>> commissioner richards: seconds. -- second. >> on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. >> close public hearing and declined to request the public variance. >> that will put us on case number 15. 1698 folsom street. this is a conditional use authorization. [please stand by]

no other exterior alterations or parking is exposed. the department has also received support. no opposition has been expressed. nor has any additional correspondence been issued since the draft case report. for retail uses that exceed 20,000 square feet that are not grocery stores, the project was required to provide an economic impact study analyzing employment analysis, fiscal

impacts, as well as leakage retail analysis and e.i.s. was prepared by hatch, dated september 2018, and is included as an exhibit in your case reports. cvs pharmacy and starbucks are considered formula retail uses with the additional three formula retail uses, the retail uses within the district would increase by approximately 3% from 3% to 6%, as measured by the number of store fronts by formula retail controls or by 8% in linear feet. the concentration formula retail uses within the vicinity that was a quarter mile of the property would remain at 15% as measured by the number of store fronts subject to formula retail controls. it would increase by 1% from 27% to 28% as measured in linear feet. the proposed signage program was

found to be consistent with the commission's performance-based design guidelines. the existing mix of daily needs services uses defined as limited restaurants, other retail sales and services, personal services, limited financial services and trade shop versus city-wide services represents predominantly city-wide serving uses within the district with 87.96% versus 4.63%, the daily needs retail uses. within the vicinity of the subject property, the existing mix also leans towards citywide resources at 87.64. the department recommends approval and believes the project is necessary and/or desirable for the following reasons. the project would no, ma'minall reduce in the zoning district and quarter-mile vicinity. the project is served by public

transit and meets the performance-based design guidelines, all applicable requirements of the planning code, the project is desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and lastly, the proposed formula retail uses will increase the amount of daily serving needs, which per the formula retail provided by the project sponsor of the survey are lacking both in the w.m.u.d. zoning district and the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? welcome. you've got five minutes. >> good afternoon, commission president hillis, vice president

melgar, and commissioners. my name is john dues. i'm the senior development manager for target corporation, and i'd like to start by just thanking the planning staff, particularly esmarelda for the comprehensive work they've put into this project. it's been a long process that we've worked diligently back and forth with planning staff. i'm joined today by my project architect and representatives from hatch, who are prepared to answer any questions regarding the economic impact report that was done for this project under the direction of the city staff, and our entire team is here to answer any questions that you may have from us. just very briefly, target plans to occupy the existing building with no physical expansion. we will be doing interior tenant improvements and will be sprucing up the parking lot with landscaping, screening, and also

installing new signage that's consistent with the city's formula retail guidelines. this is an ideal location for the project. the site has historically been used for formula retail, but has been largely vacant since the sports authority left in 2016. target will bring a number of benefits to the community, including reactivating and beautifying an underutilized building that was intended for retail use. it will be providing convenient access to a broad selection of goods and everyday necessities, providing a local pharmacy for area residents and workers, and creating up to 81 new permanent jobs with the local hiring of goal of at least 50%. it will be generating new economic activity and adding revenue to the city's general fund. target has demonstrated a

history of giving back to the community and being a good neighbor, and we will certainly continue that practice at this location. as you've seen in the packets that you received, there have been a number of letters of support from community partners attesting to this fact. you may know that target gives back 5% of our -- as a corporate policy we give back 5% of our income to local community organizations and groups, and this is unparalleled in the retail and business environment. as noted in the staff report, the new store will meet and exceed the city standards for formula retail controls, and we look forward to completing the project and the permitting process and the project if we do receive approval today. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you.

any public comment on this item? >> i understand that people want me to grab my chair at this moment, but i'd love to wait. i'll do it when i do it. again, orders as a board member chair, as president, and we will comply to it. the indication of the -- i forgot what the person was talking about, but this is an indication of i want those cameras out of my property. i don't want anybody watching my home or looking inside at us, and monitoring the property. we're going to establish the constitutional rights and we are going to acquire our liberty back. unfortunately, we have been stripped from it. we're back, so we're going to reduce it. i don't want to hear anything

about you anymore, and that's a fact. we're going to stop this hearsay and whispering. we're going to get to the subjects and the matter of the importance to the proposals and also proposals must be also in writing. if they are not, then we will not subject it. as a proposal, but we will initiate it as a community statement in regards to that matter. so we must have it on the proposals. i will be sitting in my chair and that's a fact. i want you to understand what we are going to be doing, as i indicated. i've been watching and a lot of things have occurred within the 45 minutes, half hour, and i identify those who have done so, and it is those faults that are going to terminate your employment, and that's a fact. so at the time when we terminate your employment, you're going to receive a letter, a memo, and

you will be fired. and without pay, you will have your assets freezed. you'll have no accessibility. and it is highly important that we take this matter to the utmost respect, because this is about reforming the government with me. sir, i apologize for not listening to your indication of your statement, but again, when i ordered the inspectors to inspect those buildings that were being built -- you need to step away from me -- [ bell rings ] now what i need this board to understand is immediately initiate an inspection of all those buildings. i want the whole entire building inspected. i want the building, i want the

earthquake resistance, and it must be on three levels of the building, so we must get in there. if it's not, we'll shut it down. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: thank you very much, sir. >> i don't want to -- >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> it is time to learn and listen. >> president hillis: appreciate it. thank you, though. appreciate it. >> secretary: sir, your time is up. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioners? 1690 folsom. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i agree with staff report. i looked at the half study, it was a formula retail use before, kind of a no man's land before

and i think it would improve the area. >> president hillis: commissioner? >> i agree, this is good. since it was a sports mart? >> president hillis: sports authority. >> it's just been sitting there and what a waste, because it's such a large parcel. but that stretch under the freeway seems to be a place where a lot of folks congregate, you know, and i do wish that there were more traffic -- pedestrian traffic on the street, there were more life, and so i guess this will be a really great addition, so i move to approve. >> second. >> secretary: very good, commissioners, if nothing further, move and second. with nothing further -- [ roll call ]

so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, place us on item 16, 2018-009337-cua, 3939 24th street, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president hillis and commissioners. here with department staff. the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for the removal and existing general grocery store use greater than 5,000 square feet in size, formerly doing business as real foods. the project includes minor -- >> president hillis: hold on, i'm sorry. shut the door. hello, hello? sorry, hello?

all right. give it a minute for folks to file in. sorry, we couldn't hear you. jacob, can you help us out there? all right, sorry, ms. montoya. all right, go ahead. >> okay. the project includes minor interior and exterior alterations of the existing building originally constructed in 1921 to accommodate proposed retail use. the project site is a 5,805 square foot property located on the south side of 24th street between noe and sanchez streets and within the 24th street, noe

street commercial district and bulk district. the immediate neighborhood includes one, two, three-story and mixed use developments, with mixed use developments consisting of commercial tenant spaces on the ground floor and residential units located above. the neighborhood includes a mix of land uses, including residential, retail, personal service, restaurants, and general grocery store, which is located directly to the north of the property, which is doing business as whole foods market. the item before you is required by planning code section 202.3 for the removal of general grocery store use greater than 5,000 square foot in size. the project sponsor has included support of the project, including noe valley association and the project has received three letters in opposition of the project, two of which were received after the publication of the packet. the department did receive two letters from members of the

public which expressed concern with project's lack of proposed additional housing at the property. the base is approximately 5,490 square feet in size and was last operated in 2003. the place is vacant and remained vacant since the departure of real foods company. since 2003, the property has been sold on three different occasions. subject tenant space to new grocery store use is due in large part to the economic viability of the grocery store at the location and the proximity to thriving big box general grocery store doing business as whole foods market. the project complies for the removal of the general grocery store use greater than 500 square feet in size pursuant to planning code section 2023.

recommends the approval for the following reasons. the department finds the project is on balance and consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. the project will remove the general grocery store that is no longer economically viable and provide a service that enhances and re-enforces the commercial corridor. the project will not displace an existing business, but rather provide new business and job opportunities to neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan fratten for the project sponsor, who recently purchased this very long vacant retail store on 24th street in noe valley. i'm here this afternoon to request you lift the grocery store designation from the building, which hasn't been yeared as a grocery store for the last 15 years. for those not familiar, a bit of

context and background. the building is a single-story building with a mezzanine about 5490 square feet, just shy of 500 square feet over the 5,000 square foot threshold for requiring a c.u. for grocery store removal. the last grocery store was closed we a prior owner in 2003 and has remained vacant ever since. that's not especially surprising. there's a full-service grocery store across the street with 39 off-street parking spaces. it was a market from 2003 to 2009 and has been a whole foods since. there's also a walgreens on the next block and a weekly farmer's market on the next block to the east. between these retailers and online delivery services, there isn't a demand for another general grocery store in the neighborhood, particularly in a relatively small space like this one. as you probably know, shopping

streets throughout the city are experiencing increased vacancy due to changes in the retail environment. this is not by any stretch the only vacant retail space on 24th street. however, it is the only vacant retail space where any incoming tenant besides a grocery store needs a conditional use. so if you're a business owner looking for a location on 24th street, you have a choice. you can rent space here in a building that needs significant upgrades after 15 years of disuse, and take on the expense, uncertainty, and delay of going through a conditional use requirement, but adds four to six months to the entitlement process, or you can move into another vacant space that isn't similarly encumbered. the rational choice here is pretty obvious and helps explain why this space has been vacant so long and absent a removal of

the grocery store designation, it's likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. simply put, tenants aren't going to be interested in a building if it's at a competitive disadvantage, vis-a-vis other retail spaces. so we're asking here that you put this building on an equal footing with others on 24th street. with your approval today, the owner is willing to make significant up-front investments in store front and seismic upgrades and hopefully attract a tenant to it in the very near future. in your packages you actually have ten letters of support from neighborhood residents and merchants who support the c.u. request. these include letters from the executive director of the noe valley association, the president of the noe valley merchants and professionals association, all of them believe reactivating this vacant store front will benefit other neighborhood merchants and the neighborhood more broadly. with that, commissioners, i'll

respectfully request your support and, of course, i'm available to answer any of your questions. thank you and thank you for getting us to here today. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll open this up for public comment. i have a couple speaker cards. deborah newman, carolyn kennedy. if others would like to speak, please line up on the screen-side of the room. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deborah newman, executive director of the noe valley association, community betterment district. the space has been empty 15 years. i understand why a c.u. was put in place, but we don't need another grocery store on 24th street, we need an active merchants, so i'm encouraging you to release the c.u. on this build, and we'll be in the future, because we need to change the planning code for 24th street. it's pretty restrictive, and i really think we need to re-examine the planning code for

this commercial district. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you, ms. newman. next speaker, please. >> good day, commission president hillis and fellow commissioners. anastasia speaking today on behalf of our community organization. noe neighborhood council opposes a conditional use authorizing retail only on a site that's zoned for mixed-use commercial and residential buildings at 3939 24th street. it goes contrary to the planning department's densification policies for our city. this particular site can support numerous units and some b.m.r. units. it would be wasteful to squander the opportunity for developing more housing and adding housing at this location wouldn't result in displacement of any residents. it's uncertain whether the site could attract suitable merchants to withstand the volatility and

commercial enterprise today and operate there long term. small retail spaces directly across the street like avita and gnc did not last long. it's possible the ground-floor retail would remain vacant indefinitely, so why not build housing above and put the space that's been vacant for 15-plus years to good use? yesterday, commissioners, you received the late-breaking e-mail from susan crowell, a senior who lives two doors down in the two-story retail apartment building built for seniors. she works at folio bookstore on that same block and is in full support of housing at that site. when i attended the pre-meeting for the project, three spaces were exposed. i asked what about putting housing above retail. the architect, who doesn't have any experience in designing projects with housing, dismissed the idea because housing would

take three to five years to build. the representatives there for the project sponsor, a group of investors comprising in llc, told us the investor's intent was to put up the walls and divide the spaces. their intent was, quote, to knock it out by christmas and rent out the spaces. when the architect told us housing could always be added later, i pointed out that it would be unfair to displace the retail tenant after they had signed leases and moved their businesses into the spaces. commissioners, you know from previous hearings that noe valley residents are very interested, concerned, and involved in what goes into retail spaces in our neighborhood. [ bell rings ] in this case there's been absolutely no outreach by the project sponsor to the community. it's not fair to us. we live here, and we are not interested in how much profit investors generate from holding on to or selling a share of this

investment. we're interested in the benefit to our community. i believe the best and highest use for this space that's been vacant so long in the heart of noe valley is housing above retail. i hope you'll agree. >> president hillis: thank you, next speaker, please. >> secretary: like to remine members of the public to please silence mobile devices. >> good afternoon, my name is caroline kennedy. i chair the improvement club. our neighborhood is adjacent to the 24th street neighborhood commercial district. the long vacant property at 3939 24th street was acquired last year by m.w.a. llc, who promised to revive the site. unfortunately, the plans the project manager showed to me and other neighbors at the june 27th pre-application meeting featured interior improvements to create several retail shops and no housing. dhic, noe neighbors council and

individual neighbors gave feedback at that meeting, at that public meeting, pointing out the apartments above the retail shops would provide much-immediated housing for the community and add to the vitality of 24th street. we ask to add housing, the answer was no. i'm here today to ask you as the planning commissioners to continue this change of use to retail stores and to ask the project sponsors to modify their plans to include apartments above the ground floor retail use. approving a retail-only project today will be another lost opportunity to add much-needed housing in a site that is already zoned for mixed use. it contradicts our mayors, our supervisors and planning departments statements, actions, and policies to encourage greater housing density. this site can add housing without displacing kournt residents. producing more housing, protecting existing affordable

housing, while preserving what makes san francisco special, these are the top issues on san franciscans minds, as you know. this project can include housing that's in context with 24th street. there are many -- much housing across the entire block that's housing above retail. in a city without predominantly existing building sites available, every project, even as small as this one, counts to achieving our housing targets. so i ask you as our city planning policy and decision making body to take this action for balanced growth. please, continue the conditional use authorization for this project and ask a developer to include housing in the project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, i'll close public comment and open up to commissioners.

commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: 15 years is a long time. supportive of the project today. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: 15 years is a long time, i agree, but i think the idea of looking at the site with a slightly broader view of just placing the use and reinterpreting it is more important to me, so i'm wondering if you could comment why could we look at the site as a mixed-use project? >> certainly, commissioner, you can look at it. i mean, it's not -- that's not what's in front of you, so it's similar to other projects that you have on your calendar today. so, i mean, it's certainly up to you. i mean -- but you can only really judge the project that's in front of you, not a project that's speculative at this

point. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to personally express interest and take a broader view. i think we are pushed against the wall relative to what we need to look at, and again, we're supporting its uses, the interpretation of commercial from grocery to whatever, but it should be combined with a consideration for housing. we cannot afford, since we do not have accessible amounts of land to let an opportunity like this go by. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: yeah, so i'm torn on this one, because it's so small. i think that -- i've said this before when we talk about 24th street and the discussion on formula retail, i think that part of the issue in so many vacant store fronts is the lack of density. retail has already changed, and what was pencilled out 25 years ago may not necessarily pencil out today, so i do think having

more customers in the corridor is one of the solutions for helping the commercial corridors thrive. i do think that we should be exploring housing above commercial at every opportunity. however, this is the fairly small project, and 15 years is a long time, and having a vacant, you know, store front does affect everyone else. and i cannot imagine how another grocery store, good as it may be, can compete with a whole foods, you know, in such proximity. so i'm actually leaning towards approving this as-is, but i'd like to hear about what other commissioners have to say. >> president hillis: i'd say i support this also. we're not precluding a project coming to us that would have housing and retail. all we're saying is there was this c.u. put on the books so

that grocery stores wouldn't leave and they would be encouraged to replace grocery stores with other grocery stores. this was when cala closed and people wanted to see grocery stores reoccupying those sites where grocery stores are. i don't think this was what the legislation was necessarily getting at, which i think is reflective by the 5,000-square-foot notion in there. so, yeah, i think it would be great. come back with a housing project, come back with a retail project, but it has been a long time. this project has had a tortured past. i've walked by here hundreds of times and scratched my head as to why this kind of section of 24th street has remained vacant, so i'd love to see something done with it. i'd prefer housing, but nothing we're doing here precludes us from those things happening. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so,

you know, i stand up here, or sit up here each week and i talk about the pipeline and the current zoning and the 141,000 possible units, you know, we have 1,600 jackson, we have this one, but we scratch and a fight for every other unit somebody tries to take off the market and we have to come back under section 317 to bring back to life. that all being said, we can't compel the project sponsor to do anything that they don't want to do, otherwise we'd mandate the buildings to be built we're currently capable of. this site has sat vacant forever, but don't kid ourself, nobody is going to propose a housing project to disrupt the businesses there, this would be the time to do it. it's gone, we're not going to get another grocery store there. we are precluding housing there for many, many years.

>> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the size itself definitely lends it to looking at something else. the size is 50'10", that's twice a typical residential site, 114 feet deep, so at a minimum you could get two floors of residential. over this retail place, including you have already taller buildings on either side, so this would replicate itself as a single story, zone retail, but it would replicate itself in a slightly more intense mixed-use fashion, and use a whole lot width and consider two stories of housing over this 51-foot lot. >> president hillis: again, i think nothing we're doing here disallows that from happening. i agree with commissioner richards, you start getting leases in there probably unlikely it goes to housing above, but now is the time for

the property owner, i don't know, mr. frattin, do you want to say, is the property owner exploring a housing project here? and if so, what? >> dan frattin, so i will agree with a point that there's nothing that we're asking today that's incompatible with a future use of this site for housing. removing the grocery store designation is the first step to doing anything with this property other than finding another grocery store to go in it. one key fact that i think figures into this discussion and if you look at the categorical exemption for this site that's in your package, you'll see that the planning department has determined that this building is historic, so it's not a particularly easy site for housing. demolishing a historic building means doing an e.i.r.,

preserving the building and putting housing above also is a lengthy process. it's one that usually results in less density. this is a small site that i think you get about nine units on maximum. with today's construction cost environment, neither option is really viable for a site this small, and without a c.e.u. for the grocery store removal, during, you know, the five years it takes to go from design concept to actually doing construction on a site, you have another five years of vacancy, because there is no c.u. to remove the grocery store use. i think you have a strong record of support from people in the neighborhood, who really want to see this building reused sooner rather than later, and they

correctly see that more vacancy is just more of a detriment to this neighborhood and to the neighborhood shopping environment, so i would, you know, i would ask that you consider that when you consider whether to grant the c.u. today. thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i move to approve with a recommendation that the project sponsor explore housing in any way, shape, or form on this site in the future. >> second. >> second. >> president hillis: to that point, too, i think, mr. frattin, you could do a project that alters this building and adds units in the back. they'd get less units, but sounds like there's members of the community that would support that, you know, as well as adding retail to the ground floor. so i'm supportive of the motion. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: mr. frattin, what i said was never said in exclusion of supporting, if you don't mind coming up,

what i said was not said in rebuttal of approving what's in front of us, but it was putting forward, as commissioner richards summarized, the encouragement for this to be considered, and i will support a motion that does so, and i hope you can accept that and help support it, as you have talked with your client and chaperoning through the next steps. >> yeah, certainly we can accept a condition to consider that. >> commissioner moore: that's great, thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. jonas, motion and a second. >> secretary: indeed, on a motion to approve with conditions, explore housing component at this site. [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us on item 17 a and b, 2018-000908-cua and ahb at 2601

van ness avenue, this is a conditional use authorization. and home-sf project authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. chris may of planning department staff. >> president hillis: all right, mr. may, if we could ask those leaving the room to do it quietly. we'd appreciate it. go ahead. >> thank you. you have before you request for conditional use and home-sf project authorization for a nine-story 84-foot tall building with ground floor commercial uses on a currently vacant lot, which is located within the rc-3 zoning district, height and bulk district and van ness area plan, dwelling unit mix consisting of 27 one-bedroom units, 26

two-bedroom units, and 36 three-bedroom units. commercial uses are proposed split into three spaces. 70 below-grade parking spaces accessed via filbert streets, as well as 9 class-two parking spaces. the project also includes 6,634 square feet of common space for residents on a shared roof deck. the project is seeking conditional use authorization for building height greater than 40 feet on a lot with more than 50 feet of frontage in an rc-3 zoning district, pursuant to planning code section 253 and a bulk exception for the portion of the building greater than 40 feet pursuant to planning code section 271. the project sponsor is also seeking conditional use authorization to allow residential offstreet parking at a rate of 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit, whereas planning code section 151 permits a maximum of 0.5 spaces per

dwelling unit. given the location well served by transit options, including the future van ness b.r.t., planning does not support residential off-street parking, which is principally permitted. the department recommends approval of the project with a maximum 54 off-street parking spaces, 30 for the proposed reside residential uses and 24 for the commercial uses. should the commission be inclined to approve the increase in parking, planning staff have prepared additional findings pursuant to planning code section 303-u. this project is the first to be brought before the commission to participate in the home-sf program, which provides incentives in the form of development bonuses and zoning modifications for units on site at below-market rate in an amount higher than that required by the inclusionary housing ordinance. this project proposes to provide

30%, or 18 of the 60 total proposed dwelling units as permanently affordable in exchange for two extra floors totalling 19 additional feet of building height, as well as relief from the building resident requirements, which would have capped the total number of dwelling units on the site to 27. the project is not seeking any additional building height in order to achieve the required ceiling height of 14 feet for the proposed non-residential uses on the ground floor. the home-sf program also requires the project to a dwelling unit requirement and allows the commission to grand exceptions to the rear yard requirements of planning code section 134 and non-residential use limits pursuant to planning code section 203. since the publication of the staff report, the department has received seven e-mails in response to the project,

including two from representatives of the russian hill community association and the golden gate valley neighborhood association. their opposition relates primarily to the increased building height on the basis that it would block private views and be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. a significant number of design changes have been made to the project since it was originally submitted to the planning department. that's the building as it was proposed earlier this year. the project had large non-code compliant obstructions over the public right-of-way and a more institutional rather than residential appearance. these have been replaced by increased vertical modulations of the facade and more traditional bay window directions. the addition of awnings, overhangs, and solidify on the ground floor provide an appropriate pedestrian scale at

ground level and reduction in the parapets reduce the overall massing of the building. in adopting the home-sf program, the planning commission acknowledged that in order to achieve the program's affordable housing goals, most qualifying projects would need to be larger in height and massing than their surroundings, however, the commission may make minor modifications to a project to reduce the impacts of such differences in scale consistent with the affordable housing program design guidelines. given its context on van ness avenue, the department finds that the proposed bulk and massing of the building, the design of the lower floors, and the proposed street scape improvements are consistent with the guidelines. the project sponsor has agreed to continue to work with the planning department staff in response to the commission's feedback to further refine the architectural treatments, facade design, and develop high-quality materials to be used on all the facades. the department finds that the project is on balance,

consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, including the van ness avenue area plan. the additional building height and density conferred to the project through the home-sf program would yield 33 additional on-site market rate units and 18 below-market rate units below that approved by the planning commission in march of 2014. that 27-unit, six-story building proposed to meet its inclusionary affordable housing requirements by paying a fee, rather than by providing affordable units on site. the planning department recommends the commission approve the project on the basis it represents the appropriate development of the vacant property in an area to support residential growth and proposes land uses that are overall in conformity with the objectives of the general plan and the planning code. this concludes my presentation, and i am available for further questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. project sponsor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. on behalf of van ness terraces, just some background on the project, before we get into the design. this commission entitled a 65-foot tall building at the site back in 2014. that building maxed out the density, which is 27 units, and it was entitled with zero on-site affordability. as you just heard from mr. may, this project proposes 60 units with 18 affordable units. it's 30% of the entire project will be affordable. one way of thinking about this project is that it's adding 33 additional residential units with more than half of which will be affordable. this project is expected to provide housing for teachers, government employees, first responders, construction workers, elderly on fixed income, and others who are finding it increasingly difficult to stay in san francisco. we think this is an ideal

location for a project of this size. it's a corner site along one of san francisco's major transit corridors at the base of russian hill, replacing an empty lot. as you heard, the project is proposing 45 residential parking spaces, which is 0.75-1 ratio. this is actually a lower ratio than the 2014 project. that project had a 1-1 ratio. the zoning has changed since then. a number of neighbors expressed strong support for the project sponsor to include as much residential parking as we can get, and that is particular for neighbors that live close by. parking in this part of town is in extremely short supply, and we think it is neighborly to try to minimize additional demand. residential parking will be in stackers, that makes it harder for residents to get out, and disincentivize daily trips. just as importantly, additional parking does not detract from active use, screening, street scape improvements or design

features. a little bit of outreach before i introduce the architect. we had a pre-application meeting in january. we actually overnoticed that meeting to include neighborhood groups that are registered in both the russian hill and marina areas. the border is the side of van ness, so we decided to overnotice to get as many people as a possible at our pre-application meeting. we did a presentation to the van ness council in june. the van ness council is kind of a cooperative group full of the registered neighborhood groups up and down the van ness corridor, going all the way down to city hall. and just this past september we did a presentation to the golden gate valley neighbors. feedback we got can be split into three topics. we received design feedback that the architect will walk you through that we think we've incorporated. we received mixed messages about the amount of parking, and we heard comments about the building size.

and specific to size, as i said before, we think this is a perfect location to accommodate the additional height that is allowed in home-sf. this project is not casting any shadow on protected parks. we've worked with staff actually to minimize the amount of height that is added to the 2014 approved project. we are matching the light wells of adjacent properties to the extent we possibly can, and we're not affecting any public view corridors. we're really happy to be here, as the first and only home-sf program in the year and a half since that program was proposed. and we cannot deliver the additional 30% affordability without the additional two stories of height. so with that i'd like to introduce the architect, albert costa. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name's albert costa from

costa brown architecture, the architect for the project sponsor. can you put this -- okay. >> president hillis: going to use the mike next to the computer. >> secretary: it's on. >> okay. i have something on the computer. >> president hillis: there you go. >> okay, so the project site is on the corner of philbert and van ness u.s. 101. the site is currently unoccupied. it's vacant. van ness is a high density corridor with many buildings of various sizes. with a wide variety of eclectic and diverse architectural styles. these are photos from around the site, block faces. you can see the empty site right there. currently has a cyclone fence around it. this is the proposed site plan. the building is an "l"-shaped

plan, mixed use project. it has adjacent properties on either side that enclose the site. it goes right back to the corner. the rear yard has been located, because it's a corner site, to the upper left-hand side here, and you can see on the site plan that on this level, there is a -- there is a yard or a public open space located on the third floor. the residential entry is located off of philbert street and, as well as the vehicle entry is off of philbert. there would be a white curb loading zone also in front of the residential area, residential entry, and for the commercial. this is a bulk diagram. as mark was saying, the home-sf allows the two additional

stories on top of the previously approved project in height limit. you can see the different colors, the darker color is the additional heights and then on the lower story you can see the commercial ground floor, and then the residential in the middle. this is a straight-on elevation of the van ness side. and the design of the facade, we've really changed it from the first one you had seen. the facade now utilizes bay windows for a vertical emphasis and elegance. the verticality is juxtaposed at the bottom by a horizontalty by the active ground retail and there's this lower band right above there where we're emphasizing copper panels. the design of the bay windows is sometimes open-ended.

you can see it's kind of like a "c," and that's providing a sense of movement or contemporary interpretation of the bay window. and as we all know, the bay windows are all over san francisco. the facade materials will be white copper panelling, a rain screen, which would be terra-cotta in material, and then there will be copper both at the top and at the bottom. it's in the brown color. here's the other elevation on philbert street, residential entry, verticality of the bay windows. this is a side elevation, which is depicting our effort to on the blank side adjacent to the property lines, we are going to be doing some articulation on

the side of the buildings. here's the other side. the side is going to be a concrete structure, which is going to be seismically safe and noncombustible, and the bay windows that are overhanging are going to be providing shadow and design interest for the project. i show this slide because when you see it straight on, on elevation, the bay windows are separated and some of the bands of the frames are heavily emphasized, but when you shorten it and the way you see it going down the streets, either van ness or philbert, everything is foreshortened, so looks different in real life. you never really see things straight-on.

this is a typical garage floor plan. we have three levels of below-grade parking with a total of 70 parking spots proposed. the typical ground floor plan. the ground floor plan, we've cut it up into three commercial spaces, which are medium sized and easily rented. the -- at the bottom is going to be the residential entry with the elevators, and then the vehicle, modest vehicle entry off to the left-hand side of the residential entry. again, the sidewalks in this site are very wide, and they will be landscaping and trees made. that's a typical floor plan showing our bay windows, how they fit in the envelope of the bay windows. our occupied roof plan. and then these are sections of the sidewalk showing the

pedestrian scale overhangs and the pedestrian scale of the overall project with entries there. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: all right, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> president hillis: so we'll open this item up for public comment. i have a number of speaker cards and others who would like to speak, please do so. flora clarke, dennis blum, diana josephs, sherman kay, tommy tang, and mary russell. uh. >> secretary: i need to ask those persons who are standing in the room to please find a seat. if you can't find a seat, technically you're not supposed to be in the room, and those of you standing in front of the doorway cannot stand there. >> president hillis: there are seats available. >> secretary: there does appear to be some seats available, so if you intend to stay in the room, please find a seat. >> president hillis: all right. >> hi, laura foot, i know,

changing. and this is the first home-sf project. it's really exciting. it stinks that it might be the only home-sf project. it does sort of demonstrate that we put a lot of bells and whistles into the home-sf project and if we want developers to be choosing the home-sf program that we worked so hard on, oh, my goodness, if we want them to be opting into that program, we need to demonstrate that it means that you will get your permits. and that they won't opt for the state density bonus, which developers are already wanting to do, because it seems easier, and the whole point of having that state floor that we set means that with the home-sf program that we have locally has to be a better option for them. it has to be something that we want to do locally and we have to make sure we are encouraging people to take that program. and so i want to really make

sure that we are not clogging this up. i understand that there will be parking concerns. we bat the developers back and forth about parking. you know, we put them through the wringer and they add more parking in and we yell at them for putting the parking in and we demand they take it out. if you do it quickly, i don't really care which side you come out on, but we have to do it quickly. we need to get these housing projects built faster. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, ms. foot. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is diane josephs, and i own property on union street between polk and van ness, and my property and a number of other people's property are very detrimentally impacted by this project, and unfortunately we were given no notice, despite a promise in

2014 from the architect and the owner that we would be given notice of any further changes. as i understand it, the russian hill department was given late notice, and they told me that last night. i'd like to put this picture that is from the -- not very good -- okay. circled what is -- what are the surrounding buildings, which are really 40-foot buildings and look a lot like the rest of the neighborhood. i have brought signatures from 17 other people that are extremely concerned, five of which were also promised to have some notice regarding this project. the issue, as i see it, i guess,

is that i've lived and owned my property for a long, long time. i live on the russian hill side of van ness. we are very much impacted by anything that goes on, on van ness, and we never get -- i guess we don't get notice. i'm not exactly sure how that happens, but in 2003 we did get notice of this project, which are proposed about the same amount of units, i guess, as the 2014 proposal. apparently the owner decided not to go forward and instead in 2014 bootstrapped the conditional use finding that was made in 2003 for a much more modest project, and that is what was always approved. and now we come to here, 15 years later, apparently didn't go through with the 2014 project, 15 years later now we're bootstrapping those conditional use findings from

the 2003 project, and the justifications for such things as claiming that the comfort inn is typical of this neighborhood, that that would give us this nine-floor building, which will actually be ten or 11 by the time they finish with all the other things, and it is way -- it is just too much of an impact on our neighborhood. the height, particularly, but the bulk, everything. it is a huge lot. there is no reason that 60 units couldn't have been put into 65, which is the conditional use limit. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: thank you, ms. joseph. >> thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> i'm sorry. i would like to leave copies of the other signatures. is that possible? >> president hillis: yep, please do. leave them right there. [ please stand by ]