>> for case numbers 180-0724. and var574, conditional use authorization and variance. are proposed for continuance to march 24th, 2019. further commissioner is under the regular calendar, 7 for case number 22. i do believe there is -- >> okay. do we have any public comment? yes, go ahead. >> hello. commission president melgar, commissioners. jeremy shob, representing 754 35th avenue. we request a two-week continuance for additional dialogue with the neighbors.

that's it. >> president melgar: okay. thank you very much. i have a card from rose tillson. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would also agree with the continuance of the small business permit streamlining things, due to some vague residential sections. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. any other public comments on the continueance calendar? okay that. with that public comment is closed. commissioner? >> move to continue to the dates proposed. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, a motion seconded to continue items as proposed on that motion, commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore commissioner richards? >> aye. >> and commission president melgar? >> aye. >> so moved commissioners, passes unanimously 5-0.

>> item 1-b, continue the variance to march 14th as well. >> thank you. commissioners, place this under commission matter, consideration of adopt draft minutes for february 14th, 2019. >> president melgar: do we have any public comment on the minutes? from february 14th? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. y , move to approve minutes. >> second. kirk thank you, commissioners. on the motion to adopt the minutes for february 14th, 2019. commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner richards? >> aye. >> commissioner president melgar? >> neigh. >> clerk: the motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> president melgar: commissione r richards? >> excuse me. >> commissioner richards: i guess a couple of things. we have a river of rain that hit

us this week. we also have a river of new bills coming out of sacramento that are going to affect san francisco. recently we had ad68, which on my first glance at it, actually affects the rent controlled portion of adus. ab69, ab587 that allows subdivision of adus. sb330 which regulates the size and the permitting process on adyou know and other things. and ab1515. so i just want to feel like we're being overwhelmed. we don't have any idea what these bills are going to -- how they're going to affect us. i'm really concerned about ab330 and the affect on the policies. [bell ringing] the flats policy in terms of use size and things. and i met with anne marie rogers and asked her to please take a look at sb330. the other ones are also affecting us, especially the one around represent control.

the other thing is two weeks in a row in the examiner and one in the chronicle, there was an article from somebody from labor, we sort absolutely building nor -- more housing, we'll need 200,000 workers to construct them. so, you know, we can approve all we want, if there's nobody to build them, we're going to be in a pickle. i just wanted to bring people's attention to that. lastly, the most funny thing, two weeks ago i think we were talking about plan bay area 2040. i made a comment and said, how can we plan so far in advance because we don't know where technology is taking us, the velocity, the changes are so big and the velocity so fast, what's going to happen in 25 years. we just have no idea. you have to look at transportation network companies, uber, the sharing economy, all of this stuff. i said -- prognosticated about a

futurist. we're talking about transit around housing -- around transit corridors. we may be flying in cars by then. lo and behold, yesterday there's an article about flying cars that are being developed. uber is planning on doing a flying uber car, too. so, i mean, i really want to understand we're planning today based on what we think happens today, but a lot of things happening tomorrow where t.o.d. may be mute. who knows. thanks. >> president melgar: thank you, commissioner. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: earlier today, president melgar and myself had the privilege of attending a press conference with honorable mayor breed, to announce the success of the latest directives to increase accessory to all dwelling production. ourselves were there along with building inspection commissioners, fire commissioners and a host of other, you know, groups within

city government. but it was just a really good way to actually put this into some context as well, because we were standing in front of six garages that were going to be turned into four units, two studios and two one-bedrooms. and, you know, what you realize when you go and show up to the actual building, is this is so common, because it's being done during a soft-story retrofit. and that, you know, the units are on the ground level. so it's going to be a lot more helpful helpful helpful for saint-jean -- senior handicapped people. we're seeing numbers of over 900 additional units coming through the city's pipeline and thanks to planning staff, who has been doing a lot of the littlework with the other departments and the mayor, mayor's leadership, we're getting a lot more housing built. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners we can move on to department matters. director's announcements. >> thank you. commissioners, i wanted to also next the press conference and in particular wanted to thank two

staff people who have been dramatical for making this happen. marcell and natalia. natalia is the 24/7 or i guess at least a eight or nine hours a day on adu. she's our adu person. one of the innovative things they develop is the the roundtable where all departments are reviewing the plans at the same time. and that's become a very interesting motto. we were able to get through over 900 units that are in the backlog in six months. so maybe less than six months actually. so i'm really excited about that. we are seeing new applications at the rate of about 500 a year in adus. and 90% of them are -- will be rent-controlled, because they're being in rent-controlled buildings. so it is providing not only more housing supply, but a housing supply that's more affordable than the typical new market rate buildings that are built. so we're really excited about that and we're looking forward to kind of using this as a model

for how we streamline other work. thank you. >> exactly what i was going to ask was, a great model to replicate for nonhousing production. because things tend to take long. >> president melgar: through the chair, please, commissioner. okay. >> clerk: board of appeals and preservation commission. >> i ask the commissioners, elective affairs, this week the committee didn't have any planning items on it. at the full board this week, the landmark designation for 460 -- and 2828 bryant street passed the first read and the ordinance to rezone 170 of valencia street. and the changes to section 190 for conversion of medical cannabis dispensary, uses to cannabis retail, which was sponsor by the city administrator's office. the hearing for the environmental determination met 2131 pierce street was conditioned for one week, at the request of the district

supervisor. that's all i have for you today. >> clerk: seeing no questions, we can move on to general -- oh, there's no board of appeals report or historic preservation commission report, we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of matter to the commission. with respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. there were two speaker cards. >> president melgar: yes. i have georgiagia shuttish and rose hillson. anyone else, please come up. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners. on the first day of february, there was an article in the "wall street journal" about the $41 million penthouse at the avery, i believe that's where it was at.

and they said it was the highest asking price, but they forgot about 950 lombard, which was $45 million, which was the illegal demolition and unit merger, which still apparently has not stalled. so what's my point? well, i think that with all of these things that you've approved and have gotten built, particularly in the multi-unit -- major multi-unit buildings, it would be really interesting to understand the occupancy of these buildings, as you go ahead -- i mean, a thing in the paper this morning about the arena numbers, the study, which is really interesting and it says you get a b plus. maybe you deserve a higher grade than that. i think taken into consideration needs to be how these units are occupied. i see some of the units that were built in the valley, high-end luxury homes and i know that they are occupied part time. i know this one at $41 million will be occupied part-time. i mean, if you have $41 million to spend, you're not going to live there all the time.

it's like the penthouse in new york city i talked about a few weeks ago, the quarter of a billion dollar penthouse, where they tore down a 20-story building to build a 79-story building. that's extreme. we don't have that situation in san francisco. but it's not far off the mark. i do encourage you to think about the occupancy. as i said, how can you do that? well, you can look at the water records. because the water will tell you how much usage there is. you can get the average by how many people can live in a unit. [bell ringing] and what the average usage is. and you can compare if they're there for a month, you know, for the opera and then the rest of the year it's empty, you can compare and i think it really is important information as you proceed when you analyze all of these bills that are coming from the state. so here's the copy of the article for you, included one for the city attorney. and i do hope you can consider it. i know there are privacy issues. you don't need to find out the names of the people. you can get the water department

to give you a big download of information and all of the brilliant people in the department maybe can figure something out from that. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you, ms. shuttish. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again. this is a letter from the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods on -- and the subject is state bills. and i'm glad that commissioner richards went over some of these multitude of state bills coming fast and furious. this letter overhead, please. anyway. i have copies for you, too. instead of reading them at your diet, i'll kind of put it into the record. subject is senate bill 50, sponsored by senator wiener. planning and zoning, housing development, equitable communities. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, oppose the senate bill 50, concerns include the

following. it upzones all parcels in san francisco, result in the loss of residential areas, result in elf doers making zoning decisions. deregulates local zoning. it does not create affordability, no trickle-down effect. less housing to be built due to cost for labor. i mean, where are the people that are going to build it? land, materials, for example. no fee for affordable housing. process creates entitlements to raise property values without certainty of buildings being built. and coalitions understanding is that a public hearing before the planning commission would occur on sb50. please advise when that would occur, that's on the fast track to sacramento. as far as other bills, we'll be making some other -- turning in some other letters. here are your copies. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you, ms. hillson. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. san francisco planning staff, my

name is carolyn kennedy, i chair the neighborhood association west of dolores park. i'm here to ask, first, where is the detailed analysis of senate bill 50? and, two, that you hold a hearing on senate bill 50 and casa, where you take a vote and you send your findings to the board of supervisors. i need this as your citizen and under your charter as planning commissioners. at the january 31st legislative session, i asked how it will affect my neighborhood and my city. i know this bill will upzone 90% of all residential neighborhoods. and so senate bill 50 and casa is companion piece, will have a broader and deeper impact on our residential neighborhoods. and on the density, the massing, the appearance of our built environment. and our mid-block open spaces and our other elements of where

we live in this city. than any other bill or ordinance that i'm familiar with. so i'm asking you to have a sense of urgency about this. not just for me, this is isn't going to affect any. i'm already retired. it's for the future of our city, for the young people who want to live here, for the families, for those who are already here, who are very housing insecure. we need to really look at this and take a stand for san francisco for the behemoth of a juggernaut of a housing crisis. so please hold a hearing on these two items. and i ask you to take action to help us understand how well this senate bill 50 solves san francisco's housing crisis. that's what we need to tell our state legislators. specifically i want answers to these questions. since san francisco exceeds its rina, goals for market-rate

housing, why do we need the incentives in senate bill 50 to build market-rate housing? now there's no inclusionary percentage in that. i don't think we're going to see one. i think that's going to be a carrot hanging out there for a long time and we need to just look at what we're doing in the city. i doubt the senate bill is going to come up to the level that we already need. so since we need more affordable housing and i know you have done tons of studies. i'm not going to make the case here. i know the case has been made, especially at the moderate level. [bell ringing] for our city workers, health care workers, middle-income families. does this build mandate more affordable housing than we do currently? why would we offer developers more incentives to produce nor market-rate housing in the hottest real estate markets in the country. and what alternatives do we have as san francisco to get a significantly higher percentage of affordable units. we can't do it all. if we do senate bill 50, we are giving up an opportunity to do some important things for our city. let's use these valuable

incentives in san francisco and more affordable housing. [bell ringing] i ask you, as soon as possible, bring forward senate bill. >> president melgar: just for area information, we do plan on holding a hearing on march 14th. >> oh, great. >> president melgar: and there will be the accompanying analysis for everyone. >> thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. >> step one. thank you. oh, sorry. can you say that into the microphone. >> as i mentioned several times, we're doing that analysis. part of the reason we waited until now, the final version of the bill has still not been submitted. there are still many changes coming on s.b.50. we are doing an analysis, if i may, that we will present to you on march 14th, one way or another. and that report will be part of the commission packet, which will be out next friday. >> president melgar: thank you, commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: when we had s.b.827 in the gestation

to the final bill, we did have one major changes made, we did have another version of the impact analysis and another shorter hearings on it. i believe we took a vote in the end. we sent it to the board. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to the regular calendar. for item six. , homeless shelters and pdr, this is an administrative code and planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kate oner, planning department staff. permit homeless shelters in the adu and sal districts during a declared shelter crisis. hodgkin's lymphomaless shelters may be permanent constructed during this period. the proposed ordinance amendses code to authorize the department of homelessness and public works to establish an expedited

contracting process for homeless shelters and programs, as well as authorizing h.s.h. to operate navigation centers for longer than two years. i am joined today by emily cowen from the mayor's office, who would like to say a few words abouted proposed ordinances and declared shelter crisis. >> thank you, commissioners. emily cohen from mayor breed's office. i just want to walk you through a little bit of context related to the ordinance before you, for consideration today. as everyone probably in this room and in this city knows, san francisco is struggling with a significant crisis of homelessness in our community. we estimate from our point in time count, on any given night we have 7500 people living homeless in our community, 4300 of those folks are unsheltered. so living our -- the slides in front of you discuss the level of need we see within the community.

the vulnerability of folks living outside. we consistently have over 1,100 people waiting on the shelter waiting list, people sleeping outdoors and who want to come inside. i think that there's -- i just came from downstairs, at the board of supervisors, where there's a hearing on the topic right now. i think there's obviously a consensus around the level of need in our community. in 2018, we passed the -- the city passed an ordinance declaring an emergency related to homelessness. and this emergency was rather narrow, but did allow public works and the department of homelessness to expedite the contracting procedures for specific shelter sites. and this was very helpful. we open three new navigation centers in the time, adding 340 new beds to the system, which is much faster than we've been able to build and open shelters in the past. and this ordinance expires tomorrow. and so back in january 2015 --

sorry, excuse me, january 15th, mayor breed introduced up to pieces of legislation that renew this shelter crisis. we have not -- we have not worked our way out of that crisis yet and the need continues. so the two pieces of legislation, that the mayor introduced, one of which is before you today, discusses the changes to the planning code, allowing shelters to be permissibly permitted in pdl and service a-- sali. allowing for the extended use of navigation centers and it also builds in some safeguards, which include a required robust community process on behalf of the department to work with the community before opening a specific homeless service site. ensures accountable for reporting requirements to the board and has a termination of five years or until we reduced

homelessness to 30% in the community. i'll turn it back over to kate and i can be available for questions. >> so the planning code changes include being able to -- without a conditional use authorization. currently within these districts, shelters are authorized through the conditional use authorization process, and may operate for a period of four years. this requirement does not preclude a project sponsor from applying for another conditional use authorization, to continue that operation. le this ordinance is also seeking to allow shelters that are constructed during declared shelter crisis to be permanent. with regards to the administrative code, amends the administrate code to authorize h.s.h. and public works to -- a contracting process for homeless shelters and program by being able to enter into and amend contracts without required competitive bidding. this is a significant cost

savings to public works, as well as a three- to six-month time savings by removing this requirement. h.s.a. and public works will continue to pull from a pool of pre-qualified list of providers and vendors, who meet minimum qualifications to operate the services. but there will not be the need for the formal r.s.p. process. this is not without precedent. in early 2018, the board of supervisors enacted 2918, for contracts and let'ses related to several identified shelter crisis sites, the city's existing navigation centers and homeless shelters. this ordinance, as emily mentioned, is set to expire tomorrow. finally, ordinance also allows hsh to operate navigation centers for more than two years. the proposed changes to the pdr and sali districts and the planning code are in effect during a declared shelter crisis and do not sunset. however, these changes are not anticipated to permanently alter

the industrial nature of these districts. when san francisco's no longer experiencing a shelter crisis, you would conditional use authorization would be required to operate a shelter. the proposed changes to the administrative code have a sunset provision of five years or the effective date of an ordinance, making the findings there are fewer than 5,230 homeless persons in san francisco. as emily mentioned, there is a related piece of legislation. as part of the mayor's legislative package to address homelessness, there's a related ordinance currently moving through the legislative process. this ordinance seeks to remove the requirement for discretionary building permits for homeless shelters and proposes an alternative approval process. the california government code enables local jurisdictions to declare shelter crisis. further, with the passing of assembly bill 923, cities that have declared a shelter crisis, including berkry, emoryville,

los angeles, oakland, san diego and san francisco, may adopt procedures for design-site development and operation of homeless shelters in lieu of complying with the local building approvals. the ordinance activates assembly bill 923, and adopts apen decision n of the california building code, only applying to emergency housing and provide asset building standard for compliance. these standards include an emergency housing, sleeping cabins not previously recognized in the san francisco local codes. the department of building inspection, buyer, public works and public works will enter into an mou that outlines the procedure for written confirmation that the project complies with all applicable health and safety standards, zoning, and compliance. the section of the government code is temporary, and set to expire on january 21st, 2021. i am joined today by colleagues from h.s.h., publicwork works,

should there be any questions. the department supports this ordinance before you. it complies with the general plan, by working to reduce homelessness. with over 7,000 homeless individuals in san francisco, there's a mandate for innovative solutions to help expedite the construction of emergency shelters. this concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will take public comment on this item now. >> good afternoon, misser. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition, speaking here in support. and frankly with this type of stuff, if weed like to see it go further and find more opportunities to be able to provide housing for the most vulnerable citizens, i don't know if it got mentioned actually during the commissioner' comment, an article in the "l.a. times" that talked about cities in the state of california were not going to

achieve the low-income housing targets by the year 3,000. and it's just mind boggling how behind we are in so many different ways. isn't obvious just a san francisco problem. we like to boast the sixth largest economy in the world. so when stuff like this comes forward and it's awesome, came from san francisco, that was assembly member ting's bill. a piece of legislation last year. david shoe had a bill that -- which continues to move things forward. so we've got a lot of partners and i just really hammering home as innovative as a region that we are, and i know there was a hearing earlier today about homeless as well and a lot of conversations the last couple of days about trying to figure out different ways to be creative. one of the major barriers obviously to this is money. while we've got so much in the region, we're just not really

utilizing it as well as we could. so whenever we can continue to find opportunities to work with all of our different stakeholders and get the money to create this housing, i think that really would be fantastic. speaking to a personal experience, i'm sure i mentioned it before, i live not too far from the mcdonald's site and right now an empty parking lot sitting with a fence all the way around it. we were told very early on there's no money to build a navigation shelter. i with a couple of other neighbors -- density was one of the things that we were looking forward to, educating our neighbors on what homeless housing actually meant and the services that were provided. whether it's temporary or permanent. but that was shut down before the conversation could even have begun to have happened. i was frankly disappointed. so again very much in support here today. we'll have to see this be taken advantage of in more zoning districts to be perfectly honest. this gets the ball rolling and

hopefully create homes for vulnerable residents. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. sit. any other public comment on this item? [bell ringing] we'll close comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i sit up here and advocate for creative solutions. i can't imagine not approving this. i think we need to even get more creative. and i absolutely support this and move to approve. >> second. >> president melgar: commissione r moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm interested in what commissioner smith said. seems to be a side and they are quite -- how sides are chosen. i call the mayor -- the mayor's office called me to talk about this particular piece. [bell ringing] i asked by any chance any sites identified. and the answer was actually no. i was very disappointed to hear that. and i was wondering, as to whether ms. connor has any thoughts on this? because we're creating a very powerful piece of legislation. and, on the other hand, we do not have any tools to really use it, otherwise we lose it.

ms. connor or perhaps ms. cohen, could you perhaps speak to that? y u-that for the -- thank you for the question. the city is diligently reviewing many, maybe sites throughout the city. we are continuing to narrow that pool of possible sites and we have not yet made final decisions on those. so to be coming soon to you in terms of possible sites. but we are continuing to vet and identify sites every day, every week. yep. >> commissioner moore: you are screening them, is it size, access? could you give us a couple of ideas, so that we could -- >> sure. there's a number of things that we look at for a potential site. certainly size is important. and then, you know, who owns the property, public land is ideal. and then we continue to look, you know, through down through the check list in terms of

determining proximity to public transportation, proximity to other services, is this an area where there are homeless people in need. and we also look at, you know, are there other utilities on the property, are there not. all of these things go into consideration when determining sort of if a site is a good site or not to pursue. so there's a number of factors that we consider, as well as sort of how quickly we can move forward with each site. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> you're very welcome. rowe commissioner koppel? just a comment to express how glad we are to see this in front of us today. housing and homelessness are probably the two h's that the biggest concerns that we're looking at every day. and glad to see that the department of homelessness and supportive housing, along with planning are really handling their stuff. thank you. >> president melgar: commissione r moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a question. and i am not quite sure as what i read applies to this. i saw a lot of negative comments

on next door. somebody saying the city is legalizing homeless tent cities. i'm not sure where this comes from. i hope it does not apply to. i would be very disappointed if there is, indeed, this type of communication in the public to really push back on something, which i believe is constructive, forward-looking and well, well within the city's way of doing things. you seem to have heard about it. i was pretty disturbed by it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the director of the department of homelessness and supportive housing and want to thank you for considering this important measure. before i answer the question, i'll just say there's a lot of talk about creativity and innovation. and really what we need to do, we are really creative and innovative and have world-class programs. what we really need to do is scale up what we have. i want to thank mayor breed and

my colleague emily cohen and folks from the department of public works and the city attorney for -- and the planning department, of course, very creative solutions to scale up what we know works. one of the things that i think we know does not work is sanctions encampments or tent cities, as you call them. there's been varying degrees of success. i think san francisco can do better than just go camp over here. we need to create more shelter beds. mayor breed asked us to create more shelter beds by 2020. that's not the solution not setting up tent cities in san francisco. did that answer your question? >> commissioner moore: yes. it answered my question. i hope the people who spread the rumor hear what's being said here. >> we'll try to do a better job around communicating our position. thank you for letting us know. >> president melgar: thank you, director. >> commissioner hillis: ms. conn or, thank you for the presentation. i support everything my fellow commissioners have said. just in other districts, getting to what mr. smith was talking

about, kind of expanding expand, what's the lay of the land for shelter? >> specifically homeless shelters are permitted as of right. there are some instances, you know, where they required notice. the only ones that require a conditional use are some of our "h" districts, rh2, rdmx. but otherwise typically throughout the city they are permitted. >> okay. great, thank you. >> president melgar: commissione r richards. >> commissioner richards: i read -- i'm not on next door, but i have heard the same thing, commissioner moore. i believe where that's coming from, if there's not a shelter bed available and the police approaches a homeless person, they can't order them to move on. they stay there. and i believe that could be the genesis of when they say they're legalizing tent encampments, because they have nowhere to go. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners a motion seconded to approve this planning code. and planning code amendment opinion op motion -- on the

motion, commissioner moore? >> aye. >> missioner richards? >> aye. >> mission president melgar? >> president melgar: aye. >> clerk: item 7 continued to march 7th. placing us on item 8 for case number 2019-0048. committee report. informational presentation. >> i've been advised that staff is not here. shall we take items 9 a and b out of order? >> president melgar: i'm sorry? >> >> clerk: delayed on staff? >> president melgar: yeah, i think so. yeah. go to it. is that okay? is she here? okay. let's take a five-minute break, maybe? yes. [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular

sharing for thursday, february 2th. we'll be taking item nine out of order at this time. excuse me, items 9 aand b. 22324 ava. folsom street. canal use -- conditional use. >> good afternoon, commissioners. zoning administrator, planning department staff. also with us here today is our colleague david winslow on behalf of the residential design advisory team. the item before the planning commission is a conditional-use authorization pursuant to 303 to allow for dwelling units on city at a ratio of one unit per 1500 square feet and establish a community facility in the r h2 zoning district and the bulk district. the items before the zoning

administrateor is a variant for yard requirements within the rh-2 zoning district. the project includes a vertical and horizontal addition to the existing building on the project site to provide a four-story, mixed-use building. approximately 21,734 gross square feet, with six units, approximately 4,672 square feet of community facility. six off-street parking spaces, bicycle parking paces and two class two bicycle parking spaces. the project including a dwelling unit mix of six three-bedroom units, the project includes 6,999 square feet of private open space for the residential units, via a courtyard and roof decks. 485 square feet of open space provided for the community facility, via a ground floor courtyard. to date the department has received a letter 6 support submitted by -- which is included in the planning commission packets that you all

received. to ensure consistency and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as to maximize light and air for the proposed units, the planning department recommends that the commission modify the project in the following ways. encourage the removal of the top floor roof decks. the project provides ample -- open using space elsewhere on the project site. removal of a portion of the third-floor addition of the rear abutting the mid-lot courtyard to maximize light and air and extend the pattern of open space. and a massive reduction at the front portion of the fourth floor to comply with the front setback requirement. as well as with the heights at the front portion of buildings, pursuant to planning code sections 132 and 260. the project is within the -- special use district, which is intended to preserve the prevailing neighborhood character of the -- latino cultural district, while accommodating new uses and

recognizing the contributions of the latino community to the neighborhood and to san francisco. by establishing the community facility, doing business as -- 2779 folsom street will align with the mission . the department recommends approval with the conditions as the project is consistent with the general plan and planning code. the department finds that with the requested design modifications, the project is on balance consistent with the mission area plan, -- and thives and policies of the general plan. although the project results in a conversion of a formally industrial building, the project will provide new housing as well as new community facility, which are goals of the city and county of san francisco. the department also finds that the project, the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. the missionary of plan and general planning encourage rand support the creation of

families, supportive services such as community facilities. further, the general plans community facilities element encourages providing neighborhood centers in areas lacking adequate community facilities and providing neighborhood centers with a network of links to other neighborhood and city wide services. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> thank you. if i can have the computer, please. good morning, president melgar and commissioners, ryan patterson, attorney for the project sponsor. we're very excited about this project today, which is going to convert a defunct industrial building into six family-sized units of housing and a community center for the mission. project proposes to build six family-sized units and donate

the ground floor commercial space to gallery. the gallery will activate the ground floor from a really positive way, including community gatherings, free educational workshops, youth mentorship, art and music programming and social events for local groups. the gallery's mission is to foster public awareness and appreciation of latino art and serve as a laboratory where artist explore contemporary issues in art and advance tie log. this is a vital cultural -- the project will give it a free permanent home and to be clear, that means donating ownership of that space for $1. the project has the support of the neighborhood, including quattro and as well as planning staff. it's gone through extensive collaborative process with the community and the staff to make this work and request approval as proposed. and i want to thank staff for all of the time and effort that they've put into this as well. we are okay with most of the proposed conditions. there are a few that we'd like

to address briefly. here you see a satellite view. and as you can see, there's no consistent mid-block pattern, which is why the project proposes open space in the middle, rather than the rear. it's much better for the adjacent properties. by taking a chunk out of the middle of the project adjacent to the neighbor's yards, the project will provide more light and openness to neighbors that currently exist. here's the existing condition with the structure extending the length of the lot. they requested the central courtyard be opened up more. here's the original proposal reviewed by ardap. s you can see, the height of the center is reduced by 21 feet, from the existing roof to the proposed courtyard floor. and we opened it up even further. that's a lot more openness than currently exists. for the neighbors. ardap asked for another 160 square foot reduction from the third-floor courtyard.

that would mean losing three bedrooms. this would no longer be family-sized housing for these units and it would almost nate -- eliminate a big chunk that pays for the gallery. the agreement to donate the commercial space for a community center depends on the project being built as proposed. it would not be economically feasibility for the bedrooms to be removed. i should also note that eliminating bedrooms is the reduction of density, violating the housing act as it, quote, the ability of a project to provide housing. what we've done is find an alternative solution that further opens up the courtyard while still preserving bedrooms. and that you can see here. we've done that by deleting the walls from the top of the third floor and pulling back the railings. as you can see, the mid-lot openness has been dramatically increased, and increased again. second, although we had already

gone through several iterations with ra d-- these decks provide the open space for each unit and enhance the liveability families. we're talking about a place for children to play and run around. third, staff has just recently informed us we cannot use averaging for the current setback, because they believe the corner lot next storefronts on 24th street, rather than folsom street. under section 132, fronts on folsom, fronts on 24th street, we cannot average. so they've just decided that it affronts on 24th, but i think this is based on incomplete information. and there are numerous city records, including permits, showing the address of the corner lot on folsom street, you see here it has an entrance, mailboxes, garages all on the folsom street side. it appears to be based on folsom street front and, not 24th street.

code allows corner lot owners to choose which street their property fronts on and seems very clear that the choice in this corner lot is this was not a condition. we asked the project response tore consider other uses for the off-street parking spaces. code allows up to nine off-street parking spaces. this project only proposes six, one for each unit, so that it's suitable for family use. both the practical necessity and financial and cannot be built without that parking. so we thank you for your time. [bell ringing] and hope that you'll approve this as proposed without that condition number 8. thank you very much. happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you very much. mr. patterson, we will now take public comment on this item. i have a valtino and toby engelberg. anyone else whoe wants to come

up and take public comment. >> good afternoon. how are you? my family owns the property directly behind this. >> president melgar: can you speak into the mic, please? >> my family owns the property at 2779 folsom street behind there. there hasn't anyone there for the last 20 years. very happy to see somebody has acquired the property and a new ownership is moving forward. my biggest concern is that the back of their building is somehow connected to the building that we have, would love to have conversation with the architects and the developer about how we would -- how we would couch that. and the other question is i know you really can't disagree or enlighten here, but curious to know how that affects the new construction, how it would affect the light in there. that's pretty much about it. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> hi. i didn't realize -- >> president melgar: >> i thought we would be able to ask questions. i'm going to speak very fast, turn my questions into comments. i'm hoping you get back to me with questions. i really want to know -- >> president melgar: please speak into the mic. >> i'd like to know what on the table actually, so that we haven't wasted our time. what changes have taken place on the drawing since we had a community meeting? were any of her concerns incorporated? i live next door to valentineo, behind the project. as you saw from the pictures, it looks like the building is bigger on our side. we had a lot of concerns about the gallery. the space will be donated to them. because the building project seems to hinge on the public use of the ground floor.

what is your leverage in case that deal falls apart? does the variance stay in place? does it not become a gym for the tenants, for instance? so that's the question. i wonder if poles can be erected on our side, so we can see what the impact is on our side. that was not addressed in the conversation. this is kind of from what i'm seeing a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get more light into my backyard, so i'd like to go down fighting. if i lose some. my backyard, as said in the community meeting, is the only visual greenery for not just us, but for several households on 24th street. the setback on the 2 and 3rd

floors, wouldn't be set back as much, turn that into a question. we raised it at the community meeting, we actually liked the back wall, because we're little people against change. can the wood itself be salvaged and created a false wall on our side, past the . can -- reflect balcony walls on our side. all exterior lights be

downlights, so there's not more skylighting. [bell ringing] >> clerk: excuse me me, ma'am, your time is up. i'll close with one last. the buildings have been allowed to go to hell in the back. the roof is a sheet of plastic. the windows are flapping. as of two days ago, one of the windows broke into my backyard. so i hope there's some attention to that, we have not seen previously. >> president melgar: thank you, ma'am. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, thank you. latino cultural district. [ please stand by ]

>> that we create systems in place that protect not only housing, but to create a pipeline of cultural engagement and holistic ways to engage community. as eric arguello said earlier, it's always ways how we go back to projects to support the local neighborhood, so whoever is the user there will always be an arts activator. i just want to say this has been a learning experience, this has been taking a risk, win-win, and we need to

continue to push this forward, and i look forward to continuing the conversations with our neighbors to make everyone happy because we all are going to live together. thank you for your time and i hope this gets pushed and approved. thank you for your time. >> president melgar: thanks, miss rivera. thanks. >> my name is vic ferreira. i'm one of the owners of 27 folsom street. their building wraps up and butts up against my particular unit, my commercial unit. i am -- i'd just like to say i am in full support of this project, the plans presented by the developer, and i just want to say i encourage the commission to approve this project as quickly as possible so the community can start to benefit from this project. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is eric and i live right around the corner. i'm here just speaking as a neighbor of the building and also as a homeowners association president for my building on 24th street. we have about 18 members. we've all read the planning commission's croft motidraft m proposal. the hoa would like to support this project for a number of reasons. first at its current proposed size, it would provide much needed housing in the neighborhood, and it's also going to replace an abandoned warehouse that seems to attract a lot of unwanted graffiti. it's truly a waste of space in

the neighborhood. the building will be in keeping with the -- -- in keeping with the fascia, sort of the historic facade. i literally see it outside of my bedroom, so i'm glad it's not changing to anything too crazy. one last thing, we -- just as a neighbor, i would just ask you to not really -- not change a footprint, not make it smaller. we need as many housing units there as we can, and approve the building as proposed from the documents that you guys have listed on your website. >> president melgar: thank you very much. any other public comment?

>> commissioner moor . >> you know, a key goal for this site with a site design of this project was to maintain and in fact augment the midblock open space with the proposed building mass, which is, by the way, asking for a rear yard variance. given the condition of the existing midblock open space where there's a full lot coverage of this existing

building, an adjacent building to the north which has a building in the rear of its lot, plus the key lot conditions of adjacent buildings on 24th street, we were looking at a small and fragmented open block space in trying to find that place where the courtyard, if you will, on this project made the most sense in the size and location. and we're close. i think this project -- if i could have the overhead, please, i could really illustrate what we recommended and where we are on this project. >> president melgar: mr. winslow, would you mind pulling your mic -- >> instruct me on the basics, too. can i raise this up and get a

little bit more -- we really were asking for a basic alignment with this building next door and this new building mass such that this space here was as open to the rest of the midblock open space as -- as possible. and it was doing no more than what the existing full lot two story building is currently doing. so our recommendation is removing the third floor of this portion, which is in excess of what's currently there to sort of open this up to the rest of the midblock open space. with respect to the roof decks, you can see the roof decks on both front and back buildings, you know, are especially in excess of this already pretty