go she said the folks moving spot housing development will have the spend power to outbid other tenants my question do we want to court new residents that have that spending power or plan for neighborhoods to shiver that everyone eir respect of their income can live in the neighborhood where their kids go to school are an established group that serves institutions the choice is yours i believe that the policies in place right now are not in line with the crisis and the needs that exist within the community you have the power to anticipate how to plan our neighborhood as we move forward we're changing those policies thank you.

>> grateful i'm kevin shepherd i was born and raised in the city and live in the bay area district now as far as this project is concerned i only see more projects in an area where there are no unit i've known geoe joe for 15 years he's probably the most fair itself contractor i've worked for he is completely open about everything he does and with the other people air force one of the biggest supporters of affordable housing just with the in my own county of the bay area district this didn't fight again, it it is for grand other issues for affordable housing but i don't think this falls

both that category we should go ahead with this project. >> is there any additional public comment okay that being said and commissioner antonini. >> thank you very much what we've heard the commission district is a very diverse place and becoming more diverse a good thing the ancestors of the gentleman were in the mission before a lot of us today so they have deep roots but it is important to release that no one group speaks for the mission district we have to help as many people as possible one the speakers misinterpreted the comments of another speaker she's saying the demand is there, there are many people that want to live in the mission district they're going to compete for the existing housing

stock or somewhat moderated by new housing being met that's our choose nothing or building new housing many of the people had been here and will want to buy or rent places in the mission district will have the choice of buying something every expert inch taujd to if you don't build new you're putting more pressure and causing displacement that's the way things work and splild is anyway you can believe or not building in it is a fact of life also i'm happy to learn the gentleman has chosen to go with the unit onsite originally he would have been able to contribute with twice as much in

terms of the unit priority but what we learned in the last few days there's no guarantee that those dollars will actually be spent in the projects like 1950 mission or fulsome theirs being projects the dollars are not necessarily enough to guarantee this will go forward and i was fighting for 10 years all the same groups were representing different opinions we reached ideas on eastern neighborhood and set higher levels of rules and set projects to those routines and should be approved now, some people want to change the rules that's not how we play the game all parts got involved

and created those rules as far as all the promotions being approved their might have been a lot approved but only 75 this is harder enough we have a long ways to go in the right direction but $2,200,000 in fees being provided and good design and all those things make me favor the project i don't believe inland banking to drive the properties detain to lowest denominator. >> commissioner richards. >> this an interesting one one the first out of the ignite after the housing pause from supervisor campos i hear with

commissioner antonini is saying about the eastern neighborhood everyone is sick ever hear me involved in the market octavia to hold and play by the rules and billed build to the new rules the gentleman hit the nail on the head i'm frustrated what you say it is on my masonic the commission go there are creative idea for solutions to keep displacement down or maximize the level of displacement had we taken those 23 percent and put it into a building of 12 hundred and 50 k we probably could save the displacement of 10 families we're stick with this it's a shame we need to change that as quickly as possible and i hope to spend a lot of energy on that one question from the director we've noted heard open the

mission 20/20 does this have anything to do with the zoning plan you want or want to cover my basis. >> we're locking to achieve his or her production as well as eviction control one of the speakers i cannot went this site is small with respect to the size of the malice it is and that's true this is this site is not typically won we'll look at price is relate. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you we've been in this position we're voting on american people individual project but somehow spiraling into is the issue of affordability we had a good hearing on a bigger issue of affordable housing and how we start to for the purpose up

interesting ideas of buying existing rent controlled buildings or exist lots few people come to those we get more on the specific specific projects an easy vote yes or no will solve the affordable housing so i invite people and developers like the gentleman that built avenue we would like to talk about more affordable hoourdz like you did in the excelsior i woirn we'd put our i like you've put the affordable open site and the use into the courtyard so i'm supportive of the project and appreciate it thanks. >> if you don't mind i'll

follow-up open those comments and agree with commissioner hillis i agree with many of the folks that are supportive of the project and opposed splild is one factor not the end all factor that will solve san francisco's problems if we didn't approve that seeing an empty lot it can contribute to the problems on the flipped side i'm confused the population growth in san francisco overall the area growth irks we and traffic aishgz me i feel the same frustration it is bulging at the seems but for the merits of plan no demolition we're not environmental impact anyone here the onsite is a plus there's economics that maybe folks in

the loom does understand the land acquisition you can't would affordable housing as a private developer is it so impossible so i know that's the desire and wish you can't build for cheap anymore workplace by the merit of the project i'm supportive but feel the infiltration commissioner wu. >> thank you. i think that is clear there is a crisis in terms of needing more affordable housing the numbers coming out of the mission the number of small businesses have intoirpd i think what is happening we've implemented different parts the eastern neighborhood at different rates i'd be curious to see have we hit all the

market rate we're not near the affordable or the parks; right? everyone every single everything is at a different rate i think also someone mentioned practicing we didn't take our thinking far enough looking at only 0 citywide affordable units are build in selma but place like the mission it is left up to inclusionary and the affordable units but the combination you'll not get to 33 percent like in packing i agree with commissioner hillis we had that decision a week ago it was exciting to think about how the planning department can play a role but like i asked for at that time every time we're going to be i heard two or three moss

more mission projects coming up we'll be face with the same situation again i don't know are there different tools to create can we think about small sites acquisition or doing a different kind of i know the conversation about dialing up the number of affordable housing and looking at the ami i'm not sure this solves the projecting problem i want to acknowledge the challenge is out there like commissioner hillis said not fight project by project let's try to figure out a different way to create a box of tools so some of the members of the community i want to point out that is a standard condition in our approvals under is a community liaison officer for every single project there was complaints about the community outreach so before the project

sponsor gets their permit they have to give a number to be available for all community numbers commissioner moore. >> just like all the commissioners i'd like to acknowledge the crisis and i'd like to acknowledge we have the tools that are in place picking up on commissioner wu's comments i want us to expand our tool kit by supporting site acquisition but starting to bring more of the policy discussion into our own by which we can help support any spoiler legislations to further address tucks we can broadened and i think still what the crisis is i'm very proud to hear the voice of the commission i live in an

area f that is hardly being noticed at the edges of chinatown in my bashed the lower knob hill area buildings are emptying i don't know what their future will be i can on assume i've this or lived there a long time those are people have missingly disappeared they just disappeared to keep the discussion at the level that effects those neighborhoods where we do have a collective voice it is equally important to have a broader overarching policy that covers everyone unless we continue to fight for the type of city about

diversity on all levels equality and inclusiveness the voice has to be together to define what affordable housing is how much we need and find the tool to achieve it i'd like the planning commission to continue to speak with the very unified voice in adding to this discussion but picking rayons one by one didn't work i'm supporting this project but this project is not the one i'll oppose counter to my own belief in affordable housing and looking for the tools. >> it's 4 commissioners in are a right now that totally agrees with that beyond just the planning commission. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. one of the birth factors as we've talked about we

don't want to get into too 0 much information but the biggest factor way under built years and years and years we're beyond the mandatory so the competition is very fierce i have familiar members that are anti trying to buy a place in san francisco and finding is hard to do the prices are so hyphae he ever you're able to you compete for the same home and the same with renters having to expedite compete with other renter you need to raise the supply i moved move to approve. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. with - and giving me the specific language. >> you the motion needs to

include adapting the conditions of approval for the onsite ownership bmr units which i passed out easier. >> the onsite bmr unit. >> commissioner richards oh, i'm sorry. >> that's all right. he pushed the bottom i want to keep is belief one thing brick and mortar bring it back to the project that is the project sponsor has decided to pay the in lieu fees i wanted to verify that if they were to let's say the in lie fee it goes into the pot and they add that potato dollars for the entire piecemeal for the entire city if this party were bigger would those

iepts have to be with what's the radius how the buildings have to be a half-mile. >> i think that is one mile. >> it is one mile okay. so that's my comment generally speaking i am for onsite units in this case, we're not getting as many as we want i think nicole the merits of having the unit in the mission out weeks ago the fact you can have one or two more units and just quick we have a policy discussion he hope to see this kind of crowd with the next agenda with an open policy decision we had it last week it was expensive i didn't see this many people in the audience and making a plug to make it clear those small

acquisition program exist and a number of affordable housing members that are looking for or have made bids on site so this is something that is actually flowing we try to figure out how to scale up and move those projects on to that pipeline we'll talk about others tools we're not starting from square one trying to develop for options for affordable housing. >> commissioner richards. >> i agree with all my fellow commissioners we agree a large role for the tool kit this is project by project like pick rayons this is driving the challenging change faster there an we can respond what's interesting if theres small

sites program i'd like to see here's the option or 23 or the offsite and small sites i'd like to get the maximize number of units where we remarkably can be expected to have them delivered. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to make one comment about the south van ness fald facades we're going talking the basic project and the approval process i'd like to make a comment i'd like to see the department work more on the south van ness facade it is too 0 remnant remnant of 1950 and the elements to the window wall is too itch remnant of 50s architecture the

department has the skilled and make that part of moths. >> as maker the motion that's part of the motion to continue to with work the staff with referenced to the locates. >> south van ness. >> derivative facade. >> is if if the maker is okay with that. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a there is a motion and a second to approve that project with conditions as amended to included the bmr units as well as continuing to work with staff open the south van ness arrest commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> commissioners we're prepared

to move go back to item 9 at this time item 9 cu a on van ness street and if those persons exiting the chambers could do so quietly we have business left and. >> on the lighter note the giants are 3 out from beating

the dodgers. >> jonathan as soon as those doors close start our presentation. >> commissioner if i may i want to introduce you to jonathan he joined the department in the southeast quadrant and returned to the bay area after receiving hi master during his time anothers, california poly he repeated the eir and worked at

as planning interim for public works and rec and park here in san francisco and hold a bachelors in environmental studs from ucla and bay area native well, welcome. >> good morning members of the commission i'm jonathan this is a conditional use authorization for the property open van ness street proposal to establish a new medical use occupying 7 thousand hundred square feet on the ground floor of an existing mixed use building we property a small railway component and the medical use for the first to occupy the commercial space of the recent constructed subject building this contains 18

dwelling units for commercial space and below grade blarg or parking garage for residential parking spaces project is located on the northeast corner of van ness and 20th street within the van ness neighborhood commercial transit zone district today, the department has received the following public comment 9 letters of opposition to the project and 27 letters of support and those communications were received after. >> excuse me. those persons entering the room could you do see quietly and respect the speaker in the room we'll appreciate that and. >> do you need to translate that, sir.

>> eject i'd like to ask you apparently a lot of people coming in for another item stand outside the door and tell them by the they come into the room. >> okay. i'm not going to stop this again so stay outside and let them know before they come in okay? >> sorry about that. >> public comment has been in support of project letters in opposition to the project included the medical services at the subject location may trigger transportation impacts as well as those comments the environmental staff prepared an

analysis it released a lower transportation and parking impact and retail use of equal size the transportation office received after your packets were thrilled i have them here in order for the project to proceed the conditional use authorization to a nonnon-residential and the haven zoning dissected and they united states grant conditional use authorization to occupy more 75 hundred fooetd feet facade and the zoning district the department recommends approval and believes the project is necessary and for the following up reason it complies with the requirement the planning code the project is consistent with

the objectives and policies the project will add a ground floor active use and attractive strait face and design the project will increase the and to medical services to both residents of the district as well as citywide staff recommends it with conditions outlined in the draft that concludes my presentation. staff is available for questions. >> thank you theology those persons standing in the room there's plenty of seats on this side of the room there's loose for the benefit of the public an overflow in the light court on the first floor. >> project sponsor you have a 10 minute presentation thank you. >> thank you visualizing i'm henry with the architect retained by the foundation to

design the tenant improvements for the clinic that tiled hand thirty letters in supportive project as well as 12 copies of our slide presentation we have a brief overview of the architecture or design response i should say to the identified planning ordinance regulations to be followed by dr. the ceo of the foundation speaking to the need for medical services in this neighborhood bear with me as i - >> tussle with technology here's the view of the building newly constructed from the south west corner of van ness and 20th

looking at the northeast corner van ness is on the left 20th is on the right newly constructed 5 store approximately 41 thousand mixed use building our design respond is on the ground floor there are 40 levels of residential above a greater commercial space over one level of below grade parking to keep outline active use on the street frontages against the glazing and preserve 60 percent minimum of the transparency of that glazing and integrate public artwork as well as