applied for this modification and came back to you for the commission. can i have continued that the outreach within the last 24 hours.

i have had three discussions with olsen lee. i sent him an e-mail and committed we would pay the affordable housing fee which is 1 million within 90 days. without deferral. he was interested in the money. he has a use for the money which is booker t. but you should be aware there are 100% other housing projects awaiting funding. thus both come to me from olsen lee. they do need money. i'm available to answer questions. that is our request. with this change not only will we pay the fee but we will be able to get financed and we intend to build the project as soon as practical, like now.

thank you. >> is there public comment? if not, public comment is closed. as much as i have expressed my personal wishes in the past to have on-site, i do understand the situation that the mayor's office and olsen lee are laboring under. project ready to go on line that cannot be financed because there's not any money. i also realize withy palmer decision, certain things are taken out of our hands with the way i cannot. it would be my position to support the department's recommendation. commissioner borden: i thought that if you did the offsite, if you paid the fee, the money to

grow within a certain radius of the site, -- >> you can pay the affordable housing fee, you can provide the housing on-site or you can provide housing offsite. if you're providing physical housing offside as opposed to paying a fee, there is the 1 mile radius. they're simply paying therefore will housing fee in this situation. commissioner borden: everyone prefers the housing on site. i have a friend who lives within 300 feet, concerned about the economic diversity of the neighborhood. i know about which they speak. ahis disappointing. this is not the first project that has come to us for this or parking saying they need these things for financing. and recognize that that is an

issue. i appreciate the project sponsor was willing to provide at 18% when the requirement was 12 and will have to pay 20% as a consequence. i do also recognize olsen lee, that fund is depleted and needs the fund and with the rock -- loss of redevelopment there are less sources for for housing. i will support this begrudgingly. i am less than happy with the outcome because i wish it could go to housing in that neighborhood. i have asked the project sponsor if there was any projects they knew of that money could go to and it does not sound like it. on the other side i do support booker t. washington and i know their financial need for that project. it is something we need to figure out from a policy standpoint how we can do with this issue.

as more developers will be choosing any in lieu fee, how can we ensure the feehan florence is the immediate neighborhood where these products are built? that is a policy question. commissioner antonini: it is up to the discretion of the mayor's office of housing as to where the money can be best used. we're going to leave that up to them as was pointed out by commissioner borden. we're not only dealing with the palmer situation but also the drying up of funding through redevelopment which makes the likelihood of money being available for affordable housing to be unlikely. i think the need is even stronger to have enough funding in the inli lieu feeds. you are limited and you can gild more units and serve people who

have greater needs with the utilization of the feet. i would like to ask, i am in support and ask the sponsor to keep working. i do not see of the -- a lot of the renderings of the exterior to get an idea of how will look. hopefully it will be sensitive to the area and make sure that it fits in with the surrounding architecture. i think it is a good project. as was pointed out we're getting 100 to $7,000 more in the in lieu fee had been agreed upon earlier. of course that is being provided up front which is really good. even better is we have a situation according to the projects sponsor that we're ready to go. everyone needs jobs. we need housing. i think the project is schaeuble

ready and ready to roll. it deserves our support. i am in favor of it. >> it wanted to recall this project design was approved in february 2008. we spend a lot of time pushing back on the project including terms which became acceptable. that included parking. how we deal with open space unit exposure end adjacency and we proved it is not in question. nothing has changed. the only thing is the condition of affordable housing. i do not think we can ask for any follow-up because the project is done. and want to follow-up with a comment. picking up on what commissioner borden said. it is painful to give up on site affordable.

to engage in recommendation or at some of the neighborhoods that are suffering from gentrification but also require [unintelligible] very explicit support for for housing. those projects are the priority. here we stand but it would be nice if there would be a priority and we would know about it. we could more wholeheartedly support offsite contributions knowing where it is going. that is the only thing i want to say. i am comfortable with all the mechanisms being discussed in the mayor's office about affordable housing. how to attract developers. we have enough confidence and thoughtfulness in that group to

let this go. i move to approve the motion. >> second. >> on the motion to approve. commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye. commissioner moore, aye, commissioner miguel, aye. so moved. that passes anonymously. this places you on your final regular calendar item, number 18. case 2007. the back up pipeline project. all written comments will be accepted at the planning department's office until the close of business. there is no action required today. >> good afternoon. i am the senior environmental planner with the planning

department. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft environmental impact report for the santonio backup pipeline project sponsored by the san francisco public utilities commission. the public comment period began january 12, 2012 -- january 25, 2012 and extends until 5:00 p.m. on march 12, 2012.in addition il hearing -- held local hearing on the draft eir. no one provided verbal or written comments. staff is not here to enter comments. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. this is not a hearing to approve or disapprove. that hearing will be held before the san francisco public utilities commission subsequent to certification of the final

environmental impact report. comments should be directed to the adequacy or accuracy of information contained in the draft environmental impact report. commager's were asked to speak slowly and clearly so our court reporter can produce an accurate transcript. also, enter should state their name and address and shaye -- they can be identified and they can be sent a copy of the comments and responses document when it is complete. after comments we will take comments on the draft eir from the planning commission. i respectfully suggest the public hearing be opened. >> is there any public comment on this item? this is the first of the hetch hetchy project where no one has

come. >> one i do not have to recuse myself on. >> ok. public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i think this is very complete and thorough. also what i thought was extremely good in this particular deir is it projects the demand after 2018. we often hear about projects that bring us to the demand of 2018 but this goes beyond which is really farsighted because of course, this is a reservoir which will be drawn upon in times of need and certainly if we have excess capacity, the collateral type pipelines and other things that it addresses are practical things and i think it is extremely well done. commissioner moore: within the family of the other girl