points. it was unstable soil, which we just addressed. the property was part of an estate still being litigated, which he mentioned, the property should be preserved as a possible archeological site, the property is under developed, and should remain so and the property should be a public park. i believe we can all agree that most of those are pretty ludicrous claims with no basis in code requirements as a developer of a private property. the appellant are not applicable to the project and he has been provided evidence otherwise. finally addressing the long litigation with the estate. we understand that bringing this issue into the discussion is speculation on our part but the appeal ant's pattern of behavior is clear. we believe it's a motivation for his a people has filed lawsuits and appeals and court actions getagainst the estate and lost every time. he requested this case be heard by the california supreme court which was denied.

he appealed the sale of the land the he is indicate sold and we purchased and his appeal was denied and court approved. he has apparently, by court documents, spent $750,000 in legal fees. he contested the sale of the property as well as ever action the estate has attempted. he appears to be willing to anything to deny anyone associated with this project to undermine the estate. i'll try to be brief. two things that jumped out is the first page he claims to be the legal owner of the subject property and does not work to be permitted. as he suggested of th. he states has been informed and believes in the circumstances seeking a court injunction halting construction may not be in a remedy because he claims yet to be established retroactive in the subject property and he cannot show he has an establishment. >> you have three more minutes in rebuttles. >> thank you.

>> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez. i agree with the comments of the permit holder. the appeal ant has raised no valid planning issues that would call into question the proper issuesance of the permit. there have been site permits issued for construction of two separate buildings on the lot. that was appealed to this court and the appellant did not show up to that hearing. those permits are final. construction can again on those permits and even the permit before you as a revision to an already issued shoring permit. we don't see any grounds for granting the appeal in this case. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy. >> president fung: mr. duffy, i have a question. how come planning is answering for a shoring permit? >> because we do. >> president fung: what does the

department do to verify who is the owner on the permits? >> i believe we use the assessor records. >> president fung: assessor? is there a check on every permit? >> i believe so, yes. sometimes when a property is sold, there's sometimes a lapse between the owners and not those that they ask for documents. or if you are claim you are the owner, but it's not consistent with the assessor records you have to prove when you bought the property. basically we go off the assessor records. it's the property tax bill. that's my understanding. >> president fung: are those new requirements for zachary view in place already? >> i believe they haven't been officially but they can be using them -- i believe it's still going through but they're using them anyway. if you know what i mean.

there will be. yeah. >> president fung: thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? we'll move on to rebuttle. you have three minutes. >> thank you. i really don't have much to add. i would just like to reiterate that what i would like you to do is to maintain the status quo until the courts have finished doing their work. thank you. >> thank you. >> just to continue my final thought for my discussion, is that based on what he just said, he is asking you to rule on a matter that has been through the court system much higher level of judicial overview than an appeals board and he is asking you to rule in a what if? what if a future court rules that he may be the legal owner?

he is currently not the illegal owner. we have the right. i had the right to apply for the permits and the current owner has the right to build the project. please approve the permit. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything to add? mr. duffy? >> commissioners this matter is >> president fung: commissioners >> anybody need discussion? if not i'll make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis of the permit was properly issued. >> so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and pull the permit. president fung. >> aye. >> wilson. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries. the appeal is denied. we will now move on to item number 7. i don't see a representative from the department here.

let me just read for the record. this is appeal number 18-082 subject property 1650 to 1700 owen street mission bay commercial corporation versus san francisco public works bureau of urban force street. appealing on june 5th, 2018 public works order regarding an application in public works order number 187544 to remove 24th vote trees with replacement adjacent to the subject property. denial of the request to remove 14 of the trees with replacement. approval request to remove 10 additional street trees with replacement. it's order number 187811. and we will hear from the appellants. >> good evening, my name is pam louis and i'm the appellant for mission bay commercial corporation. i'd like to introduce sam from arbor well who has presented or given you a a arborous to rept

our case. >> i'm sam. i'm representing mission bay commercial corporation. the issue is there was a permit submitted for the 1650-1700 owen street property. the city staff originally counted four eucalyptus and approved 10, denying four. they cited that they used online images to determine that the health of the trees was good and that they were showing previous decline but they were producing new leaves and in good condition. that pruning would mitigate the defects. when i went out for my inspection last month, i found

there were 13 eucalyptus along the street frontage. nine trees were permitted with signage. if you look at the overhead, it would be tree one, four, seven, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22. trees six and 14 along the frontage, this is going from 16th street towards the new kaiser hospital. six and 14. six was likely permitted. it was the worst of the two. but there was no signage present on those two. 13 trees were denied. when i do an assessment, i look at over all health and

condition. the site foleyage, structural treatment. whether the tree is leaning. i give the tree a condition rating. i have found that the trees range from fair to poor. fair is a higher level or incidents of deficiencies noted in health and restructure including possible hazardous conditions, signed, symptoms observed with higher corrective measures in input required to improve the condition and where applicable mitigate the risk with the removal. poor is significant deficiencies in health and structure that may include hazardous require immediate action some individuals may require removal as well.

so from the table you see i found two were fair and -- two of the 13 and then there were 1. my math is off. there's 10 that are in poor condition. two with no markings but they both were assigned with a poor condition. the goal of this tree removal permit application was to mitigate hazardous ask declining trees while bringing the facade, anesthetic of the building to harmonic unity with the street. by approving only 10 of the trees, it will leave the property front age with a disorganized and chaotic look. because i would never suggest to

put eucalyptus back as street trees. this is not the goal of the property owner. the species of tree are not commonly planted anymore. especially along a roadway with high pedestrian and vehicular traffic. the property owner would like to mitigate these risks to busy city business center next to a major hospital with a lot of traffic and a lot of people walking by. and i recommend that the trees were removed and replaced with a more suitable tree for the urban environment such as a tree that is more up right and it has more of a column presentation of its

foal age and structure. i really respect the boroug burf urban forestry and the decisions they make. i just think they made their assessment based on google images and not being on site. it's pretty much all i have to say. >> are you folks finished? with your presentation? >> i think so. >> president fung: do you have a question? >> how old were these trees? >> they seemed to be fairly new. less than 10-years-old. >> the area is really less than 10-years-old and this redevelopment. i mean, i was on the redevelopment commission and that was warehouses and garbage out there and i wasn't on it that long ago.

it generally the -- >> president fung: who planted these trees? did mission bay plant these? >> come to the microphone, please. >> there were several master developers. the first one was katellas and mission bay development group. i don't really know who actually planted them but i'm sure it was one of the faster developers throughout the whole course of developing. >> president fung: who was to maintain these? >> mission day commercial maintenance corporation. >> president fung: was supposed to maintain them? >> yep. we were maintaining what we were given. >> were these trees planted before, given the turnover of developers, were these trees planted before buildings were

built or were they as kind of props of what could be or were they built after the buildings were designed and built? they planted after the buildings were designed and built? >> right. so the standard policy, if you will, was for the master developer to get the infrastructure in meaning, the sidewalks and the trees before buildings were installed. so i can only say what i've seen throughout community. >> that's what i recall is that there was a lot of street scape and a lot of streets and street scape and then the buildings were designed. these trees had no context for what was going to be built behind them. >> correct, yeah. >> can i add something? i just wanted to show a picture on the overhead of a tree

permitted for removal. it has a trunk and very poor structure. >> president fung: was his time up? >> he has one minute. >> the tree right next to it with the same structure this type of lean and the bode nature of the tiki and it's just going to compound. it gets worse and worse. i don't think browning will mitigate the defect associated with the poor nursery style. >> president fung: one further correction. are these trees are not on private property anymore. they now are the responsibility

of the city to maintain under the new legislation? who maintains them? who is responsible? who owns them? >> the city owns them but mission bay commercial maintainance is tasked to maintain them? >> even under the new legislation that was passed by the voters? >> that is my understanding. >> president fung: new legislation pending funding. there's no guarantee? >> right. >> i'll just add that mission bay commercial maintenance corporation is a large h.o.a. and we're tasks to maintain these trees. >> thank you. >> president fung: mr. sanchez you want -- public comment? >> is there any public comment on this matter? being none, you are entitled to

three minutes of a rebuttle. the department is not present. do you have anything further to add? >> not at all. >> president fung: thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i was asking our city attorney, is the hearing valid without a departmental representative? i think so. >> i've had hearings and reached decisions without one party or the other being present. >> president fung: well usually that's an appellant that doesn't show up. >> i don't know about departmental. >> president fung: ok. >> i think you vote with your -- >> president fung: discussion? >> i prefer to make a motion. >> i would -- >> president fung: i would move to grant the appeal and allow

them to overturn the denial of the 12? >> overturn the public works order. >> president fung: and that the new species for all of the trees and size to be determined and approved by bureau of urban forestry. >> ok. >> well, yeah, the replacement is allowed as 10 already. and that condition would apply to that also. >> yeah. >> ok, so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeal and overturn the public works order and direct the bureau of urban forestry to issue the tree removal permit for the 14 trees and so a total

replacement and removal of 24 trees with approval of the new species, size and specifications approved by the bureau of urban forestry. [ please stand by ]

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services,

such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. >> it's great to see everyone kind of get together and prove, that you know, building our culture is something that can be reckoned with. >> i am desi, chair of economic

development for soma filipinos. so that -- [ inaudible ] know that soma filipino exists, and it's also our economic platform, so we can start to build filipino businesses so we can start to build the cultural district. >> i studied the bok chase choy her achbl heritage, and i discovered this awesome bok choy. working at i-market is amazing. you've got all these amazing people coming out here to share

one culture. >> when i heard that there was a market with, like, a lot of filipino food, it was like oh, wow, that's the closest thing i've got to home, so, like, i'm going to try everything. >> fried rice, and wings, and three different cliefz sliders. i haven't tried the adobe yet, but just smelling it yet brings back home and a ton of memories. >> the binca is made out of different ingredients, including cheese. but here, we put a twist on it. why not have nutella, rocky road, we have blue berry. we're not just limiting it to

just the classic with salted egg and cheese. >> we try to cook food that you don't normally find from filipino food vendors, like the lichon, for example. it's something that it took years to come up with, to perfect, to get the skin just right, the flavor, and it's one of our most popular dishes, and people love it. this, it's kind of me trying to chase a dream that i had for a long time. when i got tired of the corporate world, i decided that i wanted to give it a try and see if people would actually like our food. i think it's a wonderful opportunity for the filipino culture to shine. everybody keeps saying filipino food is the next big thing. i think it's already big, and

to have all of us here together, it's just -- it just blows my mind sometimes that there's so many of us bringing -- bringing filipino food to the city finally. >> i'm alex, the owner of the lumpia company. the food that i create is basically the filipino-american experience. i wasn't a chef to start with, but i literally love lumpia, but my food is my favorite foods i like to eat, put into my favorite filipino foods, put together. it's not based off of recipes i learned from my mom. maybe i learned the rolling technique from my mom, but the different things that i put in are just the different things that i like, and i like to think that i have good taste. well, the very first lumpia

that i came out with that really build the lumpia -- it wasn't the poerk and shrimp shanghai, but my favorite thing after partying is that bakon cheese burger lumpia. there was a time in our generation where we didn't have our own place, our own feed to eat. before, i used to promote filipino gatherings to share the love. now, i'm taking the most exciting filipino appetizer and sharing it with other

filipinos. >> it can happen in the san francisco mint, it can happen in a park, it can happen in a street park, it can happen in a tech campus. it's basically where we bring the hardware, the culture, the operating system. >> so right now, i'm eating something that brings me back to every filipino party from my childhood. it's really cool to be part of the community and reconnect with the neighborhood. >> one of our largest challenges in creating this cultural district when we compare ourselves to chinatown, japantown or little saigon, there's little communities there that act as place makers. when you enter into little

philippines, you're like where are the businesses, and that's one of the challenges we're trying to solve. >> undercover love wouldn't be possible without the help of the mayor and all of our community partnerships out there. it costs approximately $60,000 for every event.

undiscovered is a great tool for the cultural district to bring awareness by bringing the best parts of our culture which is food, music, the arts and being ativism all under one roof, and by seeing it all in this way, what it allows san franciscans to see is the dynamics of the filipino-american culture. i think in san francisco, we've kind of lost track of one of our values that makes san francisco unique with just empathy, love, of being acceptable of different people, the out liers, the crazy ones. we've become so focused onic maing money that we forgot about those that make our city

and community unique. when people come to discover, i want them to rediscover the magic of what diversity and empathy can create. when you're positive and committed to using that energy,

>> director sesay: good afternoon. it's 1:02 p.m. i'm marily mondejar, tuesday, august 7, 2018. welcome to members of the public. >> chair mondejar: and welcome to our newest commissioner, dr. caroline ransom-scott. thank you for joining our commission! [applause] now we'll put you to work, right? thank you. madam secretary, please call the first item. >> clerk: the first order of business is item 1, roll call. commission members please respond when i call your name. [roll call]

>> clerk: all members of the commission are present. the next order of business is item 2, announcements. the next regularly meeting will be august 21, 1:00 p.m. announcement of prohibition of sound devices. please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones and pagers and use of devices are prohibited at this meeting of the chair may order the removal of any person who is responsible for the ringing of or use of a pager or any other device. announcement of time allotment for public comment. please be advised a member of the public has up to 3 minutes to make pertinent public comment

unless a commission adopts a shorter period on any item. it's strongly recommended that any members of the public fill out the speaker card and present it to the secretary. the next order of business, item 3, report on actions taken at a previous closed session meeting. there are no reportable actions. next order of business is item 4, matters of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is item 5, matters of new business consisting of consent and regular agenda. first, the consent agenda, 5a, approval of minutes, regular meeting of june 5, 2018, and june 19, 2018. 5b, authorizing a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco public utilities commission in the maintenance of stormwater controls in mission bay south open space, mission

bay south redevelopment project, 32-2018. >> chair mondejar: do we have any speaker cards on these items? >> clerk: no. >> chair mondejar: i will close public comment. -day have a motion to confirm the consent items? >> i move. >> second. >> chair mondejar: moved by commissioner singe, seconded by commissioner scott. please take a roll call. >> clerk: please announce your vote when i call your name. >> commissioner rosales: yes. >> commissioner ransom-scott: yes. >> commissioner singh: yes. >> chair mondejar: yes. >> clerk: passes. 5c, authorizing negotiation agreement and predevelopment

loan in an amount not to exceed $4 million for shipyard 5254 l.p., california limited partnership for the development of approximately 100 affordable family rental housing units, hunters point shipyard, 52 and 54, and adopting environment review findings pursuant to the california environment quality act, hunters point shipyard redevelopment project and 33-2018, pursuant to the california redevelopment act. discussion and action, resolution 33-2018. madam director? >> mar >> director sesay: thank you. this is before you today, for the approval of the loan. you have taken previous actions on this the first time that it came before you was an informational

item and early this year, it came back before you as we selected a development team and they're here today and will be part of the conversation. this would be the first project. this is to have scale. we're proposing to do the two blocks together resulting in 100 units, all affordable housing. so this would allow the development to continue and it's for development work, understanding, as you know, the department of health is looking at site a and a result of that field work by the department of public health will be made public with whatever the findings are. i want to assure the board and

the commission that it allows us to be prepared. with that, i will call on elizabeth carmelo, senior development specialist, who is working on this project and she will lead the discussion, since we have a development team, who is also available for questions or potentially present as well. >> elizabeth carmelo, senior development specialist with the housing division. i'm here to present on blocks 52 and 54 in hunters point. first, i will orient you to the location. you can see the entire shipyard here and you can see blocks 52 and 54 are outlined in red in

the hilltop area. both of these blocks also include market rate development and market rate development on block 54 is complete and block 52 in the design phase. since these are relatively smaller blocks, we're offering them together, as corrector sesay mentioned, together as economies of scale for the project. a bit of background. blocks 52 and 54 are the first to be offered for development. in september, 2017, ocii issued a request for proposal or r.f.p. for the blocks. the goals of the r.p.f. are to maximize affordable housing opportunities in the project areas serving low-income households at a variety of levels. also to deliver a robust

outreach and marketing program to maximize the participation of the preferences including preference holders and rent-burdened households with feasible developing costs. bayview hunters point senior services. the development team includes jon stewart company as manager and bethune-solomon as architect. it will be a mix of 1-2-and 3-bedroom units. the maximum household income will be 50% of area median income, a.m. i.

which is $59,000 per year for a family of four. with the development program, it in clouds below 50% to serve lower-income households for other preference populations. the development program includes several court yards, podium-level garden, community rooms and teen rooms. now to the items we're asking for your approval on. first the exclusive negotiations agreement or e.n.a., it has an 18-month term with one 12-month extension. milestones are including a financing plan and schematic design drawings. once the designs have been approved, submission of design development documents just prior to the start of construction. the proposed predevelopment loan is for $4 million. it bears a 3% interest rate and

has a determine of three years or until it's converted to a permanent loan at construction closing, subject to commission approval. the development team will use these funds to develop the design and program for the project, complete survey and engineering work and develop a financing plan and secure that financing. no site work will happen prior to the completion of the survey testing and release of the final report as director sesay mentioned. no construction will occur during that time lasting until at least 2020. here's the community outreach we've done to date for this project. we've brought the full citizens advisory committee. last fall, we did an evening meeting with hilltop homeowners and brought the r.f.p. to the

commission prior to release. in january and february this year, we went back to the housing subcommittee to describe the process and recommend a developer team. the team will be going back to the c.a.c. and community with proposed schematic designs once they're more developed. as i mentioned before, the marketing of the units to preference populations is the highest priority. it will follow the shipyard and candlestick point preferences. other preferences, displaced tenants, rent-burdened households. the developer will work on a marketing plan and will get back to you as is complete. as with all of our projects,

consultants will be selected. it's under way and the team is preparing it select the general contractor. the developer is strongly encouraged to select a general contractor joint venture, including s.b.e. our current schedule, subject to change, has us coming back next spring. we'll request approval for permanent loan for the project and hoping to start construction by spring, 2020. i would like to introduce the team. from m.b.s., we have pauline uhl and jimmy li. and janet brown is here from b.h.p./m.s.s. that concludes my presentation, but i'm here to answer any questions, along with the

development team. thanks. >> clerk: we have one speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm oscar james. i'm a native resident of bayview-hunters point, as most of you know. first of all, i'm in agreement with this proposal with the $4 million, but-day have some problems with -- or questions on some of the items.

i see nowhere in here for homeless housing, for people who have been in bayview-hunters point all their lives who are homeless. you need to put aside some homeless housing in this particular project, and any project that comes out into bayview-hunters point, making sure some of those people in our community stay in our community. those who can afford and who cannot afford housing. the other thing i would like to ask for is the person who will be the landlord or the on site -- on site person to make sure that rentals be given, that person should come out of the community. i know one time before the agency had a program here where they trained people in the community. larry hollingsworth was one of

those persons. for the agencies to train someone to be from the community to be the property manager of the units out there in our community. the other thing i have strong concerns about is the contractors coming in there. it should be set aside for community or small business developers. and a lot of our problems are with small contractors is capacity. i would like for you to look into making sure that contractors have a capacity to do some of this work out here in hunters point shipyard. thank you very much. >> clerk: david springer.

>> afternoon, commissioners. first of all, this development looks amazing. it's better than what lennar promised us. so kudos. we all know what's going on in the shipyard with the fraud and the testing. so what i would love to see, putting the specter of fraud behind us. and improve trust in the city. could you add core sample-style testing on block 52 and 54. i know there's been testing done but it was a drive-behind, over street but not on top of the living spaces.

we don't know what's under there. but if there could be some independent testing with core sampling for things like radioactive material and industrial weights and make that public, it would go a huge, long way to improving relationships with the community and also developing trust because a lot of us out there don't have trust. i did not introduce myself properly. i'm a homeowner at the shipyard. so i'm living on top of it now. we're worried. if there was way to get good test data, that would be awesome. that's what i'm asking for. we would love it if public outreach was a little bigger. they did come and have a

meeting, but a lot of people couldn't make it, because we got short notice and it was one evening at an inconvenient team. if there was more public outreach and maybe more than one meeting, people could have authentic input, that would be awesome, too. and that's all i have. i can't wait until the building goes up. it will look great. thank you. >> clerk: no march speaker cards, madam chair. >> chair mondejar: hearing no further requests to speak, i will close public comment and turn to my fellow commissioners for any questions or comments. >> vice chair bustos: long time coming. this has been something that's been in the works for decades and the fact that we're now getting to a point -- i wish we could build it sooner, but i understand there's a process and want to thank the staff for

doing its work, so i just want to say that i'm glad we're doing this and would like to move this item forward for approval. >> chair mondejar: thank you. any other comments from the -- question, commissioner singh? >> commissioner singh: we're 3% interest rate and 50-year loan? >> this is a predevelopment loan, so it has a term of three years or until we roll it into that larger, permanent loan that we'll bring before you for approval. >> commissioner singh: when will they start paying the interest? >> not until after the predevelopment period. it's deferred at this point. >> commissioner singh: when is the completion date? >> the completion would be in 2022. >> commissioner singh: 2023? >> '22. >> commissioner singh: four years, yeah. thank you. >> sure. >> chair mondejar: thank you, commissioner singh. any -- yes, commissioner

rosales. >> commissioner rosales: i was interested in hearing and perhaps right now is not the time, but perhaps suggestions to the comment, the last speaker's comment, about the environmental assessment. i know we're adopting ceqa findings now. i know that's different. >> director sesay: to give background, parcel a was transferred in 2004. and as you know, the way the process works, the regulatory agencies do their review and then our local health department does its review. and at the time, it was deemed fine. since then with all the headlines and so on, we have transferred it to the developer for development and the over 300 units already completed. so in our conversations most recently after the supervisor

cohen had her public hearing and at the request of leader pelosi and mayor farrell at the time, they recommended a retest of parcel a. so to date, the funding from pelosi has led to retest. so public health is the ideal entity to do the test, because they've done it before. as of july 15, they started the testing and they've had had two h.o.a. meetings. because we don't have the experti expertise, in terms of conversations with the e.p.a. and other regulatory agencies, as well as department of public health, they're leading and

they've had two meetings in discussing the types of equipment we're doing and testing that is being done. my understanding is that there would be 30 days at least, because we're doing the areas where the residents reside, which is the hilltop and where this development is. and then they would extend it further to a2 and the rest of parcel a. so going through the retesting as we speak. and getting feedback from the h.o.a. and one of those was potentially trying to do more than what is being proposed and that conversation is happening. and i know that it released the california department of health status and there's another h.o.a. meeting that they will potentially schedule and potentially come back with something about how far they can -- >> so we'll have additional

information as time moves? >> yes. >> chair mondejar: thank you. i have a couple of questions. can you expand a little bit on your marketing outreach? >> sure. i think what we're going to do here is going to be the standard marketing and outreach we do. we haven't gotten to that point yet, but it usually begins right after construction starts. so that construction, as you know, takes a while. it takes almost two years. we would begin the outreach right around that time and do kind of several regular postcards and then some meetings specifically to c.o.p. holders about how to get ready for the housing and then as we get closer to the housing, we'll do meetings on this housing so people can have more info. we don't yet have the early outreach plan from the developer

because we're not yet at that stage. as we go through the process, we can explain that -- we can delve deeper into that. we expect to have similar outreach that we usually do, which begins right after construction starts and goes regularly throughout the construction period, so folks have enough time to get ready. >> >> chair mondejar: and this is by ocii and the developer? >> the developer convenes the meetings, but we review the plan and oversee it. and make sure that we're in agreement with it and make sure that ocii and most of the staff attend the meetings. >> chair mondejar: and your outreach to the residents, the neighbors are ongoing. how often do you rely on the c.a.c. meetings.

>> mostly for issues that relate to the homeowners and work with them to find a time that worked. they've attended the meetings for the updates. haven't had much more to bring them, because the design process hasn't fully gotten under way, as we're here to get the developer the money to do that. we expect to have one more meeting with the hilltop homeowners before that gets, you know, finalized to get the input on the design, but mostly, the c.a.c. is the route for public input, so we try to make sure that folks are plugged in to that mechanism. >> chair mondejar: thank you. if there are no other comments from my fellow commissioners, we have a motion from commissioner bustos. i need a second. double second from commissioners

singh and rosales. [laughter] madam secretary, can you please call the roll? [roll call] the vote is five ayes. >> chair mondejar: motion carries. madam secretary, can you call the next item? >> clerk: 5d, conditionally approving the schematic design of a five-story, mixed-use building comprised of 32 units, including five affordable units and ground floor retail at 4101 third street and adopting environmental findings, pursuant to the california environmental quality act, bayview industrial triangle redevelopment project area discussion and action, resolution 34-2018.

>> director sesay: this item before you is new. it's not one of three enforcement projects. this is within the bayview industrial triangle redevelopment plan, which expires in two years, but we have land use authority, which is why you are approving the schematic design on this building. you have approved two in this area. this one is being worked on, worked on for a long time. and we have the entire team here, who has been working on this including the development team. planning commission will be presenting on this item. i see we have a little mock-up model also. >> good afternoon. thank you, director sesay, and commissioners. i'm associate planner at ocii.

today we're seeking commission approval of the schematic design of a five-story mixed-use building with 32 units, including five affordable units and ground floor retail at 4101 third street in the bayview industrial triangle redevelopment project area. this is one of seven redevelopment areas in san francisco, where ocii has land use authority. no enforce abable obligation exists, but ocii retains regulatory authority for review within the departments. the bayview industrial project area was adopted in 1980 and ocii will maintain authority there until the plan expires in 2020. the project area is comprised of

about six city blocks within the bayview neighborhood. 4101 third street site is on a triangular parcel between innis and hudson. it's currently a vacant lot. further redevelopment plan maps are three land use districts. they're separate designations and supersede the zoning districts. it's within the commercial or residential district with residential units above ground floor commercial uses. the redevelopment boundary is shown as turquoise overlay and this is the correct zoning on this slide, sheet a1.2 in the packages, will be corrected to