second floor, and top two floors. here's the section that -- i apologized, it's bleached out on the screen. two basement floors expand the facilitation of the building and teaching spaces that are critical. two public floors on levels one and two. replacement housing on three and four. student housing up the building. at the top, a couple of floors of grand public spaces. this is basement level two, which is important and i show you only to underscore how critical the space is. how every cubic foot of volume was needed and much of the basement is being used for educational purposes. this is basement level one, which reinforces the same. most of the floor is used for educational purposes and is integrated to the ground and second floor for those purposes. the street level in yellow, you have a cafe. in blue on the level, a

performance space on the corner of hayes and van ness. on the right, student commons. there's the lobby down the middle. replacement housing, faculty housing, student housing, everyone comes in the same front door. it's really one very distinguished lobby that will facilitate an integration of the entire building. if we go up the floor, a rental space that may be an ancillary use. that's exciting for the conservatory to have in its building and educational offices. again, i apologize for these images. no doubt you are used to this, but they look much better in reality than on the screen. trust me. [laughter] this is an image of the corner of hayes and van ness. it's a performance space. the conservatory intends to use it constantly. it will be really great for the city in terms of sidewalk,

pedestrian activity and those driving by, on hayes, south of market or up or down van ness. it will be a new sign post that we don't have right now in this part of town. this is on hayes and you see the student commons on the right. another very public, very open space. and this is immediately followed by the lobby, which is, again, shared by everyone. there is no public door, back door, replacement housing, student housing. everyone comes in the front door. to the right, you will see the performance space. to the left off camera here, the cafe. this is the cafe, looking to the northwest. that would be the opera, across the street, davies hall. and it can be full of students for general public use moving through it. as i quickly move up the plans, on level three, this is the first of the two replacement floor plans. you see the area barely on the right. there are three units off of

that that are part of the school's use, but the entire u, everything facing the street, are the replacement housing units. they're not units with a lot of light andrew. up to level four, more of the same. replacement housing in the u shape, if you will, going across the three streets, with student housing in the back, looking at the open space. as i move my way up through the buildings, level five, all student housing. six, student housing. seven, student housing. eight, student housing. i'm trying to keep up here with my notes. i'm moving too quickly for myself. one more. and now we get to the floor that's the most markedly different and new we're on level 10. the bright blue space is performance space and it's intended to be something quite terrific. it is seating approximately 200 people with a beautiful view

looking out to the ocean to the west and at city hall's dome to the north. there's a reception area and more housing area around it. these spaces are intended to be open to the public for performances most of the year. it is replacement tenants that will be able to go upstairs and hear the music and be part of a performance should they want to when they want to. this is the performance space with its view towards city hall. this is the floor above where you see the blue area is a student resource center. green is the open space for the students that would be used for events, so tenants and the general public would no doubt be thereafter or before a performance in the space. and you would see more housing and faculty units on the bottom of the screen. those are the housing units shown. this is an overview of that outdoor, open space on the top floor. looking out over the civic center. a view of the building looking north on hayes with texture and

variety. the units stagger up and down to give the building some life and some scale. a lot of glass along the street and a lot of glass up in the sky to let people know there's a great public, accessible space to go and use the building will be very much alive. the students are there learning, rehearsing, it's very much a part of the sense of the community. and we think it will be exciting for the civic center to have such an alive building in the middle of it. that's it for me. >> president hillis: thank you. so we will open this item up for public comment. we have a bunch of speaker cards. phoebe vaned vanderhost, david alicia sandoval, jim host, and araia -- i can't read the last

name. you can line up and speak in any order. >> over there? >> president hillis: yes. on this side, so we don't block the door. welcome. >> hi there. i'm phoebe vanderhost. i'm a resident at 200 van ness. i'm here to encourage you to approve the project. i feel that the conservatory is being very, very genuine in replacing our units and we're going to live in a very, very nice building for two years. we're going to get out of this vermin-invested rat trap that we're in and go back to a very, very nice, iconic building. i won't take 3 minutes of time, but get this done so we can get the hell out. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon.

i'm randy wong. i'm a resident at 200 van ness. i've lived there four years. i want to say in support of this that i appreciate the conservatory's willingness to bring people back in after construction to provide temporary housing during construction. one thing i would point out is that during this process, the conservatory staff has treated residents with a general respect, which is very nice. with that said, i think that the project would do right by the residents, as well as to provide excellent space for students and people in the community. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please? >> hi. i'm emmy dip. i'm a 20-year resident at 200 van ness. in the last two decades, we've had a half dozen different owners that have constantly neglected the building, but

conservatory after they've taken over, they cleaned up really well. there's less crime and it's more sanitary. in regards to the project, i hope that as long as all parties involved are very clear and concise with communication, terms, and agreements, that we all understand what is happening, then i think this project is a real winner. they've done a really great job and i think it's amazing that san francisco can actually develop and modernize while still respecting the community. and this is really the change that san francisco needs. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. i'm james steel. i'm a live long resident of the san francisco bay area. i was born on valley street. i've lived all over this crazy city and am here to offer my full and unconditional support for it.

i read their pdf on-line and i thought it was a very thoughtful project and it will activate the area as a whole and be a vibrant bridge between neighborhoods and allow easier transfer between the neighborhoods. it continues to add to the fine arts. beyond that, it fixes a problem where two populations, young students and young artists, finding it difficult to move here due to the affordability crisis. over 400 are given a safe place to lay their heads. i hope that while there, they will interact with the conservatory and the community as a whole. and many of them would stay and keep their talents and lives here. not only the fact that we have to take care of young students and young musicians, but i could not support this without keeping the 27 units residences --

residents in the community. i they they've gone above and beyond. it's so commendable that they've kept them on the same block and i hope it gets approved and i would be proud to call this group of men and women my neighbors. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm demarcus davis. i'm a senior at the san francisco conservatory of music and chairman of the student council and resident assistant for the school. when i made the decision to come to the san francisco conservato conservatory, it was top of my list. it's the most diverse conservatory in the country. and being that that is the case, it sits in a city like san francisco, which is extremely diverse and colorful and we just add to that. we're the students that work in

hayes valley and go to the coffee shops after school to study. in addiction, 98% of the students receive scholarships. during the orientation, they asked, how many of you are on scholarships, and everybody in the room with the exception of maybe four or five people stood up. and we're proud to say we're on scholarships and that speaks to the commitment that the conservatory has for its students. the conservatory provides a safe space for us. we're in a building now where 210 of our students are housed. the rest of the students, however, they all live around the city, live in outside districts. when we leave at 11:00 at night after a performance or rehearsing all day, it's not necessarily always the safest. and so 214 van ness will provide a safe space where we're in close proximity to the school and also can study. in addition, many of our teacher

and faculty live outside the bay. my violin teacher is concert master of the seattle symphony. she was chosen because she's phenomenal. and the conservatory commits to bringing in the top instructors. for them to have a space where they can reside when they come without having to look for a hotel means the world to us because we get more of our teachers' time. and it shows them that the conservatory cares. the conservatory really creates a safe space for all the students. it would be appreciated by the students. we're extremely excited by the project and hope to be a part of the community for a long time. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please? >> i'm alicia sandova.

i have been in communication with a number of tenants, rent-controlled tenants, who have been at 200 van ness. and my understanding is that they are going to be relocated temporarily for approximately two years. i just want to make sure that there is transparency in terms of -- if something comes up, if they have to wait longer than two years, making sure it's communicated to them. my understanding is that i want to make sure that everyone is accounted for. everyone that moves out can move back in. it's really, really important. they are under rent control, so making sure that's sustained throughout the process, and as they return. also, my understanding is that there's not going to be any terms changed in their lease.

that's really important, because under the rent ordinance, 12.20, the terms have to be approved by the tenant in writing, so that's really, really important, so for any new things that come up. i also want to make sure that there's communication, a dialogue that continues, between the tenants, rent-controlled tenants, and also the conservatory. i appreciate all the work that the conservatory of music and also supervisor kim's office has done to accommodate the tenants that are residing in the 27 units. so i really -- i'm open to working and having a dialogue with the conservatory and also the tenants in case they want some type of support. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> commissioners. i'm jim hass. i live at 100 van ness. i've been involved all things civic center for decades. i'm on the board of the civic center building district. we reviewed this proposal and sent a letter saying that it met most, if not all, of the items there, which i believe is in your file. i want to make a few personal comments. you will recall a number of years ago, we went through a process to enact law that would allow for student housing. that -- after it was passed, it was slow to be implemented because many of the institutions were not prepared or not capable of acting, although today we are seeing a lot of activity. the conservatory is one of the early ones. they signed up for the panorama, which is on mission street, along with california college of the arts. and as far as i know that's been very successful.

and new they're preparing their own student housing project, which is before you. and i think that's very commendable. secondly, the residential building we've been talking about is, i guess, an example of, if you will, slum housing. it's been owned by a variety of people. security has never been really good. having it gone is not a great loss. it is a great value to the city to be replaced by the building that will be proposed. thirdly, the urban design of civic center starts with the historic district, the 70-foot lines, 80-foot buildings. and then works outwards like a bowl in steps. so the building that was built at 101 van ness -- pardon me, polk street, is 12 stories.

so the idea of increasing the height on van ness is appropriate and will strengthen the whole urban design in the area. and then lastly, that block has been a bit of a problem for the area because there's been abandoned buildings, closed buildings, lack of good lighting. it has presented a security problem to a lot of people that are there at night. the new building will dramatically change that. it will be lit up. it will be full of people into the late night. and it will change things dramatically. now if we can only get the rest of the block out of the political stalemate it's in and get it developed, the whole block will be wonderfully secured for the benefit of people who are in the area and on that street.

thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm a tenant at 200 van ness for 10 years. i also have a section 8 voucher. and i'm disabled. so i want to address a few things regarding the conservatory's commitment regarding the temporary movement back and forth. i have uneasiness about that because the conservatory has a history of deceptiveness. bad management and even crime, that was never solved. and they invent excuses for people to come in and do measurements and things like that. and they were mostly snooping.

the most disturbing one is the fact that in the past 18 years, they invited a company from oakland. i can't remember their name. and i couldn't find the letter. i'm not sure if everybody in the building was contacted. and this company, when i did the research on the internet, they bankrupted whole building residential enrichment because they promised to move them out and do the packaging and everybody ended up on the street. so they came in with one of the tenants and after we complained, the things stopped. anyway, i'm familiar with the architecture team. i looked up their projects. i went to the san francisco

center. i'm for the project, but at the same time, i'm asking the commission for a more commitm t commitment, commitment and control of the temporary measure to make sewer there is no displacement. everything is very well presented step by step how it's happening, but at the same time, one signing a promissory note and after 60 days not having a moving company named or new address, is becoming a problem. and old sugar cookies at open houses don't solve homelessness. [please stand by]

>> i think people need to learn how desperate people are for housing for universities, and you all have had three hearings in the past three months, and you have a couple more coming.

responsible academic institutions are desperate to build housing, and the conservatory are leading the way. that is not a little bit of a problem, that was a big issue, but they seem to have done it really well intentionally with the tenants, and i expect them to stay that way. and this corner deserves some life, and it will get it if this project goes forward. you haven't heard me a lot saying that, but this is an important project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> yes. i've never heard sue hester any way -- to teresa flander, i'm so glad to hear about this project. no displacement, student housing, i've never heard anything better than this. i'm a little worried about is it too good to be true, so yes to make sure everything is writing, everything is legal, that those residents will return. this is wonderful. thank you very much, and thank you to all of you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hi. i'm jim morcel, and today i'm speaking for the vanness neighborhoods corridor coalition, which represents all

11 neighborhoods lining vanness. when we heard this project, one of the first things we really challenged was what about the tenants and the strength of the repatriation, and the dialogue impressed me tremendously. it goes without saying that student housing is needed, and this is really your model of you create campuses, you have an enclosed transition to your campus, you do not need buses, you do not need students with cars, you do not have parking on-site, you do not put additional strength on campuses. this is humanizing the experience for all the students and having them engage in a community. this is excellent. also excellent, the cabanero design. it's elegant, it's textual,

it's designing everything we are looking for in projects, so we applaud that. in terms of transit, as i mentioned, no parking in the dense urban hub is something that we always look for, and this is, again, a model for how do we do that? planning's recommendation that they have a white zone instead of a few parking spaces in front really fits with the whole idea of what we're trying to do. you have more spaces for drop offs and pick ups, maybe tnc's can even use it for not only this building but for other parts of the performing arts community, so we really love what's going on with that. so we have the civic minded institution, the conservatory of music, and this is an excellent complement to the whole performing arts center

that this district now has as its main campus. so we are heartily in support of it. >> thank you, mr. rochelle. next speaker, please. >> tony robles again from senior and disability action, sda. just to echo what some of the other housing advocates have said, it appears to be a very responsible, very good project. again, the people who already live there, the existing tenants, we want to just be assured that they do return to their homes, and i'm sure that the follow through is going to facilitate just that. again, you know there are housing advocates that can help with a lot of these different logistical things. but again, it seems like a very good project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment, and thank you all for

a thorough presentation. i can't imagine -- this is a complicated project, and for you to come here and kind of resolve all these issues to the benefit of the tenants that are there and living there now, architecturally, this is an amazing project at an amazing site. it didn't have to go through tons of iterations. one question. if it comes up, the d.a. is pretty detailed about what the rights are in the conservancy and the rights of the tenants, but if issues come up, where can the existing residents go to get help and understanding of what their rights are and just clarity? 'cause it's all pretty well laid out, but things may get

muddies as time goes on. >> i understand that, and i think one thing that's very helpful is the conservancy will remain their landlord. they take out a master lease and continues to be the manager and landlord to the existing tenants during the temporary period. they do have a very detailed noticing process in the relocation plan that's part of the development agreement that will be recorded by the city and then becomes legally binding. in addition to the other elements of the relocation plan does have, you know, a component that says if you -- if there's a dispute, how they would manage the dispute through the agreement. >> president hillis: okay. and the city stays involved as the implementer of this d.a. technically, it's the planning department, but others, i imagine, your department, the rent board would stay

involved -- >> exactly. >> president hillis: okay. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: this is an extremely skillfully put together project on all levels. i've hardly ever seen something get through so quickly. here, everything is working together, vanness neighborhood council with nine neighborhoods coming forward and supporting, and senior disability action network, i have hardly ever heard anybody being that much in sync in something. i think it says can do, and it's -- it says, like, a fine-tuning on a level that we hardly ever witness because we mostly run into the stumbling blocks when the thing first comes out of the start block. so great parking, and student housing, all things we said

last time. this raises to a level of exceptionalism, and i'm really happy that this is coming forward in rather controversial and dark times, particularly as we are able to create a tenant protection package which we have never seen before. we've always been told that when you have rent controlled housing, once you start to demolish a building, you cannot basically have them move back in under rent control, and this is an exception. we've had that discussion many times, and i'm wondering, looking particularly towards commissioner melgar, if there's anything we can learn in abtract in this experience and apply in other places as well. i want to hangout here because this is a big first time success here. thank you everybody. >> president hillis: is there a motion? >> commissioner moore: yeah, there is a motion to approve all parts, a through e. >> second. >> clerk: so commissioners,

there is a motion approve and second. on that vote -- [ roll cal [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. motion passes. >> president hillis: thank you. congratulations. >> clerk: so we will move onto item 13, case number 2014-003160 cua for 3314 cesar chavez request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning codes 121 and 3 for the demolition of an existing industrial building and building of a 20 foot commercial building. >> the project before you is a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 3314 cesar chavez street. the project requires a conditional use --

>> clerk: excuse me. i'd like to remind the people leaving to keep quiet while we proceed with the hearing. sorry. >> no problem. -dpsh on a lot larger than 10,000 square feet. the proposed project includes demolition of a 13,000 square foot light industrial building and new construction of a 65 foot tall six to seven story mixed use building measuring 49,665 square feet with 1300 square feet of ground floor retail and service uses, and 1300 square feet for 38 residential units. it would include 62 class 1 bicycle spaces and approximately 6300 square foot basement level garage to

accommodate 28 accessory off street parking spaces. to date, the department has not received any public correspondence in support of or in opposition to the project. the project sponsor has conducted additional community outreach including a second neighborhood meeting on sept 14th, 2016 and two meetings with representatives from the callente cuatro latino district. according to the sponsor, attempts to engage the district association was conducted in 2014. the unit is required to present 40% of the total -- 8 units are

to be designates as included in the voluntary housing program -- [ inaudible ] after analyzing all aspects of the project, department staff recommends approval with conditions, specifically, the project complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code and is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project is not seeking any variances or exceptions to the planning code requirements. the project is an appropriate in-fill development that will add 58 new housing units to the city's housing stock in an area that encourages the development of high density and midrise housing. the project is desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation of the proposed project. this concludes sasf's

presentation and i am available to answer any questions. >> commissioner melgar: thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, david silver man with reuben, junius and rose. working with the project sponsor, mr. chiu. he's operated his business for more than 13 years and is an integral part of the community. he will be providing on-site bmr units, eight on item bmr units. community benefits from the project will include nearly $1.4 million in impact fees, which go toward transit improvements, education and infrastructure. in addition, mr. chiu will be working together with the c 5

lle 24 latino association to paint a cultural mural. they will also participate in choosing the artist for the mural. we've been working very closely with scott weaver, an attorney for the neighborhood groups, on a project benefit agreement and have agreed to all of the terms of the agreement as drafted by mr. weaver. i have the agreement here, and we're happy to have it as a condition of approval. it's a private agreement. it includes a number of terms, the most important of which is the provision of four section 8 rental units, which the calle 24 believes is very important for low income individuals. this will be in addition to the

required bmr's and is voluntary. there will also be a right of first refusal offered to calle 24 for the commercial space if it becomes vacant in the future. it's going to start out with mr. chiu's business, which currently operates on the site, as they're returning. now we learned today that there are people here who will ask for a continuance. they have expressed to me that mr. weaver did not represent them, and i have no personal knowledge of who mr. weaver represents or doesn't represent, but i can tell you that we've been working with mr. weaver for quite some time in good faith, and we have always understood him to

represent the various community groups involved. i know that there are a number of separate community groups in the mission. there may have been some hiccups in communications between the groups. that's just my speculation, but i'm here, and i'm sure they can give you more information if you would like. mr. chiu is here, if you have any questions, the project sponsor. dre gardner is the project designer. he is here if you have any questions regarding the plans, and i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> commissioner melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. >> good afternoon, eric

arguella, calle 24. i just want to start first. as you all know, the mission has been the -- where a lot of things have been happening in the city. it's ground zero, and we created the latino culture district so we are able to preserve the culture in the district making sure it stays for future generations. we usually ask for much higher affordablity in the latino culture district. we have a higher bar for us. you know, we have been disinvested for decades in the area, and gentrification has decreased in the neighborhood, so we created this culture to really emphasize that, so anything development that comes in, make sure it's done right, it's done properly and there's no holes for the future, so we

just want to make sure it's done right, properly and it's on paper. we are asking for a continuance for at least two weeks. there are still some issues that we really want to nail down. we want to make sure that it's done right. there are some enforcement provisions that we want to see in our mou. we want to make sure what is agreed to can happen. the owners are decent folks. you know, we've had long conversations with them. we've come a long ways. there was miscommunications happening along the way. we just started up with the negotiations a couple days ago, back and forth, so i think that's part of the process, but i think we're not quite there yet, and i think it's important for us to really nail this down. we do have, you know, concerns about the design. we want to make sure that that design fits the culture district. we are working on design guidelines for the latino culture district, so we will make sure that it is an impact that we're working on, so we want to make sure that that's really worked out.

we also have the broader community that has issues with the design, so we want to make sure that they're all around the table so we can get this worked on the right way. >> thank you, mr. arguello. >> thank you. >> commissioner melgar: any other public comments on this item? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is john mendoza, and i'm one of the cofounders of calle 24. i would just approach with the deal that they have. it seems like we're almost there, like eric said. it seems like he was talking about how the planning commission -- planning department held him up a year and a half with a parking garage. you know, there's some things you can't get around in the life, but it seems like the latino culture, everybody wants to get around us, and everybody wants to go around us and make the deal. so i'm asking for two more

weeks so we can ground this deal the way we want it, and we feel like we're respected and go forward from there. >> commissioner melgar: thank you, mr. -- thank you. >> yeah. just to clarify, this is scott weaver. just to clarify, i've never represented -- i've never represented to mr. silverman that i was acting on behalf of anybody but calle 24, and i think we had a mistake in our process in the way that other communication organizations weren't consulted as intensely as they normally would be. i want to talk a little bit about the context that this agreement is being made. first of all, it's a very creative agreement in terms of including the section 8 and including holding back eight units for mr. chiu, his family, his employees. we don't do that very often.

how you execute that and make sure that it happens two, five, ten years from now is a little bit tricky, and that's what we're working for -- working towards. we do believe that mr. chiu is an honorable man, and that we should be able to do this, but the context is that the cultural district had developers promise things to them that when the time comes to deliver on these promises, suddenly, they evaporate, and so i think that's something we would like to avoid in this situation and on that basis, we'd like to continue this for a few weeks so we can work out some of the wrinkles in this agreement. >> commissioner melgar: thank you, mr. weaver. any other public comment? >> hi. i'm steven buss with mission

nimby. i've spoken to all sides. they seem like they're negotiating in good faith, and i think a mutually agreeable solution is around the corner, so a continuance seems pretty reasonable to me. of course we support all housing, but in particular, as a quick aside, we need to upzone the west side so that we can stop having battles about one or two units in the mission. the only way we can solve the housing crisis is by upzoning the west side and building there, where they don't face zoning and gentrification. >> commissioner melgar: okay. if folks want to speak to this item, if you could lineup so we can get through more quickly, that would be great. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, peter

papadopoulos. i think this project, from my understanding -- i want to clarify that my organization, i was never contacted on this project. i'm just getting up to speed, but what i say, it looks like there's potentially four section 8 temporary units, and so it sounds like it's essentially a 21% temporary offer, and we'll just look at the projects that i'm aware of of most significance in calle 24, and they also came with additional housing benefits on top of that, on so looking forward at what kind of cultural impacts we'd like to have, we'd like to see that number higher. i think there are concerns that community members have and i

think the appearance and the layout is kind of not up to par in certain ways. i think that this is not a style from what we're used to from a design standpoint. in san francisco it's kind of laid out, like, hotel or motel-like. it's got a narrow corridor in the back. there are other issues in this -- looking at it, it's south facing, and we have those huge glass windows, which we think with -- lean in the direction towards the kind of newer gentrification inducing looks that we don't tend to favor. but additionally, it's south facing, so i think that this is probably going to be just large shades drawn all day, right, into the sun, and we really want a sort of more interactive community oriented space than that from the design, so we would ask you to please look at

those issues. thank you. >> commissioner melgar: thank you, mr. papadopoulos. >> alicia sandoval with housing rights committee. i also agree with echoing what folks have mentioned in terms of affordablity. what is affordablity? they say it's only going to be eight units. what does that mean? what percentage of ami is that going to involve? displacements, there's going to be a lot of displacements. we all know in anyplace they do a new project, there's going to be displacement of community folks who live around the area, so it is he really important to be able to look at these things before approving a project, so i -- i'm in support of the continuance. thank you. >> commissioner melgar: thank you, miss sandoval. any other public comment on this item?

okay. with that, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: interesting project. i'm glad the community came out and actually spoke. i'm glad to see a project which doesn't require variances and exceptions. however, i have a couple of question that somewhat mirror what the public is also noticing. this project proposes housing units in a manner that we as a commission have questioned a number of times before we had a project on polk and bush, which we spent a lot of time on, and it deals with the issue that units, really, are laid out in a manner that motels are. and for a private residence, it's very difficult to live along a narrow corridor when your bedroom window basically is right off that corridor. if you can look at drawing number 8.2 and look at all the units which are right adjacent

to the major exiting corridors and see that that is very hard to do because you'll have to have the shades of your unit drawn all the time in order to have minimum privacy, aside from noise, etcetera. the project also raises another couple of questions. it sits next to a very interesting strong building on cesar chavez designed by dan solomon, and i think that sets a design standard which is very high. i believe that this building has to step up a little bit more, one, address quality of units, which i think we need to deliver at a slightly different configuration and layout than what's proposed. there is something that this commission also addresses: the type of drawings that we have here are basically void of understanding what construction methods are being used. this is not wood frame construction, it's a six or

seven-story building, so you're basically dealing with concrete, steel construction, where you have cones that affect unit layout and general issues of quality of livablity of units. i believe that the project should go back, take a little bit more time, address some of those concerns, and actually have the department also work a little bit more strongly with slightly different changes in unit layout and issues of circulation and privacy. >> commissioner melgar: okay. any other commission comments? okay. so i will say that i also have issues with the design. i think that i'm open to continuing this item and would encourage the process sponsor -- project sponsor to have further communication with the community. i would also want to hear from

planning staff a little bit more deeply what the enforcement will be in terms of this agreement that has been, you know, reached with the community. so i think in particular because we're doing both ownership units and rental units which, you know, may be represent rented out to section 8 voucher holders, which is a whole nother, you know, thing, because it has to pass an inspection from the housing authority. i just i'm not really sure how that can be part of the planning approval or how we are looking at it. i just -- you know, i'd like a little more information in how we are seeing that. >> commissioners, i guess if i can comment, typically, obviously, private agreements,

we're not something -- we can't enforce private agreements. the voluntary affordable housing unit, we can kind of move forward with and enforce and place an nsr on the property that makes it subject to the requirements of mou. the section 8 piece, we'd have to do some research. we haven't come across this in other projects before. on first glance, we're not typically involved in the leasing of property to a particular person, so i'm -- i'm not positive on how that would roll out, but it's something that we can explore with moe or with the city attorney's office. >> commissioner melgar: i'd like that stated in the memo, also. because i think also the -- having the home ownership units and rentals units, you know, by

definition makes it that we can't enforce certain things, so thank you. would anybody like to make a motion? >> commissioner moore: i have a -- >> commissioner melgar: oh, sorry. yes? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to ask that when the drawings are moving slightly away from being trick drawings to more dimension drawings based on type of construction that there's also clear understanding of dimensionablity. we cannot just basically take a little drawing here and approve it. that, at a minimum, this needs to be addressed and whatever time frame we are extending this to would require that the drawings are basically updated to that next level, aside from the community negotiations. so i move to continue and mr.

clerk, wh sucre, what would you suggest? >> i think we would need a month to confer with the project sponsor and architect. >> i'm looking at the calendar, though. we are full up until march 15th. >> so maybe march -- [ inaudible ] >> in regards to the design, i'd like to point out that this has been a four-year process, and that we worked diligently with the planning department to come up with this design. us and the design team, we worked very closely together. calle 24 and their group, we discussed some potential design changes, and all they came up with during their meeting is we should change the railings to

iron railings that looked more spanish style, and that's been it. we've worked on the courtyards, all of the units have proper exposure. we're creating courtyards that are used by the tenants, that are landscaped, we have a roof deck, we have a landscaped rear yard. this is hardly a hotel. those units are designed with the courtyard to get front and back exposure so you can have light coming in both directions. a lot of units don't provide that. >> commissioner melgar: okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> commissioner melgar: i just wanted to remind you that this body is, ultimately -- >> we understand that. >> commissioner melgar: -- thanking you for coming, and the feedback, i think is the feedback for the staff as well. i think the director asked about specifically moving it to march, if that gives you enough

time to come back after having incorporated our feedback. >> it depends on what we have to incorporate, but 30 days, we'll start with that, i guess. we were looking at two weeks. >> so maybe march 24, we might look at as a possibly date. >> march 22nd. >> i guess one question for the architect. are you clear on what the question was from commissioner moore? >> yeah. we've ran into some of these conditions before. it turned out to everyone's satisfaction. >> i like that idea of the back yard. >> i think we'd be looking at march 22nd. >> yeah, correct. >> 22nd. >> okay. >> commissioner melgar: did somebody second the motion? >> we have a motion? >> commissioner moore: i made the motion and somebody second that. >> i will. >> okay. >> clerk: so commissioners, on that motion to continue this item to march 22nd --

[ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. this project is continued to march 22nd. all right. so moving along on your regular calendar -- >> commissioner moore: five minute break because there's >> clerk: item number 14, including 655 montgomery, request for conditional use authorization as well as an associated variance. [ inaudible ] >> mr. perry, department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish -- [ inaudible ] -- at the ground floor of the existing building at 655 montgomery street

located within the c 30 downtown retail district. the space was last occupied by a restaurant by has been vacant since the restaurant's closure in 2013. t while the majority of the space would be converted to office use, the project would also retain 578 square feet fore retail use in that portion closest to merchant street. in this way, the total overall number of leasable ground floor retail spaces would remain as currently exist at three. as described in the staff report there are a number of factors that reduce the viability of the subject space remaining fully as a retase use. this include its overall lack of district visible street frontage and the grade difference between the floor of the interior space and the

nearest sidewalk. all this to say that the prospects for future retail tenancy are very low as evidenced by the project sponsors efforts over multiple years to lease it. the department has not received any public comment on this matter to date. one person has commented that while 655 montgomery does do a good job of lighting the public sidewalks there are others in the downtown and vicinity that do not, and that whether there are retail tenants on the ground floor or not, the city and retail individual building owners should make efforts to make sure that adjacent sidewalks are well-lit for safety reasons. lastly in order to proceed, the project will require a raressance from section 123 or the maximum floor area ratio, far, of 18:1 that is allowed in the c 3 o district. this project was constructed just prior to the existing

district. the prior ground floor retail space was exempt from the definition of gross floor area and thus not included in the calculation of far, however there is no such exemption for the converted office space, therefore, the project would be adding gross floor area and increasing the building's far from 18.8 to 18.9 as a as a result. a variance is necessary and if granted this project would still be able to transfer and obtain development rights to the site. the department recommends -- [ inaudible ] . that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questioning. thank you. >> commissioner melgar: thank you very much. any public comment? oh, sorry. projectn