automatic door opener please step off. >> the proposed 83-unit building is nine stories at 90' stall and restricted to persons and families earning month more than 50% of the air median income with 40 total units targeted for homeless persons and families or persons and families at-risk of homelessness earning no more than 30% of the area median income. there is no parking provided on site and 963 square feet of retail on the ground floor along mission street. a total of 149 bicycle parking spaces being proposed. the project sponsor will give a presentation regarding the design of the project, but i would like to focus on a number of policy and regular ory issues. in order to proceed the project requires determination under planning code section 309, including granting of two

exceptions, allowing the project to seek restriction from [khrao-eupbs/] provided that the commission make certain findings. the project requests exceptions to rear yard and reduction of ground level wind currents. compliance with the criteria for each is described within your packet. i am available to describe these in detail if you have questions, but in short staff believes that the requested exceptions are warranted and meet the criteria established in the code. the project also requires a conditional use authorization to allow additional square footage above the base floor ratio for affordable dwelling units. again i'm available to discuss the specifics of the conditional use authorization in detail, but staff does believe this is warranted and it's a priority of the city to create more housing especially affordable housing. lastly the project requires variances. from open space and exposure requirements. 3984 square feet of common open

space is required. the proposal includes 3275 square feet on a roof deck and approximately 2,000 square feet at a second-level mid-block courtyard. therefore the project is 700 square feet deficient with regard to residential open space requirement. the roof deck satisfies forful of the 83 units. with regard to exposure, the majority of dwelling units would comply fully with the exposure requirement by either facing one of abutting streets jessie or mission or by facing the outer court that measures a minimum of 25'. there are 12 unit obvious levels 2-6 that do not comply with this requirement. the zoning administrator will opine on these variances after the commission takes action off and on the 309 determination of compliance and conditional use authorization. department has received a number of letters in support of the project and i have

additional correspondence for your review. it's 100% affordable and processed using the planning department application declines. in conclusion the department supports the project because it meet always the goals and objectives of the general plan to create new housing and affordable housing which is close to jobs that are downtown with access to public transit and within a walk able urban context. the project is necessary and desirable. and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. it meets the applicable requirements of the code, aside from the exceptions requested through 309 and variances for exposure and open space. staff recommends that the commission approve the project with conditions. both the project sponsor, the tenderloin development neighborhood cooperation and the architect daniel solomon are here to address the proposal and design. thank you and that concludes my presentation. i am available for my questions. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners my name is emily lynn associate director of housing develop. i have here with me daniel solomon our architect who will give you the design presentation, as well as christopher cummings, the project manager who is also here and available to address questions. i just wanted to say this is a significant milestone for us to be in front of the planning commission again with this project. it was in 2009 that the commission approved the original project as 100 units of aaffordable housing. and shortly after that, the project was shelved due to lack of financing at the city, state and federal levels. we spent several years looking for alternative sources of funding and it was in 2013 with the support of the mayor's office of housing and community development, that we are able to be competitive and secure an additional $10 million of funding from the state. so we

have the funds necessary to proceed with the project at this time. unfortunately, we did reduce the size of the building. as away to reduce construction costs. however we're still providing 83 units of much-needed affordable housing for low-income families. so now i would like to turn it over to dan. >> thank you. thank you, president wu and members of the commission. it's a great pleasure to be here to present this project and a great honor to work for tndc. does this advance? >> i believe if you start your presentation, it will come up. >> okay. the site is 95x160 runs from mission street to jessie.

to the immediate north of the site is jessie, which is at this point rather inactive alley to the south is mission street, which is an important street frontage. to the east is a two-story building. and to the west importantly is the big parking lot for the federal courthouse, which is likely to be there for a long time. so that that west wall is highly visible to mission street and to a whole group of new neighbors to the west. this perspective drawing shows our response to three design challenges. first is dealing with the proportions of a building that is 95' wide and 2' high. sort of a squat envelope.

and our design bringing lave and activity to the mission street frontage and i will show you more about that and third is addressing this condition, which is frequently a very awkward one around the city of blind-wall property line building that is taller than its neighborhoods or next to a vacant lot. we propose to do that both through the proportions of the building, and then the possibility of using that blind wall as a canvass for significant washing of public art, which i will also talk more about. it leads to a passage through the site that organizes all of the common spaces in the

building and terminates in a community room that opens out to jessie and brings some of the life and activity of the building onto the jessie street alley. and then the red portion is the approximately 1,000 square feet of retail. so the mission frontage is lobby frontage, a two-story staircase and retail -- the staircase leading in double space directly to the courtyard above, which is one of the important open spaces. the corridors are day-lit. on the east wall with notches that give activation to the blind wall and bring light into the corridors. the open space at the courtyard level deals with stormwater, planters, and there is a second open space at the 6th floor --

excuse me, at the 8th floor, which is the rest of the required open space and will be actively used. the view along jessie street with a number of service functions there, but also the community room. its storefront and articulations to the building similar to the rest of the building and perspective looking west on mission street, with that blind wall above the two-story building next year, articulated with the light slots that enter the corridor. then the retail and lobby base expresss a two-story arcade along the base with the lowest floor of residential units articulated as part of the

ground-floor base. along the west wall, the drawings of the west wall is a little washed out in this projection, but you probably see it better on your screen. the glazing around the courtyard a lot of will , light surrounding the courtyard and the proposal for a piece of shadow art, which is a grid of stainless steel pegs creating achanging shadows. this is one proposal for 1% for public art that we think would have maximum impact both on the street and to the western neighbors. so that is our building. i would be happy to answer any questions about it and we're very happy to present it to you. thank you. >> thank you. we'll take public comment first on the project.

[ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon commissioners my name is rob pull the project manager for coalition and i'm here to speak in favor of the project. it's great to see this get underway and we actually reviewed it when it was 100 units and unfortunately we had to lose a few, but it's great to see it get underway. we copyright really think of a better use of the site to replace the parking lot with the car-free affordable housing project that is located near jobs and amenities and transit. and i just want told say that i hope you can approve this without delay and thank you for your time. >> thank you

>> thank you. >> sonya trout and i am a member of public and look forward to as much affordable housing being brought to market as quickly as possible. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment? >> sue hester, i strongly support this project. i have worked with tcnd and tenderloin for a long time. one, funds dried up and there are real consequenced to people cheating on fees. you had other testimony earlier about this. and people have to scale-down affordable housing projects when the fees aren't collected because there is a manipulation

of the process. so we really need to go through again all of the fees and the entitlements and how people change uses without paying fees? because that affects projects like this. secondarily, the federal building changed from 10th and market to the former greyhound bus site at 7th and market because the window study was so terrible for a federal building at 10th and market. and i submitted a letter a while ago that went to the commissioners in your packet. it's time to do a serious window study before the projects hit you, because there are real consequences for people in the area and affordable housing. and if you wait until the wind

study is done on an individual project you are cheating the public and you are cheating yourselves. the wind study that moved the federal building was unrelated to an individual project. it was caused by kelly con, tndc and saying why you planning to build a federal building for free at 10th and market? the winds there are unimaginable. and the federal government said we have got to pick up our site and move it and they moved to the gray greyhound station and planning is really getting into horrible data, which is how fees are cheated?

they should be paid to fund more affordable housing and how winds are affected and you should do those independently of the next five projects at market and van ness. thank you. >> thank you [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon, my name is joslin with the housing program of the veterans equity center. as a direct service provider in the house -- affordable housing housing field we have seen the enormous need for affordable housing in south of market. rents have risen exponentially in the past year, and seeing this project is very exciting. many times when we see the clients that we serve, there are other opportunities far outer san francisco and many of

them are reluctant to apply, because their social safety net and their schools and medical clinics and non-profit services are in the neighborhood, right in south of market. as a neighbor right next to this site, the housing program and veterans equity center is excited to see the affordable housing opportunity for families that are foreignly homeless or in danger of being homeless and families surviving sros are able to applitor these opportunities. we are in full support of the project and enthusiastic to see this moving forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is gloria lawson and i work on 6th street as a community advocate for the

tod-co group. all the needs of someone who might be formerly homeless or low-income is a stepping stone to help individuals step back into the real world. i highly support the project as i have mentioned and i'm hoping that will you approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. let me offer a couple of thoughts first. i am very supportive of this project. i think that it's clear we're in a housing crisis and there is need at all levels, but i think that meeting the needs of those who are in the most dire states is very important. so

this project is at 50% of ami, eligible for families who are overcrowded and living in sros and eligible for families who are homeless with social service onsites, i think it's really important for the long-term success of this project and i'm happy to see that the priority processing for the department was put in place on this project. so projects that are 100% affordable or staff can correct me if i am wrong, but also projects that elect to do 20% of vmrs are able to get priority processing from the department. i i hope that that message is spread widely among developers. commission antonini. >> thank you. i think it's a good project. how the tenants are chosen, i

assume by the mayor's office of housing by income qualification or maybe the project sponsor could answer? >> i think the project sponsor might be more appropriate because it's 100% affordable and not subject to our inclusionary housing program. >> we would be doing an affirmative fair housing marketing plan and advertising for the units through our local networks, the agencies, with the mayor's office of housing and to develop a wait-list, an application list and wait-list from that process. for the homeless units, we will be working with the department of public health and human agencis for those referrals. >> it's correct that social services are on-site also? >> correct. >> my other question in terms of qualifications, i would assume that those who are able to rent there would be san

francisco residents? >> ideally yes, but i don't think it's solely limited to san francisco residents. >> well, i mean, i feel that -- i don't know if we can do that or not, but i think it should be prioritized because we're spending our housing dollars. >> true. >> from the mayor's office and other sources for housing in san francisco to take care of needs of san franciscans. so i would think that would be a priority, if we can do that. i don't really know what the policy is, but i can check into that, but that would be my feeling. and i have a couple other questions on the project. i did note there was one speaker who talked about wind. and according to the materials there are 20 out of 20 test points in the area exceeded the comfort level. so maybe staff can let me know how many are improved by the building being there because staph report just says, "we could not eliminate

all of them." >> correct. there are 20 test points analyzed in the wind study prepared with the mitigative declaration and of those 20 test points three exceeded the comfort criterion >> they are going to test the wind speeds and 20 selected around the site, somewhat normal for a project this site and at certain intersections where the wind exceeds the

comfort criteria. >> you tested 20, but found three? >> the consultant tested 20 and three of the 20 exceeded. >> okay. >> when they introduced the proposal, then on the two exceeded. >> okay. so that sounds fairly standard. i have been through many of these and often it's a huge issue that is brought up and people make a big point that there are exceedances and i want to make sure that we create all projects equally. i am very much in favor of this project, but i'm also in favor of market-rate projects that come before us with the same sort of exceedances, but they are always held under more scrutiny, it would seem at time. what you are saying it's not worsening it and it may be slightly improving it, but we realize we're at a very windy site and i think we have to acknowledge that as part of our process. >> correct. >> if i could address that,

too? it's a unique thing and most projects that come before, will actually seek a wind exception and that is because as the code is written, if you don't fix everything, but you still make things better, you still need to come for that wind exception. so in this case, the project is actually improving the situation with regards to wind, but it doesn't fix all the existing problems that there are in the world of wind. so it needs to come before you for an exception. >> i understand. thank you, mr. sanchez. i have seen a lot of these and it just seemed like -- i think it's the first one i have seen with 20 out of 20 sites exceeding the wind thing, but that is what it is. it's a windy place and it's always been windy. it was windy when there was nothing there and it will remain windy even when there are buildings there. [laughter ] >> so you wanted to live there, you put up with the wind. and now i also wanted to know

this funding would come from [tp-eufpbd/]s funds collected by the mayor's office of housing? >> let me refer to the project sponsor. >> that ; is that correct?. funding would come from the mayor's office of housing and community development and they in part provide funds for acquisition of the site in 2007 and committed additional funding for pre-development and construction. as well as then we are securing funding from the state. and we'll be securing funding through the tax credit system as well. do you have any idea what the construction costs are going to be for this project? >> approximately $28 million. >> $28 million, okay. so that is quite a bit per unit, but i know it's expensive to build these things. >> yes, it is >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i strongly support what president wu stated. i would like to add one comment

and that is in recognition of tndc hiring an outstanding architect for this type of project. it's extremely important. it is not only necessary and absolutely desirable, but that is what we need to do. love to see high-quality building in this area, irrespective of who lives there, it shouldn't matter in any form or shape, they are just wraps for who we are as people. this is a fantastic project and i couldn't be happier to move to approve the project with those conditions. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> i am also very supportive. just a question, there was a note on the public art requirement and you talked about having it on the west facade, which i think is great, but there was an option of doing it also in the entry. has that been decided that you would do it on west facade?

>> the microphone please. >> it's not completely decided. it also has to do with the replacement requirement if the lot next door is ever constructed on. there are two proposals that you have before you for the possible location of the public art. the west wall. or around the entrance. the collaboration would be with the same artist. clearly the west wall has far more public impact than the entrance, but the details of that need to be worked out. >> okay. i think the west wall option is great. it's nice to see that it's actual tot just art tacked onto the building, but part of the building and looks great. i am with that and don't think tas will work quickly.

>> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> in terms of wind exception, it's stated that nonetheless, because as we all just talked about and scott clarified a little bit, the project isn't reducing the speed. it's not increasing the situation. but we still need to have an exception and the way it's stated an exception is warranted because the project will not add to the amount of time that the comfort level is exceeded. but then there is a second statement that says, "the project cannot be shaped in other wind baffling measures cannot be adopted to meet the comfort criteria with unduly restricting the development potential of the site >> have you seen any attempt at adopting wind-baffling measures and shaping the building that resulted in

unatractive and ungainly building or not? >> in my experience, i have not. i think, with this project, taking a look at planning code section 148 to be able to address the wind concerns they have definitely designed a building that has improved the wind situation at this project site. so the three exceedances have been reduced to two. >> so you are saying there wasn't -- i guess i could ask the architect. were there other optional designs that were produced that tried to address directly the effect of the wind? >> another thing to consider, those alternatives, if developed might have been reviewed as part of the environmental review and that staff is not here to field that question. but perhaps the project architect can also address that. >> i would say that although we did not fully build out

other designs, what we did do is work with our wind consultant to understand what the impacts were? to shape the design that you are seeing. >> okay. thank you. >> please call the question. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to approve this project with conditions on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sau eau? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> on the variance, close the public hearing and be inclined to grant the variances and noting the previous decision from 2010. >> thank you, commissioners. that will place you on item -- excuse me, item 13s a and b for case numbers 201.1574k and x,

request for adoption of findings and large project authorization at 650 indiana street >> good afternoon, commissioners, diego sanchez with planning department staff. before you i present a project located at 650 englanda street proposing two five-story mixed-use build and proposing 111 residential units. in approximate life 122,000 gross square feet and within that development is also proposed approximately 1900 gross square feet of ground-floor retail space. it's locationed on west side of englanda between 18-19 streets in the dog patch neighborhood. this requires