to support those projects because the benefits are accrued by people not located on the block but at the moment i can't afford to live in dog patch. i would like to be there and it's not possible. so for the same reasons that sonya is here i'm here to support more housing in san francisco. there isn't enough of it. and a times addendum i moved here from cities 6 stories is a small number so to say this is a monster of a high building i'm in support of this in the dog patch and hope it is approved thank you. >> thank you.

>> hi there i'm chris nicholson i live and work in san francisco. i just want to give a big picture view i've heard the opponents talk about light and air in dog patch i've been to dog patch it doesn't have a lack of light and air. san francisco is not facing an air and light crisis a housing crisis and the more heirs we have to add we looking huge demographic shifts that cost folks in city government their jobs. i work in tech and came here last year will have of people in tech are coming and people that have choices to live in san francisco and they're going to do that at any costs if we don't

offer them housing they'll take - we can do it by building up by the same aurls for which the opponents say we cannot have those buildings built i'm not sure their buildings should not be built a 6 story this is not that high i go to france and their buildings are higher. thank you.

is there any further public comment >> park their cars over park for bridges and the inclusive it going for a long time those are almost beside the point of what's being discussed we invested a lot and strongly building in the eastern neighborhood it take about a decade and hundreds of public hearings to adopt it was adopted for a reason we had old industrial land that needed new purchasing and it was done and the city agreed to. i'm here to ask you stand for the integrity of the eastern neighborhood plan that project complies that meets the height and it's had concessions made to setbacks and the open space we

think this is a good example of urban in fill that should be supported for the reasons that the folks before me have said we have a housing crisis we absolutely do. this is an example of where we build personnelable and it serves no purpose to wait any longer >> thank you is there any further public comment. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commissions this is the fourth time not ones or or twice the reason we're back for the fourth time not because the project sponsor want to meet with the

that community but do you have requires a community outreach meeting on the project because the plans and information supplied to the department and this commission were completely inaccurate didn't have the height right and no basically information so this idea that somehow they've stepped up to the plate out with the neighbors and redesigned it, it's accurate and up to two weeks ago when community outreach was done with the neighbors not one neighbor lives on the block supports those projects i don't know who those folks are their residents of san francisco that's fine but have the projects vetted and looked at it. project plans were not code compliant they sat in the department for years so this

project vicinities the eastern neighborhood plans and mergers lots and creates the only true lot on this block. the eastern neighborhood said don't do that it asks for 3 huge exceptions completely inaccurate this is in the existing residential neighborhood this is in the code this is already an existing neighborhood our not creating a new neighborhood to rain tree bought that a year ago they said they were doing outreach in 12 because they purchased it one year ago as soon as rain tree bought it they substantially increased the

project and reduced the rear yard by 16 percent. so it's incredibly over parked even though that's on the third street rail and because of the size you've got impacts on the neighbors. i submitted the initial review it says make the radish and the open space in the middle smaller the department is completely ignoring the park across the street and refuses to do a shadow study. i've attached in i can get the overhead >> your time is up and there's the park i've attached is and there's no shadow. >> sir, your time is up. >> okay is there any further public comment.

>> hi i'm sandy i'm a renter in san francisco as well as a register agency in san francisco. i'm in full support of this project i believe the more housing the more affordable for the people coming in san francisco and the fact the dog patch is growing with the hospital and the arena i think we really need to focus on how the employees of those places will be able to stay close in san francisco instead of having to commute. i'm in support of that and i believe that the neighbors should be too because they're adding to the neighborhood not taking away especially having a commercial site on site building more of an opportunity to enjoy

the neighborhood and not have to go outside. thank you is there any further public comment okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini >> yeah. i have a question an update on eastern neighborhoods that probably occurred after the eastern neighborhoods passed to the board of supervisors. if i'm reading it correctly because the builders or the shoppers have agreed to keep it as a rental property for thirty years they get 3 percent less affordable either macro is by ownership or commitment i don't understand why that's in there i want to make sure i'm reading it credible you get less vooshl rental rates >> in the zoning district in

the zoning district for this property the normal affordable housing rate a 16 percent applicable in the project were, you know, utilized for sale units but in this case since the project sponsor agreed to enter into a rental incentive housing to the 16 percent affordable is reduced to 13 percent and they get a one tdr per square feet in the neighborhood impact fee as well saw i wasn't familiar with that policy i'm not sure i agree with the policy although that's the policy in place and agreed b upon about i the city and sponsor i want to make sure i was interpreting this. i think it's a good project i think it did a lot of things if

i were to have my draushthsz i'd like to see fewer and larger units with the option for ownership although we need rental and ownership housing with the city with the 2/3rd's of its units obey rental unit it's better even if there's a shorthand although that's water under the bridge we've grot got a good project ready to go i could see more parking but since they only want to do a .8 bus realistically people will have cars and vuvenlg dog patch and other parts felt city will have problems with street parking.

i've heard what the neighbors say i sympathies with them they have skin in the game they're owners and there first but that doesn't mean they have to have 4r0ib9 reasons property lines are not protected it would be nice to have space but the builder is not required to put a setback against property windows. and one would assume to be compliant the building at 610 illinois has to have windows in other areas to allow light you can't rely on windows that are not protected to provide light. generally i'm supportive of the plan as presented. commissioner moore >> yeah. i ask the gentlemen to please explain to the commissioners as well as to the

public why they are property line windows. which were sold to people that bought ownership units and finds themselves because of a realtor was less than they thought they bought >> commissioner moore it is not uncommon for property line windows to be on buildings it's not although it's i would say the norman it allows them but not allowed them to be required fire access and generally it's my understanding there's a waiver agreement with the building department to allow those windows area their fire rated business it's something that the building code allows. >> would i also know whether or not in the event of a sale that

the reality our would have to disclose those windows are not guaranteed the public is sprieltd i know the code but i think for the public to understand that would be i think a valid question to answer. >> i don't know there's my specific legal requirement disclosure. >> like agent building code issues related to promotions being - properties obey acquired there's the disclosure and xemz and due diligence exceptions whether or not the aspects of that property are code compliant. >> i think it's interesting as

we move forward more situations like that to have that as part of the property disclosure because this type of indemnification is imperfect normal i don't find anything extraordinary i find accident middle block open space to the revisions are better than the first project they responded to eroding the corners as transitions to the other property and the project in that sense is code compliant exemptions for raider open space are very symptom o companion and in most cases don't take issues because the block size in this

area necessary it's a with we take exemption to the existing open space refrigerates that's not unusual so i don't see anything other than the property windows that's a much larger issue. i hope you'll take forward to not support the project >> is commissioner sugaya. >> yes. perhaps the gentlemen you guys are both con developer on the property line issue maybe you could gives a couple of sentences on - >> commissioner sugaya thank you for that question. i'm going to head towards a map it's again, it's a dense city

with development and commonly we have property line windows situations the staff addressed that by the way, but the notice issue to the windows has to do with a recording process where the dbi through the 009 requires the developer to put a notice on the property when it's completed that happened here that clearly states that the development next door your windows will be subject to many fire restrictions those documents were recorded against both 610 illinois and the 2011, third street building so everybody that bought a unit and this restriction should be reflected in the report >> thank you anything to add mr. williams.

>> did you look at brief six the department encouraged the windows the design guidelines for the waterfront developed 15 or 16 years ago said build those windows and if i could have the overhead the property line windows were encouraged 90 in those areas because the zoning was different the rug ways you pulled out from under those folks no building was going to be build in front of the windows at the same time planning goes and slaps a wall saying please build those and then planning comes in and says build a wall understated against them which says put a corridor if you're going to merge the lots create a corridor if you want a through

lot. the building code reserved was not applicable at this point and none of the folks signed the traditional lot line agreements there maybe something on the title and okay. thank you. i don't think if that got us anywhere or not i can't talk i have a question about the off-street parking parking the normal issue is three-quarters of a parking space with allowances for more spaces for 2 bedrooms and above so this tanks us to the 80 whatever count up above the baseline >> yeah. because of the unit

size. >> but also part of the large project thofgs those spaces are to be staggered to provide frontage. >> thank you one last sorry observation there is a statement will shadows and it's kind of a technical or legal thing maybe the city attorney can correct me but it says that in terms of the a shadowed analysis that it requires reduction of city council shadow impacts i'm reading from the staff report on accessible spaces other than those protected under the blah, blah. i think the issue is that franco park is not a park yet or if it is, you know, i don't know maybe many burn

>> sure prop k is the planning code that protects from shadows is under the jurisdiction of the rec and park department or designated for acquisition and that's under the acquisition of the port not under the rec and park department as the port intend to keep it under their jurisdiction so prop k didn't applying apply to this park. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a question for project sponsors or attorney whoever wants to address that. in no way i'm recommending this but i want to get a history of the study when the knowledge was being composed faster the neighborhood to the north and was consideration given to putting this small corridor not

that you have to do it, it's not our problem but i'm wondering if this significantly less thaned our count or makes them smaller >> are you registering a separation between the buildings. >> we looked that as an option that's not a feasible option on this site if upper to separate the buildings the minimal light in the narrow gap would 0 not be significant i think it's work out noting several of the windows on the northern property line do look into a stairwell and the residents absolutely have facing but they look into the stairwell as well. >> thank you that answered my question on the issue.

>> commissioner moore. >> i want to talk about the park it is a narrow extended park that primarily will benefit from sun from the east as well as for the south the late afternoon sun which might be casting a shadow but the street is wide would i assume be of minimal impact as the forearms union building that casts its own shadow so aside from the city attorney restating with prop k tint that's not a strong argument. >> i'm generally supportive that mag is appropriate but the

question on the follow-up on commissioner antonini's point of 13 percent affordable i don't think i've seen it in the projects in my tenure has anyone take advantage of this. >> yeah. a few weeks when staff came to the project on 10tv news street their take advantage of the incentive as well. >> are there projects proposed to be rental projects not take the 35 year commitment. >> we have to not to my knowledge those are the first to take advantage of the rental option. >> have we got others that are

proposing to do that. >> if the project sponsor wants to do rentals but not utility the rental exemptions then their subject to the higher percentage not receiving the 3 percent reduction. >> but the project in 10 years to ownership. >> exactly, exactly but they enter into an agreement with the city if they wanted to do rental housing but if not the off site or the on-site fee. >> i don't think you're going to convert that if you start as rental you'll not likely convert it there's a possibility to clear the tenants out and convert some but it seems like we're giving up 33 percent for the 35 years i don't know if you

want to comment on that the project sponsor just on the i know it's not code your taking advantage but to give up up 3 percent rolling the dies. >> i think the intent is to lock down rentals in the city he that's typically built today in a multi apartment context with the kind of product that's under the construction has the ability to convert to a condominium but in this cycle we are early. >> last kindly. >> certainly conversions. >> 10 or 5 years after. >> it depends on the developers like to wait 10 years to avoid

statutes and in our case given the function of our company we're a long term owner and operator of agreements to the long term commitment to the city to maintain that as quality on site affordable housing is something if the commission wants to see or they didn't want that agreement to be entered into for an additional 3 percent of affordable housing on site we'll be open to this discussion. part of this discussion what the outcome of the eastern neighborhood for the affordability and for rental incentives but there's a need for increased affordability on the other hand, but a need for rental housing and so this is where this section applies so other parts of city you won't

see the rentals because it doesn't apply >> but he - he's saying 16 percent not condominium for 35 years i think in the future it will be interesting to look back to see conversions it's hard to convert for some reason for financing may be take him up on the theo percent or the 13 percent guaranteed for the years it's interesting. >> deputy city attorney if i could interject this is a policy decision made by the board of supervisors and loud in the code so the commission consider this as a large policy matter later this be would a protective amendment there's other

constraints under the charter amendment regarding affordable housing that was passed. >> there's the option of 16 percent and not dedicated for 35 years we're asking for something not within the code it's just an interesting policy. >> to be clear commissioner hillis what i said in suggesting if we were to offer the 16 percent we presume that that agreement would be not in place. >> correct. >> i'll offer thoughts in favor of the way the developer has done the project so far. this opening statements is only in the eastern neighborhood so although the example is not there in the outer richmond this year i believe something like that 60 units of tenants were evicted and the building was sold after rent control so the owner could sell the building so

the conversion is more dramatic for the tenants living there >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. there have been a lot of historically so long as i've been the commission we've never dealt with their rental or ownership so it gives the sponsor the ability as cycles change to modify their projects and the beacon is an example as the market became strong it chang's changed to condo and notice that of renting was dispolice department just the availability to buy it, it's not in the cod so but i am i