degree nine outlines the existing building. the red box shows the impact from the sanchez st., sayers and any doesn't in fact even come close to affecting the downtown views. sir, no outbursts >> over the course of the past two years, we discussed with over 18 neighbors in the direct vicinity of provided some 25 accommodations to our initial plans. with over a dozen in person meetings with various sets of neighbors all in an effort to create voluntary accommodations above and beyond what was already considered a reasonable extension by general planning standard. activity are without the neighborhood

outreach did not cease further concessions were made. this point we've essentially received support to achieve copper buys with all directly adjacent neighbors but the dr bequest. it would attempt to address the concerns that have asserted was created to demonstrate to the eastern neighbors of the building on the corner that given the fact i knew four is set back in line with the furthest steps of the boat the sunlight would not be impacted in any way at any point in the day. in summary, we feel in the spirit of community we perform extensive neighborhood outreach will we understand any changes can trigger concern we generally feel we've done everything two strikeouts between achieving the subject property's potential and minimize the impact to everyone around. thank you so much >> any speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> date. i want to point out that one of the things that is most frustrating about the process here is that when we show you the view from the stairs they didn't actually show you the view from the stairs. it brings into

consideration credibility. it was the view from the very top of the stairs which is in fact sanchez street. nobody goes and stands on the street on the curb to take in the view good that's not what the people go every day. they go to the center of the state. they sit on the stairs. think of yourself with your lunch would you go stand on the curb where would you look to the stairs and sit in the shade of the trees and taken that gardens? of course that's what you do but it's to the developer's best interest to distort the information and make it look as though there is no impact at all when, in fact, that is trying to take advantage of everybody's intelligence here in the room and i'll ask you take another look at that and just, please, give that consideration. as we mentioned the stairs are going to be they are iconic now and more so when the mosaic goes in and begins when the treasures of the city and the views are important.

everybody likes a good view. i certainly would love to have a roof deck. i'm not in here trying to defend putting a deck up there. i'm trying to preserve these views for all the people of the city. i don't have a view of the downtown from my vintage point either. it's the stairs. so with that i like you to reconsider the project and remove that additional story to the benefit of all. thank you. thanks. project sponsor, you have 2 min. >> so, the view study that we sent to the planning department after they asked us actually show the location that we were

selecting the views from pure this is now what i'm showing you. we purposely chose the worst location so that concisely to demonstrate the impact would be insignificant to none. what i would like to point out here is someone behind me was right next to the stairs. this is higher than the stairs i believe, under the pretense of protecting the views of the stairs, these are views that here we are dying to protect. the square box that they showed earlier was clearly a false representation from a photo taken up close and i think has nothing to do with the massing that will be added by our design. again, we are flanked by much larger properties and if any views are

obstructed from the stairs they already are compromised and it's not by any edition of our own. >> excuse me you're out of order right now. are you finished? object sponsor? thank you. you have anything else to say? don? >> i'm available for questions >> page. this portion of the hearing is closed >>[gavel] >> i let you go first here. if you wouldn't mind i like to see the picture you post. please? thank you. so the question i have for staff is what is our responsibility to the view corridor? on this type this is the first one about these on my career on the commission in nearly 2 years can some explain to me with the responsibility of the commission to protect those views?

>> we are very sponsored of a tool within reason protect the view corridor. there is the understanding, however, that reasonable alterations will impact the views. and to my there is also a design precedent that makes this in a particular neighborhood. so, to completely abstract w is one thing. to impact the view and affect minimum minimally cut out portions of its e-mail have to rise or fall, that is still is tolerable. >> so, i mean the reason i am asking is because i lived on this block for seven it. i know the stairs because i want them nearly every day walking my dogs. the question i have is as i look at the stairs unfamiliar with him, i see the photos that were taken here from the very top actually one here from the street. you can see the railing. i agree with one of

the speakers said this is actually sanchez street i believe. because you have kind of an iconic and landing and you come down and you have a square and you come down and have another half moon and you have the sidewalk. as i look at this, as with the project dr requester samiti, the question i ask is, to what extent we love to obstructed views? because these if you took these pictures from different places on the steps they be different. these are the one submitted in the packet for june 30. so, as i look here, i believe one of the pictures was taken from the very top with the railing is good i think i can you can see here's the railing posted the second one you can see the middle of the steps are here. this is where the top landing is in you see here and you pay sanchez street

to the south. the question i have is, what is the requirement to take the different photos from a different places on the steps? >> right. this was considered by residents on the 19th as well. they filled in this particular case it wasn't substantial to the point where it would not-it would fit in such a way that it would be limited complete visibility from the stairs. but it was considered and is in fact in the evaluation of the project >> okay open up for my fellow commissioners comments. the other items on the project that think the building is fine but my issue is our responsibility to the view on the stairs and having lived there i know where the photos were taken since i just want back and we looked at the june 30 think. most of the time, we would spend time in the middle of the stairs. i think that's where the simulation was done but i don't know what that would actually look like it for done by professional. that's my question. i do have a doubt. that we should be-look at that from a different place on the stage and they're the people

place people congregate is on the lower landing as well. there's three landings and i think the photos are taken from the current in the very first landing at the top. the rest of the stairs were not considered. so can i open up to my fellow commissioners. i think we responsibility to understand what the impact is. the rest of the project dr staff am actually fine with. >> commissioner moore >> mr. washington i like to elevate the question whether the sanchez stairs in this particular location fall into the category of protected b use ? there is a specific map, which shows protected views and if this particular state or falls with in it and it's a complicated map in answer to commissioner richards question, i don't have them all in my head, when it comes to a project like this, this would be definitely an answer i would like to staff to have either

yes or no. is this particular stair within the protected views category for the city of san francisco? >> i can say with certainty that it is. did you can set it is certainly either but to expand on that a little bit, commissioner richards, there's general plan identifies several streets that are either good, excellent, for public views though i think the most important thing here is to remember for public use, not on private property. so, essentially, the street are to be kept open for these you corridor downs >> we've alterations ideally should have minimal impact on these corridor. >> i would obviously like to see consideration as to whether or not this particular view which seems very popular. i can imagine it's for a beautiful but given the voter which shows it in broad expanse, but really, the guiding question is does it fall within those recognized corridor, and then

you really have a case to have the building conform to protect the view. if it isn't, then i think the explanation, which mr. washington and the staff planning dave, mr. horn, are really that there may be a small impact of sorts, but that is negligible because we didn't all other categories, the building is in compliance. in r-h-two and 44 height and bulk it does what it is allowed to do. am i correct in that assumption? >> that is correct >> the basic question which either allows us to have a question answered? you raise the question rightly so. there is one other comment i would make to make good why we continue to this particular project within the instructions for providing the vestibule on

the units, one plan and some other small tweaks, these were all accomplished. in what is in front of us today. there is only one remaining issue, where i'm looking for a change and that is that the units to,, on the deck level two brian a-six, where i think we need to cut the deck that i 4 feet from 12 to eight again the issue of privacy which you can see when you look at drawing 8-11 there is a photo good it shows that with a 12 foot deck that you will look directly into the windows of the adjoining building, which is basically nothing we can support. so that can be cut back but otherwise, the building as modified meet the expectations of what we have asked for. the only remaining issue now asked mr.

commissioner richards, to then request a continuance if you believe that question needs to be clearly and succinctly answered >> as chair i can't. i detain a second >> okay >> commissioner antonini >> i visited the site on a very sunny day. i do not put the steps but i could tell from being on that side of the street you have to go a ways to see over the existing homes could not only the one in question but the ones around it. some of which are quite high. so, it's conjectural exactly how high you would have to go to have any kind of a few there. i probably should've walked up there if i knew this was going to be an issue but it seems like with a set back being 15 feet and the addition of not being that much higher, and being a fairly narrow addition, my feeling would be

the amount of eu change is minimal. you might go a couple more steps to see over a certain area. it probably is not going to make too much difference because if you're on the height street crooked street, lot of the tourist stayed right at the top and look out at that lombard. hide and lombard of course. you know, they also will walk down it or drive down it in cars. but, many of them stay at the very top because they can see a lot better than being at the bottom, where you can see too much. so, that is the view they all want. so, not that only make sense to me. i think it's very well modified. they created units that are 2366 and 2306 so the sizes are very close to each other. actually, the façade that they are doing is better than the façade of the existing building. i mean this is extremely well done. much more contextual with homes

that were built typically around the turn-of-the-century and the 19th-20th century in that area. so, i like that a lot. they worked on the doorway. i would agree with commissioner moore that we should cut that setback from 12 feet to 6 feet >> ac >> okay whatever you think i was prepared to go. 6 feet last but, yes, that would be fine. they have made the changes. i did talk to a neighbor around there could either exactly where he lived but he had thought it was fun. no problem. he just said some people are raising the height situation and i am glad staff was able to survey it and find out the

modifications to make it compliant because it is a 40 foot height area and many of the buildings along their are 40 feet. so, to pick on this one as being the one that is most impactful for the view when it's at the 40 feet like many of the other ones are, it doesn't seem picking it out for many of the other buildings along their impact the views. if you move a few steps from one direction or another, then you're going to look over one of the other buildings. so, i'm compared to support this and with the change on the deck, i would move to not take dr and approve >> commissioner antonini has resulted the you modify the project issued >> take dr and approve the modifications >> very good. do i hear a second? >> commissioner wu >> i want to ask the project sponsor, number one, do you have any other simulations from

other vantage points were also can you point out on the photo of the stairs except where those vantage points photo simulations were taken from the? >> do you need this back? were passing this back and forth the only copy this was the actual stairs. >> as commissioner wu as a matter fact, we do. in the survey the view survey submitted to the planning department we have quite extensive viewpoints with several bandages. just as it's difficult [inaudible] >> can you put the microphone over, please? >> we showed the different points in the different landings from which those views were shown and i am going to show you. then, on the other side of this page, as commissioner antonini pointed out, not only does the view get better when you go higher, of

course it gets special therefore that's why we thought appropriate to show the worst of you. i'm trying to >> can you show me on the map on the photo of the stairs, with that viewpoint is from? >> on the black and white photo , please? >> i think i would be easier to understand >> the black-and-white photo. the one that he handed in. yes. >> so, one of the photos is from the landing up here and the other one from the landing below. >> can you explain which one is the landing below? i can tell from those two pictures that were not taken from the landing in the middle but i am open to being corrected. >> okay. again, >> go back to the color photos that you are showing. the color

photos. the other side. >> yes, you have >> the color photos use a minute. the one i was holding up. the actual photos from of the view corridor. perfect, there we go. that is its. so, the top one is taken from, i believe, the first landing right off sanchez street. as you come down the steps, their two benches that face south >> correct >> the second photo, i believe and am open to correction year-is taken from actually write believe is the street we have the railings >> right >> none of them were taken from the middle landing. the taken from the very highest vantage point and the street about. >> i don't think so. because we have a map here. it shows where we took those photos. one

is at the very top at this point. we also made a point to go to the furthest, west side to demonstrate a worse condition and then we actually scroll down those stairs to go to the next landing. in fact, because the railings are different. i guess, it sort of suggested a different viewpoint. in fact, the photo on this slide shows the street being very close. over here. >> i'm sorry. i dig to differ. the photo evidence does not agree with what you are sayin the reason is, the middle landing has two benches that face each other. you can see on the photo of the one where you're looking down you can see the corner of the bench. the other when you can clearly see the railing in the front which is at the top on the street. so regardless of maybe the confusion here, it's not supported by what you submitted. i am sorry to say.

nothing was taken from the middle. everything-i mean the surmise the of the peekaboo view when you go buy a house and you're in the bathroom and look at the view of the city here's the best bottom house to get it. that's what you did on this these photos. the question is, most people congregate in the middle of the steps. the reason is, there's a place to sit and take in the view were even at the bottom of the steps. i would be open to it because recruiting a building that could be there for 100 years. we are to ourselves to actually really understand what the view is from different vantage points on the steps. i would hope we could put a two-story. and at different vantage points notified that the actual height and take photos in different vantage points include week marked him. the top of the street. the first landing as he could on the steps. then the actual middle landing further down and then the bottom land. so we can clearly see the back of this building on all of

those. additionally, i think we would really oh to ourselves to understand whether this is a protective view corridor or not. i don't know. so, i don't think we have all the data right now on the one remaining issue besides the 4 foot on the deck. i would love to get this out of the chute today. trust me. commissioner antonini you most power here right now to say no but i think we'll were to ourselves to do a quick photo survey and get this back in and get this out the chute. would you entertain commissioner moore i'm sorry >> mr. washington, i do not want to create undue hardship for the applicant or the dr requesters. the clarity i need to have as a commissioner is is this a protected view? from there arises the request for a clear depiction of the views and where they are taken from including how the new silhouettes of the proposed

building partially completely, affects the various levels on which the view seem to be important. i am prepared to take a continuance on the project in order to answer that question for myself. and even if the view corridor is not a protected one, for us to understand in clear language, verified by specific pointing to the location from which simulations are created, i feel adjusted to take dr. so, i will act as ask for a continuance. this can hopefully be done quickly so that within a week this can come back to the project, except for modifying the balcony roof deck as i pointed out on the unit two, level ii, is a project which needs the descriptions and requirements we have put forth on the continued at first. is

there a second? >> second >> yes . i wanted to get this done as fast as everybody arrested may i ask we direct staff for you to work together to take them out the different vantage points outlined? >> yes >> street bottom of the first landing middle of the steps other static waisted middle landing, middle of the first ayers and then the bottom land can is actually see is going up and down the steps what happens to the view it's assuming that the protective view >> we can do that commissioner. >> thank you. >> i'm in agreement can in fact i'll go out tomorrow and take a look and take pictures. >> okay. so we will move it continue it for one week. >> that's correct >> second >> we will meet you out there. the project sponsor as well. if you would like >> please call the question >> on that matter of continuance to august 4 commissioner antonini aye moore

aye wu aye chairman richards spew aye so move that passes unanimously for having zero. that a place is on item 20. discretionary review. >> good evening planning commission. devin washington southwest in. for the property located at 2430 castro st. proposal is to construct a one-story vertical addition to an existing two-story single-family residence. the project includes a major façade renovation interior remodel and roof deck with stair and house. this addition will add approximately 1440 ft.2. a four area to existing 22,800 air square foot home. the survey parties located on the west side of the block between date and 30th st. in the r-h-one

zoning district. the property is 25 feet of frontage along castro street. with a lot depth of 105e. it's coming out with a single family dwelling constructed in 1914. this house was reclassified as a category c but it was determined due to numerous renovations over the course of its existence all original have been removed from the residence. parcels within the immediate this in a consistent residential single-family dwellings of two-story and three-story design that were constructed in the 20s. the alterations in the complete renovation of the front and feel the sudden removal of the entire gabled roof the addition of a third level with a flat roof that will mimic its two flanking residences in height and configuration. the proposed

house will be very contemporary in appearance, it is not a demolition because the majority of exterior walls will not be removed and the existing floor plates are not moving. the residential design team has reviewed the latest plants which are before the commission and determined alteration meets the standards of the residence and design guidelines. the building height and depth are consistent with the adjacent and overall development patterns the open space which provides the dwelling unit located in the adjacent rearguard maintaining privacy, like it or they block open space in the dr request is situated in the higher elevation approximately more than 40 feet away from the subject property. although, some visual access to neighbors property will result from this project proposed with deck, it is an acceptable limits for dense urban environment in san francisco. the roof deck incorporates adequate separation through setbacks from adjacent property to minimize impacts for noise like.. to address odyssey issues the third floor deck at the proposal your addition should be removed. the roof

should be fire rated in this location so as not to require parapets along the side property line. the residence design team determined that this project is not contained nor create anything that is exceptional or extraordinary. and recommends permission not to discussion or review the building permit as presented >> thank you mr. washington dr request or, you have 5 min. >> good evening commissioners. another members >> can you speak into the microphone, please? >> good evening. my name is mighty partisan mining is my husband. we own the property at 6613 three. directly behind the slightly uphill from 2430

castro. first i like to address misunderstandings on the part of the project mr. katz. he seems to believe we are objecting to the proposed conversion of the attic into a third floor. this is not the case. he also seems to ms. membered our interaction bringing the pre-application meeting as we absolutely do not say we were worried about use. rather about privacy.. [inaudible] and extensive panoramic view of the city from her own home. it is true the project is massive and we find that old fish. unappealing. however, the primary focus requesting the dr is the unnecessary unusable [inaudible] noise generating roof deck on top of his third-floor the risks cited unfortunate precedent in our genteel little corner of san francisco. from our home a roof deck and its intrusive penthouse

would allow anyone standing on it not only to look directly into our dining area and kitchen on the second floor, but also into our master bedroom on the third floor. second, a little corner when the chilly tunnel with or even protected decks next to the home's kitchen are rarely used. completely exposed roof deck two floors up from the kitchen would be unusable uncomfortable and eventually become simply too much trouble. after initial you become a deposit for deteriorating furniture, in this case a giant penthouse that would be in our faces and those of our neighbors as it visitors to billy goat hill day in and day out. mr. katz claims his backyard is unusable because i have cheated from the sun. inductive backyard gets at least as much sun as most around these parts. this photo was taken two days ago during a welcome sunny moment and shoot the yard in full sun. it's not shaded by our home. however,

houses in this era do lose some early because there will below the crested diamond heights good in the winter this block will be in shape by about 3 pm. as mr. katz does not live in the property may not realize this. the developers justification in leaving gaping roof deck sues children have a place to play his father. the troubling issue of letting children play on a roof it's our understanding mr. katz's children are of around high school age and will be visiting only on weekends. in this case can my roof deck and we can home in san francisco would likely be targeted become a magnet for noisy high school and college by the time this is built creating a nuisance for the whole neighborhood. if the developer will intend to of space for children to play, he would do better to use his own backyard as planning suggests in this neighborhood and protected from the wind. my

husband and i were partly from home and use the dining table as a workspace facing directly at the back of the property in question. we also cooked dinner and enjoy sitting down maybe 12 of the family dinner. at the dining table. the proposed roof deck coupled with a large that windows would mean we would be compelled to watch and listen to our neighbors and would seriously impact our privacy in the piece of the neighborhood. the subject is apparently more exhibitionist nature than us seize this [inaudible] is really bothers us. we really don't want to of someone else's life pushed youtube like into the forefront of ours. we have photos here of the area that you know existing roof deck where stare penthouses. this first one is from billy goat hill. it roof deck and stare penthouses will stick out like a floor sore thumb on the roof one progression on castro street from the spot. it is the our rebuttal mr. katz was the number of apparently similar houses to what he is proposing.

please, note, but were showing here were showing the use of the neighborhood. that they either have no roof decks or are set into hill so that no one's privacy will be impacted. we would also like to correct the misapprehension our home is the largest on the plot. in fact, since 2000 hundred square foot is smaller than some indeed our home is always exactly the same side as his own property and that is before the proposed expansion. this is a quite gentle corner of the subject papers hold christmas and hanukkah block parties and what each other was summoned forgets is a product parking brake omissions were trash bins, down the street but a win. otherwise we live life quietly behind closed doors. [inaudible] roof deck access and huge gimme windows is simply not >> thank you your time is up. you will have rebuttal. >> thank you >> any speakers in support of the dr request or?

>>? that some letters you man the may have can i read on the? >> you can submit them. >> you should have copies of them. >> okay. thank you. see no speakers in support of the dr requester, project sponsor you have 5 min. >> hello my name is spell i am the owner of the house. i think the easiest way to explain-with see if i have a photo here. i think the easiest way to explain that looking at this picture it's also taken from billy goat hill. as you can see, this is my house here. big yellow line. the tax on both

sides of the house and the neighbors house on the back in a circle. the house is to force. the one floor below with the crotch area is 1400 ft.2 each floor. essentially the ground floor is like a basement is blocked on both sides honestly in the front >> would you please speak into the microphone? it's hard to hear >> if you could raise your voice? >> yes. essentially spot in the back of show a photo or photo taken for my backyard which is really smart. the plan is actually as mentioned is leveling the attic this floor here and with her two neighbors and align the top floor and [inaudible] exterior work at it all stays the same. in addition to the attic, changing some of the façade of the husband i'm giving the store well inside the house and the crotch

tournament in stays the same. in terms of feasibility, as you can see the house, the only light i have only 25 feet side to side. that's the only place i have light coming into the house. if i change the design of house and just put some windows on the front of the house. i would like to stress i made every effort i could to address all the concerns of the neighbors. if you can see the one next to me here, one to the north, they have adopted here. i met with all the neighbors and discussed the plan with a view they specifically told me that they don't want you to have a balcony or deck in front of the house. because they want to produce. that's where they usually hang out. so, i mean, the problem is that the only opens they sat in his house out is a small yard in the back and let me just show you my photos. the same thing that the dr five

osha. that was taken from the second level. but the ground look at the ground level is 10 feet long. they go this house about 10 years ago and they go this low towering wall about 30 feet tall and is building on top of that. it wasn't there before that and they have three decks. that can oversee i mean, you see the whole neighborhood in fact. and more. so, all i have is a really really small space outside my house and i thought, that's why i propose a small roof deck very non- intrusive roof deck. the roof deck that i think the question in hand is very small. and it was reduced as mentioned. both sides said 5 feet to each side of the house with the subject from the roof. it's

unobstructed is probably 75 feet distance between mine and i was sure he that and another photo. here. that shows you that was taken actually from the other house the neighbor on the house next to me which is very supportive. you can see the distance from the yellow line shows where my roof deck will and. so it's about 70 feet between my roof deck and their house. not mentioning, even after building the roof deck, i'm still going to be much lower than them. much lower than them. i didn't roof deck is again very nondisruptive. much lower than that. we met a few weeks ago to find some solutions and again i mean the propose to build may be hot or something else. but the bottom line, again without that it feels like my house is a apartment in fact. one big apartment because i really have other than the small backyard in the back. i can say that again go back to the backyard which is my only place open space in the house. it's practically not livable. because again there's no light

is nowhere and there's definitely no privacy. again i try to comment privacy from all neighbors. one wanted this one wanted to. i can accommodate everything but all in all i think the solution actually compromise on both sides. about the style, i photos i can show you in the neighborhood itself also roof that much larger and higher than mine. much more excessive than mine. >> thank you you will have a two-minute rebuttal. you can continue that and 2 min. dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> the setback is a reminder. i have been in that-in his back garden could i seriously doubt

that was taken from the second level. there is plenty of room in the back. according to staff, there's plenty of green space. it's not an issue. you can see. it's 2 pm in the afternoon two days ago. it's not an issue. he has plenty is a bigger back gardens than many. yes, the bottom is that the basement so that's an issue but he's got a deck. that's ongoing to be a problem. this might give you a better idea what the actual privacy is going to be. if you see here this is the house next to us. this house watch the project closer to us. it goes farther into if you put someone in that window, they can see into our diner. this is from our dining room. if you're standing on the roof deck to about there, you're going to look you're going to look down on me in my dining room and be able to see into my master bedroom and there is no rationale for the roof deck. he has views galore out the front. he's got plenty of sun in the back. it's a

vanity piece. that's all we can think. it's incredibly intrusive to our privacy. it just destroys it. without the roof that we have no issue just not happy with the class but that is a privacy point rated. the roof deck on that nothing on castro on either side going 100 yards on another site roof deck is no roof deck inside. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> going back to the photo that my neighbor just showed, i mean any photo can be private. it probably takes two and 3 seconds to make any photo much by. i live there and i know the place and i can tell you that i know the former owner was suffering from that. the two

neighbors next to me and told me specifically. jesse went to the same process about 10 years ago when they built their house. she complained there's no light no air. they went through a long process and ultimately it was rejected and whoever built this house one the case. but, again if the concern is privacy, i told him i can do the same thing when the neighbor had here with the solar panels did we have enough good i'm not building the entire roof. so without half of that were lasted i can put the same solar panel that is a very easy process and build up now will give us a lot of space. honestly, they said please don't do that because they're concerned about abuse. i told him it's a small roof deck. there's nothing really there. just allows me to go there every now and then. the fact that there is furniture the that should not be disruptive. any obstruction to your views. so, i do try to come up with some other solutions. maybe there's a penthouse that comes out with a builder hot and i think with some spell to

consider that. just when i talked i thought he was agreeable maybe you'd be some expensive project but then he said after that, you know what we just want the roof deck. so, again, i think it's very minimalist roof deck. it doesn't impact the privacy of all because it's really far from them in the privacy issue i can definitely put the solar panels. my neighbor and that would result in privacy is good to be able to look at me and i won't be able to look at them. >> thank you. this portion of the hearing is closed >>[gavel] >> commissioner moore >> residential side in r-h-125 feet wide typical san francisco while 105 feet deep seems to propose a building, which seems to increase from 2000 ft.2 to 4000 square feet asking for a

roof deck with a penthouse that's highly atypical. the house itself is a choice it doesn't leave much of a workable rear yard on grade. i personally, have question that the additional of a roof deck with a penthouse is advisable in this logo should aside from the awkward elevation which you see on the opening sheet of the drawing set on 80-10 it makes me think it would be a better neighbor eliminating the roof deck and the stair house. the building itself is approval. i'm talking about this one commissioner antonini. the

building itself is approval. how it sits on the side is the applicant's own choice and i think i would like to suggest that we do take dr, remove the roof deck and stair house and approve what is proposed modified by the residential design team. >> will hear what other commissioners have to say. commissioner antonini >> i visited the site a week ago nice sunny day and talk to when the neighbors could i forget whether he was to the south or the north, but they seem to be supportive of the project and-he told me were i could type back to get to the dr requester that i went down the driveway away so i kind of saw the was cut quite a separation that. this quite a bit of elevation change. not as dramatic as one of the pictures that this project sponsorship, but there is an elevation jim.

in any case, i thought well this is a no-brainer and then i opened up my packet and i saw the socket i don't like all that glass. i mean, the guy on the south and north both had renovations they were able to do these in a very contextual manner to look a little bit more like the houses there. so my feeling would be, but >> [inaudible] >> that stuart >> i would want the staff to work with project sponsor. i just think there's too much glazing on the front of it there. we could find something that looked little bit more contextual with the neighboring properties. i would agree with commissioner moore. i don't know privacy is that much of an issue given distance that the dr requester are away from the project sponsor, but he's created a lot of space. i mean you can drive a truck on the second floor could you know, i

mean, he may choose rather than having so much space to have some kind of decking in the back rather than having the deck on the top. because it seems like there's a lot of wasted space but that's a personal choice. i'm agreeable to taking dr and removing the deck and the upper deck, and the penthouse stair and working with staff on design to try to make it as contextual as possible. >> so without a second >> said that is a second >> thanks. i agree with your summary. >> commissioner moore >> that's fine. >> discoverable >> the commissioners for my part is can you repeat the motion taking dr and a limiting the roof deck? >> that's correct the roof deck and the penthouse seconds >> on the motion,

>> no >> commissioner antonini aye moore aye wu that richards aye. so move commissioners in the motion passes unanimously 4-0. that places on public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> all over general public comments. the free minutes, sir. >> another house there was that about any specifically allowed the roof deck. i stressed behind me three roof decks. mine is very minimalist very small and >> [inaudible] >> i don't understand your preventing me to build a small roof deck. all i have is a very small deck here. tiny backyard in the back and would've left with is [inaudible] it seems so

unfair. some of the same way about me 40-50 feet. his three best. as one to work with them and find a different solution project. one i prohibited from doing that the? >> were not allowed to respond. it's not a question or answer pertinent. you've the ability to comment. if they choose to they can respond. >> again it seems completely unfit. [inaudible] out into have such different privileges? 1 to 3 decks, and i cannot even obtain one in my husb just in apartments. would end up as just an apartme i don't understand the merits of this decision at all. >> you can appeal this decision to the board of appeals. >> seven waiting 18 months for my house. 18 months.it's

completely unjust. especially [inaudible] you support and let them have roof decks. i don't think that i'm an exception. the new roof decks in the city. [inaudible]. itself. thank you >> thank you. you have an appeal process to the board of appeals, sir. >> meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]

t-we're live. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome back for another session of the land use and transportation committee. my name is malia cohen, chair of this committee and to my right is supervisor scott wiener, the vice-chair and to my left is supervisor aaron peskin. our clerk is victor young, yes. and i also want to recognize jessie -- jim smith and leo who are televising this meeting on sfgovtv.

mr. clerk, do you have any announcements for us today? >> yes, please science all cell phones and electronic devices and completed speaker cards and documents to be completed as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the august 16th, 2016 meeting of the board of supervisors, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. could you call item 1? >> item no. 1 resolution authorizing the sublease between the city and county of san francisco, as tenant and sublandlord and the crossroads as subtenant. of 4124 rentable square feet in the building located at 167 jessie street for an initial term of five years. >> thank you. so colleagues, today we have mr. brian chiu to present on this item. mr. chiu, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. members of the committee, as you may recall back in

january of 2015, you approved the city entering into a lease for this space. at a time when we were eagerly looking at opportunities for the city to be able to provide some additional space for our non-profits and as you may seen in today's examiner, we're very excited this is one of those opportunities. back in 2003, the initial landlord for this space, third and mission associates entered into agreement with the california historical society, a 99-year lease as part of a restructured deal with what was then sfra and what became the office community investment and infrastructure. about ten years later the california historical society decided that they did not

need the entire 15,000 square feet. and was going to return that to the landlord, the ocii commission rightfully was concerned about the loss of non-profit space. and so as part of that agreement, the landlord agreed to enter into an 87-year lease with the city for approximately 4,000 square feet of unimproved space along with that there was a portion of the payment that was going to come to the city, characterized as community block grant income, which would allow for the capital improvements necessary for that space. so the city agreed to enter into that long-term lease for a dollar a year with the landlord. we then worked with our

colleagues at oewd to come up with a process to identify the appropriate non-profit for that space. we wanted to line it up with the recommendations that came out of working group on non-profit displacement. and so we issued an rfp in september of 2015. we distributed information about that through the human services network and many city departments. 25 different non-profits indicated interest in utilizing that space. two different non-profits completed applications and after review, the city determined that the youth organization at the crossroads was the best organization to utilize that space. since that time, in the fall, at the crossroads has been working to finalizes sublease agreement and we come with you to authorize the lease between the city and at the crossroads and propose to ent near a five-year lease with one five-year option to

extend the term of that sublease. we're very excited about at the crossroads in particular, because of its focus on reaching out to homeless youth and young adults. as some of the you may be aware at the crossroads is really a national leader in services to the homeless youth population and they are going to be offering one-on-one case management services at that site. as many of you may know it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult for us to identify spaces for these kinds of direct services, and so we're really excited that we're able to provide this for at the crossroads. i'm here to answer question and we're joshua from department of real estate and the executive director of at the crossroads. i would like to ask rob, if you wouldn't mind to come up and make a few comments?

>> thank you so much. it's incredibly exciting to be here. two years ago when prada bought the building and let us know they would not be having our lease renewed and we faced an uncertain future terrifying for us and terrifying for our clients. for the last 18 years our organization has been helping young people street san francisco with the focus on those kids falling out of of services. we don't have the option of moving out of city for cheaper rent. we need to be right where our clients are. when this opportunity presented itself, it was basically like a dream come true. when we were selected we were overwhelmed it was the singlemost important moment in our organization's 18-year history. it will allow us to help every year more than a thousand young people in san

francisco get the support that they need to move beyond the streets, and build outstanding lives. a lot of our office use is going to allow us to expand the money that we save with the space will allow us to reinvest in the young people that we work with. i just want to thank a couple of people, josh keen from the department of real estate. i want to thank brian chiu from mohcd and oewd and bill with related the owners of the property, and the non-profit displacement mitigation fund. but i just want to say thank you for this opportunity. we're really thrilled to have it. >> thank you for your presentation. mr. chiu, is that it? all right, colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. chiu? let's go to public comment. ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to come and speak on item no. 1, please do so. just by way of reminder you will have two minutes.

will you hear a soft chime indicating that you have 30 seconds remaining. all right, seeing no speakers for item 1, i'm going close public comment at this time. thank you. [ gavel ] . the matter is in the hands of this committee. >> i would move that we send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report. >> all right. thank you very much. and without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [ gavel ] >> mr. clerk, let's bring up item no. 2. >> item no. 2, ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to require hostion platforms to verify that the residential unit is on the city registry prior to accepting a fee for book a short-term rental transaction and to provide an affidavit of compliance to the city and retain certain records authorizing the office of short-term rentals to issue an administrative subpoena

to obtain records provide for civil, administrative and criminal penalties against hosting platforms for violations of their obligation. >> supervisor peskin has opening remarks. >> thank you, madam chair and supervisor campos who is the lead author of this legislation, which is really a series of technical amendments to the short-term rental enforcement legislation that supervisor campos authors and co-authored with supervisors mar and avalos and i just wanted to make some remarks about the ordinance. which is pretty straightforward. is still to require that hosting platforms do business with law-abiding hosts and ensure that they are not aiding and abetting scofflaws who are further deteriorating our housing stock. it's modest commonsense legislationing and i think it's fair for everyone and

for law-abiding hosts and fair for san francisco. most residents want to give our short-term rental law a chance to work, but san franciscans won't be played for fools forever if short-term rental platforms persist in keeping our law unenforceable. after confering with the city attorney about airbnb's legal amounts that after they filed litigation on the law we passed last month, it is our desire to simultaneously address for this needed regulation or if there real motivation is to continue to flaunt our tourist rental laws with impunity. at the end of the day, the board didn't pass this ordinance to litigate over the scope of federal law.

our intent is to make san francisco short-term rental law enforceable and fair. these amendments aim to accomplish exactly that by simply making language more precise by making modest changes in record keeping requirements and by tailoring enforcement to work through administrative subpoenas rather than a publication option. i want to thank carolyn goosen and she is here from supervisor campos' office if you have any questions as is deputy city attorney jon givner. that is it. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin, question through the chair, in terms of amendments, i have heard

that this will not necessarily apply to all short-term rental companies because of the way it's structured. for example, a company like vrbo, can you comment on this? because this has been reported to me? >> insofar as that it ised at the point of sale is that the argument you are making through the chair? why don't we defer that to ms. goosen. >> welcome. >> carolyn goosen, supervisor campos' offices as deputy city attorney givner wants to add to this, but the way san francisco defines web [tpao-rpt/] one that facilitates advertisement of units, but is involved in any kind of business transaction related to it. so clearly craigslist is one company not included in how we define a web platform, but other companies where there is a

business transaction that occurs between the platform, for example the way airbnb does it that company is relevant under this law if there is a business transaction plus the advertising. >> supervisor peskin has an answer. >> if you look at section 41a4 line 4, the definition of "booking service," i think it actually would apply to all platforms. a booking service is any reservation and/or payment service provided by a person or entity that facilitates a short-term rental transaction between an owner or business entity and a perspective tourist or transient user and for which the person or entity collects a fee in connection with the reservation and payment services provided for the short-term rental transaction. as i understand even these platforms that in essence charge for a listing, i think that they would be covered

under that definition, but i will defer that to competent counsel. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i don't frankly know exactly how vrbo operates. the ordinance as supervisor peskin says would apply to booking services. which is basically those that collect a fee in connection with reservation or payment service. i think ms. goosen is correct that craigslist does not collect a fee with a booking service. i can't say vrbo's business model. >> thank you for the clarification, supervisor wiener. >> i asked the question, because i think it's important when regulating short-term rentals that we're regulating as broadly as possible and not regulating some companies and not other

companies because different companis have different structures. but they are all facilitiating short-term rentals and for all the good reasons that we want to regulate them it should apply to all short-term rentals. this measure that this amended, that i voted for, to try to increase enforcement because we want people to comply with the law, to the extent that the amendments were to contract that and basically exempting out certain companies and focusing on other companies; that would be an issue for me. i would be interested in perhaps this is a committee report for tomorrow, is that correct? yes. perhaps by tomorrow trying to get a better sense for that. because i know this came up -- i think 30-day waiver and it sort of moved quickly, which i understand why

because the litigation, i presume. so i would like to have a clearer answer to that. >> so maybe we can get deputy city attorney and supervisor wiener together. >> >> we're going to continue to move forward. ms. goosen, did you have a presentation prepared? no. let's go to public comment. i have a stack of the cards here. dale carlson. jim lazarus, peter quan, ed bell. dan nu feld. rodolpho. and karen cansino and if there is anyone who would like to speak, you can do so after the folks that i have called. thank you. >> dale carlson, share

better san francisco. they have traditionally used a subscription model to pay an annual fee to list properties on their website. they are moving to a model more similar to airbnb and they are too going to be taking a commission, a percentage of every rental. i think it's ironic that we're here today. give that airbnb spent $10 million last year telling us how much they hated the idea of neighbors suing neighbors. here they are suing us. their hometown neighbors. portland adopted similar ones on their listings long before san francisco and airbnb didn't raise a squawk and spent $10 million bragging about the hotel tax revenue that they pay to the city each year and admonished us not to spend it in one place, but now to spend it defending

the ordinance that you passed unanimously. they are telling us that they are only in business to help home sharers, legitimate home sharers, simply trying to make ends meet and thrust of the their lawsuit is clearly intended to defend the people violating the law that you passed two years ago, who are not complying with the registration requirements and they are using it - and they are using the first amendment to defend their practices. maybe we should buy some bus shelter ads of the our own? dear airbnb, the first amendment does not protect aiding and abetting, love the founding fathers. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is peter quan the co-chair of the home shares democratic club. supervisors the reformation of this platform liability law that is being considered today attempts to sidestep the legal flaws of the first

version, instead of making them liable for posting without a valid registration number, this new iteration instead imposes liability -- puting aside whether this dodges the bullet regarding federal law. this new version is not achieving the results it seeks. platforms at home away listed rentals for hosts, a subscription service as the previous speaker described it. many cases the booking itself, the contractual relationship and agreement on dates and rates, these are entirely between the host and guest, home away simply facilitates the transmission of the basic information and payment mechanism. so if platforms at home away don't accept or conclude bookings, they won't be liable under this new version of the law being considered. hosts who want to avoid legal

entanglement will simply migrate away. we think there is a better way ahead. everybody agrees that the goal is to increase registration rates to maxing maximize the compliant hosts. it is legally flawed as i said and to look at ways that the current registration system can be improved to remove roadblocks and increase incentives to register. the home share democratic club has proposed reforms that we believe is a more productive approach to increasing the registration rates. so we urge the supervisors to consider this approach rather than one that in all likelihood will shift from one platform to another. >> thank you.

next speaker. >> good day. my name is karen, a registered host that has submitted all required paperwork. do you recognize me? i have been coming up here for two years and i'm getting tired of seeing you all. so i'm hoping that we'll get this resolved soon. i could have decided not to come, but feel strong enough to come to represent registered hosts who cannot be here because of work or family responsibilities. it is quite obvious that each new requirement is an attempt to squash home sharing. it's creating a law by piecemeal the best way. hosts are not registering; that is a fact no one disputes. they are being unfair to those of us who are. but i can understand their hesitation as the city's reaction.

i can envision opponents around the table trying to think up what next can be regulated to discourage home sharing? our hosts from becoming legal? it is time to give it a rest. put politics aside, focus on solutions already suggested, applying reservation and giving potential host a try-out period and ferret out abusers. it continues to grow. citizens defeated prop f, please listen to the majority of san francisco voters rather than grandstanding politics rather than civic responsibility govern your vote. driving out home-shares will make the city even more only for the wealthy. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon.

i'm jan nu feld in district 8 and i'm a home-sharer and home-sharing helps me be able to pay my mortgage and live in the city and place that i want to be. my 18th street merchant neighbors also very much benefit from my guests and many others who come to the area because of the desirability of that territory. it seems clear to me that the proposed amendments would only push bad actors to other platforms. let's not do that and please read what home-sharers have put together and work in that direction, rather than being political as was just mentioned. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. last time we were here we raised the very issues that you are trying in a small way with the advice of the city attorney to correct and legal

questions vis-a-vis federal law that were challenged in the legislation you approved a few months ago. getting people registered and having a registration process that works and let's not beat around the bush and come up with 6,7, 8, 9, 10 different amendments. this was cutting-edge legislation three years ago, but where it filed is a process that allowed the average citizen to feel comfortable and understand how to be registered. what the exposures are? how to manage the system? that is what you need to be dealing with. having multiple pieces of information about your residence. having to come in in person in an online era just makes no sense. if we want people registered get them registered in a modern 21st century way. that will fix the vast majority of problems. and lastly, that very complicated series of articles in the chronicle yesterday i think the bottom-line to that is our

housing crisis in san francisco is not and should not be fought on the back of home-sharers in san francisco. to spend as much time trying to maneuver through zoning changes, density bonuses, some have you have solve, accessory units and some you haven't and let's solve those and get on with building san francisco. thank you. >> while the next speaker is coming up, i want to note that the quotes in the piece from the chief economist at zillo to the effect that some of the short-term rental behavior in san francisco is exacerbating the housing crisis should not be overlooked. >> next speaker. >> hi. ed bell.

i live in noe valley and lived in san francisco for almost 60 years. i am a host and list through airbnb. last year i told my wife we would have to sell our house in july of this year and leave the city we love and join the hundreds of families that can no longer afford to live in san francisco. i am happy to tell you my house is not for-sale and i have currently no intentions to selling due to the income generated through heir incumbent. airbnb. i have tried to convince several of my senior friends to become host and almost all afraid to get involved in the computer interaction mandated by the city of san francisco.

airbnb should be rewarded rather than penalized. last week i filed my occupancy report the computer-generated report [speaker not understood] and a friend of mine owns a business selling toxic chemicals and doesn't have to report which days his business is own. i share a bed and pillow in my home and why do i have to file these reports when he doesn't? why is the city changing my requirements? i believe these actions disproportionately affect senior citizens. i hope you keep your senior constituents in mind and vote accordingly. help people like my wife and i hold on to our homes and stay in the great city of san francisco. thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i'm the other

co-chair of the home sharing group and i want to thank the supervisors who took meetings with us to talk about the improvements. supervisor peskin did not return our calls unfortunately, but we're happy to meet with you still. we produced a 7-page report and met with the office of short-term rentals detailing what we think could make it easier for people to register and maintain registration. in addition, it's not just office of short-term rental, but involves the tax collector's office as with the as assessor's office and we're going to be meeting with the tax collector's office this week. we have a lot of detailed suggestions about improvements. we also think there are a couple of legislative amendments that could make it more inclusive, so that more people could come forth to register. we hold monthly workshops on registration -- we have tried to share this with the

supervisors. we would like to share it with you, too, mr. peskin and we think that the law could be improved so more people can come forward. we're all about maintaining long-term housing and helping people who really want to stay in san francisco. i would like to add, because i use vrbo, as well as airbnb and they use a third-party for collection. we would be happy to meet with the city attorney's office to provide more insight on that as well. you were all emailed the report, and unfortunately over the weekend, we didn't realize the process would move to quickly, but you are welcome to call us and invite us for more details. we have a lot of the input on this. thank you for listening. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is tony robles and i work with seniors and people with disabilities with an organization called

senior and disability action. i'm just taken by all of the talk by the so-called home-sharers, and home-sharer platforms that ring philanthropy and we have seen the effect on housing stocks and neighborhoods, whole blocks that we have seen evictions and people using these short-term rentals as a business model. and at the same time, it has had drastic effect only on the health of seniors who are living in stress about whether or not they are going to be able to retain their homes? they live in fear of eviction. and the stresses lead to very negative health impacts. so

i think what this really is about is accountability on the part of a multi-billion dollar corporation that has tried to do anything within its power to thwart regulation of any kind. we're in favor of the amendments and legislation being proposed. thank you. >> next speaker. if anyone else would like to speak, please come up and get in line. >> i'm teresa and i'm in support of this amendment. anything that will help make it very clear that if you want to do business in san francisco as a platform, you are required to follow the rules. you may not advertise illegal activity, if people aren't registered that is an illegal activity. i'm completely in support of this. i'm also excited about this helping planning do what it's supposed to do, which is to ensure that a neighborhood

is not impacted negatively in terms of the environment, the character of a neighborhood, no rezoning that if you have a picture of 22 units within a block units being used on various websites,. that these platforms in being required to delist if there are too many in the neighborhoods and do something about it. if it's really about sharing a home, your home and one room, that doesn't affect our housing, as much as entire units entire buildings being taken off the market. those people will never register, because they are property -- they own 8 properties say in -- scattered throughout the city. they don't live here. they are not living in those buildings. those people will never register. so it's to hold

the platforms accountable for the illegal activities that have indeed been go on and people do need to register in person. it's not about 21st century, but to make sure that that person matches the paperwork. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is rodolpho and we have one tiny little room we rent out. we're registered. first i would like to comment on the multiplicity of attempts of registering airbnb because of the unregistered hosts and every piece in a units that seems to punish registered hosts and drive away non-registered hosts. accomplishing little or nothing while collecting a measly $130,000 for the city and just making people uncomfortable. that and other attempts at

regulation also have the obvious taint of single out one platform and encouraging hosts to go to other platforms. this proposed legislation of yours will create a carve-out for home away, make it obvious, and also for vrbo and craigslist and did the dpt city attorney basically say he doesn't know or doesn't necessarily agree with supervisor peskin? how is this legislation -- how this legislation going to affect home away and vrbo and craigslist, it's a carve-out. it's been in the making 30, 40 years and not just san francisco where zoning regulations have slowed or prevented new construction. don't blame airbnb for the

housing shortage. maybe it exacerbated it slightly or somewhat, but don't believe it as you have for the past two years or month. in trying to finish this off, i would like to comment on the individual who tried to rewrite the first amendment with his little comment. >> thank you, mr. rodolpho. please, next speaker. >> hi. my name is kathy wu and i'm a san francisco voter, and a member of the better housing policy. our organization is committed to supporting solutions that address the housing affordability crisis in san francisco. unfortunately we cannot support supervisor campos' amendment because it will make things worse. the proposed amendments would exemption companies that

openly refuse to follow the city's primary residence requirement for short-term rentals. rather than working with hosts to make the registration process easier and simple. supervisor campos has proposed a loophole that will primarily benefit non-residents, who own second or third homes in san francisco. this is wrong, and unfair. we could do much better and urge the committee to please oppose these amendments. thank you. >> thank you. another speaker, come on down. >> good afternoon, supervisors and thank you for taking action to put some teeth in the short-term residential regulation you passed several years ago. these technical fixes blessed by the city attorney address the companies who are making money illegally in san

francisco by facilitating illegal rentals. they can pay taxes all they want, but if they are facilitating illegal rentals, it's illegal. we wouldn't take tax money from drug-dealers, from houses of prostitution, and the companis that are claiming to be such civic minded people and yet have hundreds, thousands of units that they are collecting money on, making money on, and it's not right. so these fixes are attempting to handle that situation. it may be that there will be one or two other technical fixs that we have to get, but every company that makes money in any way off of an illegal rental in san francisco should be stopped. please pass this legislation with recommendations to the

board. >> thank you for your comments. is there anyone else that would like to speak on item 2? none? okay, public comment is closed at there time. [ gavel ] the matter is back into the hands of this committee. colleagues is there a motion for this item supervisor peskin, do you have a motion? >> i would like to move this item to the full board as a committee report, and given supervisor wiener's outstanding question for deputy city attorney, why went dow with do that without recommendation. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, i was going to recommend that we put it out without recommendation and that makes sense and we can can get answers by tomorrow. >> this committee report goes to full board without recommendation. thank you. >> mr. clerk the next item is item 3. >> item no. 3, resolution aboving the disposition of land located in south one

-third bounded by howard, spear, folsom and main streets, assessor's parcel block no. 3740, lot no. 027 by the office of community investment and infrastructure a successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency to block one property holder l.p.. >> thank you,. supervisor kim is the author of this item. but i believe we'll have a presentation by shane hart from ocii who is here to present. good to see you again. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is shane hart and work with ocii as transbay manager and i would like to introduce mr. campos with our office and aaron foxworthy with our office. for the developer, jenny wang and carl shannon. >> where is mr. campos? oh, in the back. all right.

thank you. >> the land use committee action is to approve the disposition of ocii owned land within transbay block one to block one property holder l.p., an affiliate of tishman speyer. this slide shows the timing of the transbay redevelopment plan, as well as other area plans that have been approved. also in bold you can see that in 2003, the former redevelopment agency purchased this portion of block one site for affordable housing. in april of this year there was a redevelopment plan amendment that came before the board, and was approved. that plan amendment increased the tower height for block one from 300' to 400'. in june of this year, the ocii commission approved the

plan and this shows the overall transit center district plan. as i mentioned to you before, ab 812 and redevelopment plan require that 35% of all the units within transbay, within zones one and two be affordable. ocii has land use jurisdiction over the formerly state-owned parcels, as well as this parcel and you can see that in the lower section of this map that is on the slide. the planning department has land use jurisdiction for zone 2. transbay block 1 is located on folsom street, between main and spear streets.

this slide gives you an idea of the development program that has been approved. this slide shows the parcelization for block 1. the top portion is the ocii-owned parcel which consists of about 34,000 square feet. the lower parcels are the ones that are owned by tishman and those are about 20,000 square feet in total. the project summary is a mixed income homeownership project consisting of 391 units. 40% of the project is affordable, 156 units and they'll be available for households earning between 80-120% of ami. the affordable units are dispersed in the first 26 floors of the tower and in the podium and provide protections for owners, there has been included a certain homeowners' association for

the bmr owners, as well as the developer has put up 225,000 dollars for what we call a homeowner associations dues assistance fund that could be used by the bmr owners in case there should be special assessments or large dues increases. 156 units are affordable as i said. 80 of those units are in the tower and townhomes, which are all funded by the developer and 76 units are in the podium buildings. and there is a subsidy of $19,180,000 that is being provided by ocii for the podium and remaining costs are funded by the developer. regarding the fair market value for the ocii parcel, 3343 report concludes that based on the appraisal, and the analysis that was done

by kma, 19.2 million that ocii is receiving for its land is fair market value. and that ocii is receiving an additional $31 million of consideration beyond fair market value based on the current deal terms negotiated with the developer. this is a rendering of the block one tower and podium. this is also a view from the bay bridge. last friday the ocii executive director and i met with supervisor peskin, and he was concerned about the effect that the construction defect litigation could have on bmr homeowner as the association dues and the

construction defect litigation is common and as a result we proposed to allow bmr homeowners to access $225,000 bmr homeowner dues assistance fund for construction defect litigation costs, and to include in the project ccrs a requirement that the market-rate hoa pay for the cost of construction defect litigation without differentiating between market-rate and bmr units in any settlements. proposed changes to the resolution are on page 6, lines 12-20. and on page 7, lines 20-22. the developer has reviewed and agrees with these changes. with that, thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. hart. all right. colleagues, i think we're going to go to public comment. appreciate your presentation. >> madam chair, i would like to move those amendments on

page 6 and page 7. >> okay. i thought we could do public comment and talk in-depth a little bit about these amendments. we have a stack here. let's see who is still here? laura thompson, are you here still? rudy corpus? i think i saw charlie, danny campbell. tony rodriguez. joel coppell. adrianne simi. all right. why don't you just all come on down and welcome back, boys. marcus -- i'm sorry, marcus, i can't read your last name. go ahead, rudy. welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here representing united players in support of the project. united players has been an organization that has been serving the city of san francisco for the last 22

years and 8 months. we're fortunate that we're located in a neighborhood where a development is being built. what has been in district 6 with the organization that we have built a great relationship with the project, with the developers, tishman speyer who has been helping and assisting us tremendously. not only just coming to our center, and meeting the kids, but also donating their time with people with books, and mentorships and also helping us support our organization. so we can continue to run and thrive. so i'm in here in full support of the project and here with people from the community. i'm born and raised in district 6, still live there. my kids went to school there and i just want to say this is the type of project that we need in order for people in our neighborhood to survive. we are probably ground-zero of gentrification and

displacement, but with projects like this help us to stay in the communitis that we're born and raised and the amis that we're part of helping out is a win-win situation for us. so thank you . thank you. charlie. >> good afternoon, chair cohen, supervisors wiener and peskin. my name is charlie, the district representative for the operating engineers in san francisco and san mateo counties and associated with the building trade council and labor councils in both counties. as a representative of labor, i want to thank you all for your civic service and hard work on behalf of the citizens of san francisco. with regard to the agenda item i want to say that tishman he or speyer has been a blue-chip partner and we are looking forward to working with them on this exciting project and they have been proactive many their efforts to strike the right balance of retaining neighborhood values and providing units for a wide

range of incomes. i want to speak in support of the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is marcus and i'm here to show my support for block one, and for more affordable housing here in san francisco. a year-and-a-half ago my wife landed her dream job as a flight attendant, as a condition of her employment, we had to relocate to boston. this was a real tough decision to make, to pack up everything that we owned, to leave our rent-controlled unit in the mission, and to say goodbye to our home. well, as luck would have it and after a cold boston winter a position became available for my wife at sfo. we were moving back to san francisco. but now the apartment costs 40% more than we were paying before we left.

this exponential rise in the cost of housing made our return to san francisco seem almost impossible. but thanks to the mayor's office, a few forward-thinking developers, and the voters of san francisco, we found a once -in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually own a home here in the city. 1400 mission, below market rate had a handful of units left that we qualified for. although we haven't moved in just yet this bmr program has given us hope, hope that we can have a permanent home in the city. hope that we can raise a family here without worrying how we're going to make rent. hope for the future. i encourage you to share this hope with other working families by approving block one and more affordable housing here in the greatest city in the world. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. danny campbell, sheet metal workers local 104. i, too on behalf of the membership of the sheet metal workers put our support behind this project. it's refreshing to see this project building the type of housing that the city has not been building enough of lately and that is for middle-income families. such as teachers, librarians, firefighters and construction workers. like i said, it's a pleasure to see that, tishman has and continues to be a strong industry partner with the san francisco building and construction trades council and ask you to move this disposition agreement forward today. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tony rodriguez and i'm with local 43, fire

sprinkler union and we're here in support of the project and what charlie and danny said about tishman always providing well-paying union jobs and benefits is true and i don't really need to go into that. the exciting part is the 156 units. i have mentioned many times that i have three daughters. one is say a nurse and one is a teacher and the other one is going to school to become a nurse. they live at home and can't afford to buy a house. our construction workers can't afford to buy homes in the city and projects of this nature would help to alleviate the thing of people having to move out. yesterday i was in sacramento and/or friday we went to sacrament and spent the weekend and it's amazing the number of people that i know that live in sacramento and work in san francisco and only do that out of necessity, because they can't afford the rents and to buy a house here. i ask you to

help by approving this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. chair cohen, joel coppell for electrical workers. once they need a home to house their kids and their family, sometimes 15-20% a year of our members are leaving the city. that is why projects like this are of the utmost importance. tishman speyer has been more than a responsible developer here in san francisco with the lumina and infinity towers and south of market and 160 folsom is going to be a great project also because of its proximity to the transit center and looking forward to building this

project and hope you approve the disposition today. thank you. >> thank you, joel. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tom o'connor, president of the san francisco firefighters. i, too, am here to support this project. this project not only represents a wonderful opportunity for our members to live in san francisco, but it also allows tishman has helped to us explain the complicated process of applying for these unitss and enabling many of our members to stay in san francisco and live and walk to work. quite often when we talk about keeping public safety in san francisco, people they exaggerate and talk about the big one, the earthquake or a natural disaster, but what is more important to public safety in san francisco, when a personal natural disaster happens. if your kid is hit by a car or your mother falls and breaks her hip, you want your public safety partners here. this project and tishman speyer are helping us to do that. we speak in support of this project and thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, madam chair and supervisors.

my name is adrian with carpenters local 22. not much i can add that hasn't been said already, but carpenters local 22 does fully support this project and looking forward to working with the long time partner of tishman speyer and i think most of all what hits home for me, this will put apprentices to work. young carpenters, male and female who live in san francisco, who have a nice job with benefits and in today's world, that is what is needed. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. thank you, folks. [ gavel ] now the matter is in the hands of this body and supervisor peskin has an amendment he will walk us

through. >> thank you, madam chair and i have every hope there is no construction defects in the project and no litigation, i think our primary policy concern and the reason that the developer has agreed to a $225,000 contribution for the below market rate 156 units is because we want to make sure as condo dues rise, people like this gentleman will be able to continue to pay those condo dues. that is the fundamental reason for the $225,000 fund. but it is not uncommon, as mr. hart said, in residential condominium development to have construction defect and a little bit of litigation after these projects are built. so i wanted to make sure that no. 1 insofar as there are going to be under the covenance, conditions and restrictions that the developer has agreed to, three different homeowner

associations. a bmr homeowner association, market-rate and master hoa that would require a super majority vote in order to raise annual condominium dues or special assessments, above certain percentages 10 and 5%. i wanted to make sure that we actually were thoughtful about litigation, if it should occur? so i wanted to make sure that the bmr condo association was not disadvantaged in that unlikely, but possible, event. so to that end, one, in the second paragraph on page 6, we made it clear that the $225,000 could be used for the affordable unit hoa cost including litigation costs, if she should ever arise. and furthermore, a provision that says that if the

market-rate hoa would like to pay for all of the litigation costs, they can do so provided that any settlement would be shared equitably between the market-rate and bmr hoas subject to the relevant governing laws of the state of california and the bureau of real estate. those are set forth on page 6. i want to say mr. shannon, i know it's never fun to put money into a well-meaning good-spirited fund that could be used against the developer and hopefully that won't happen, but i want to foresee the unforeseeable here and thank you for agreeing to those and the developer has agreed to those in the sub4 on line 20 to 22 on page 7. i'm happy to answer any questions and i want to

thank ocii and their director, ms. boe and mr. hart for helping craft the language around the suggestions that i made on friday. >> thank you for the amendments. let's go ahead and take a motion to accept -- someone could make a motion to accept these amendment s. >> so moved. >> thank you. motion to accept the amendments, moved and without objection passes unanimously. [ gavel ] >> thank you, on the overall piece of legislation, >> i would like to make the motion to send as amended ai as a committee report with recommendation for hearing tomorrow, july 26th. >> the motion has been made and without objection this motion passed as a committee report with recommendation. thank you. [ gavel ] >> mr. clerk, what do we have next? >> that completes the agenda for today? >> excuse me? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you, this meet is adjourned. thank you. [ gavel ]

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local biz and challenges the san franciscans to do their shop and dine in the 49 within the by supporting the services we help san francisco remain unique and successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine in the 49 san francisco owes itch of the charm to the many neighborhoods people coma greet and meet it has an personality these

neighborhoods are economic engine seeing the changes is a big deal to me especially being a san francisco native and it is important to support the local businesses but also a lot to over here it is nice not to have to go downtown i think that is very important 0 for us to circulate our dollars the community before we bring them outside of the community for the time we have one dollars in the community is the better off we are it is about economic empowerment by apron ingress the businesses that are here. >> shopping local cuts down the cyber foot you'll find cookies

and being transported the world where everything is manufactured and put on the assembly line having something local is meaning more the more we support our local businesses the more i can walk down to where i need to be. >> bridges contingency bye like west portal it is about city and san francisco may have a big name but a small city and a lot of small communities shop and dine in the 49 highlighted that and reminded people come outburst and i love that about this city i'll always be a

>> san francisco parks, golden

gate park transforms into one of the greatest music festivals of all time, let's journey, inside, outside land. ♪ >> to this, our 6th year doing the outside lands and our relationship with san francisco, rec and park. and we work very closely with them in the planning and working very closely with the neighborhood organizations and with the city supervisors and with the city organizations and with the local police department, and i think that the outside lands is one of the unique festivals in the world and we have san francisco and we have golden gate park and we have the greatest oasis, in the world. and it has the people hiking up hills and down hills and a lot of people between stages. >> i love that it is all outside, the fresh air is great. >> they have the providers out

here that are 72 local restaurants out here. >> celebrating, and that is really hot. >> 36 local winerries in northern california and 16 brewers out here. >> and you have seen a lot of people out here having a good time and we have no idea, how much work and planning has gone into this to make it the most sustainable festival in the united states. >> and literally, in the force, and yeah, unlike any other concept. and come and follow, and the field make-up the blueprint of the outside land here in golden gate park and in the future events and please visit sffresh

parks.org.