>> commissioner: i would remind members of the public the members don't tolerate disruptions of any kind. police silence your mobile -- please silence your mobile devices and if you care to speak state your name. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we expect commissioner richards to arrive shortly. commissioners, before we call consideration of items proposed for continuance i want to make an announcement for those on sf gov tv we lil -- will be calling one item first out of order. first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1.

for the large residents special use method and mapping and at the time it was proposed for continuance and the supervisors office is requesting an additional week item two, discussionary review items 3a and b. and seawall lots 323 and 324. findings of consistency and proposed for continuance to may 2, 2019 and item 4, proposed for an indefinite continuance. i have no speaker cards. >> commissioner: do any members of the public wish to speak on

the items proposed for continuance? then come on up, please. >> clerk: when speaking to the manner you can only speak to the manner of continuance, not the project itself. >> would you provide clarification, i'm a little confused. >> commissioner: the items are only to the issue of continuing the item, not the item itself. >> will the item be heard today? >> commissioner: no, it will not. it's on the continuance calendar. seeing no others, public comment is now closed. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner: move to continue items 1 through 4 as proposed. >> clerk: thank you

commissioners on the motion to continue item as proposed. [roll call] so moved commissioner the motion passes unanimously 5-0. under the consent calendar, the matter a consent calendar is considered routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote and there'll be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or staff or public requests in which event the item will be removed and considered as a separate item. item 5, case at 1226 9th avenue. i have no speaker cards. >> does any member of the public wish to speak on the item? with that public item is now closed. commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> second.

>> clerk: on the motion to approve item 5 under your consent calendar. [roll call] so moved. the motion passes unanimously 5-0. placing us under consideration of draft minutes for march 2, 2019. >> commissioner: does anyone wish to provide comments on the minutes from april 4 -- >> clerk: march 7. >> commissioner: i'm sorry, march 7. with that public comment is now closed. >> commissioner: commissioner moore? >> commissioner: more to approve. >> clerk: thank you on the adoption. [roll call]

>> commissioner: i did have a comment. our last meeting we got a lot of public comment and subsequently i got a lot of correspondence from the public in the way we calculate the office allocation under prop m. from folks that i respect and trust who had historical information about the intent of the voters when prop m was passed, i have yet to see formal documentation about the beauty contest idea brought up. i was not active yet when this came up. i imagine something this important would have been formally documented in some policies and procedures or some documentation. it's got to be around somewhere.

something this important should be. i did find a reference to writing marcia rosen had done. way back then but if anyone's watching any members of the public that knows about this or has something in a shoe box somewhere it'd be great to find it. that's all. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: you're take the words out of my mouth and i worked in offices where many were under the beauty contest and didn't know what that meant and perhaps revisiting the proposition itself, m, and how it was meant to be applied. i would like to ask the commission to support that we have a special presentation and

ask we add prop k to that discussion because there's many uncertainties particularly for us regarding that issue. both are propositions which were voted up by the voters many years ago, many decade ago. many of us were not on the planning commission nor did we participate in the dialogue that went on that the time. i'd ask as the commission support we take that and revisit the particulars of both propositions. >> clerk: if there's nothing further we can move to item 8, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i realize it's not on calendar but i have a couple comments to the different aspect last week on prop m. there was a lot of discussion and i know you received e-mails about the projects and provisions of affordable housing as part of projects and wanted to clarify a couple things with

respect to that. the projects that would go forward under staff's proposal, i've of the three projects does involve a land dedication site that would ultimately hold about 300 units of housing and we understand the concern is it's land and not buildings. what i wanted to clarify and was not mentioned last week is the projects also have a fee that would be paid on top of the land. and there's also a large residential project that would pay a large residential fee going forward. the result of that is we believe the fees could result in about 300 une it's of affordable housing being built. the central soma plan requires fees be spent within south of market. the result of the projects we put forward along with the project would create about 300

units of affordable housing. we believe at least two of the projects litigation pending could move forward next year. with respect to the flower mart, i wanted to clarify that of course that project does require development agreement because of the nature of the flower mart itself. that would come to you and good to the board of supervisors and kilroy has been working with the p.u.c. to secure a temporary location. and finally, there was discussion last week about the pending litigation we get that. we understand there's concern about delays. we do think that the going ahead with the projects that the commission sees fit is still important in light of the litigation. i just wanted to clarify that. and i will mention that at the end of last week after last week i've convened staff to debrief

on the hearing. we are preparing a memo for you to talk about in more specifically our recommendations but also we can include what you talked about today and do the research on the beauty contest. it's been a while and predates virtually everyone on the staff. we'll dig through the files and see what we can come up with and make that part of the memo as well. >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: thank you for adding that clar -- clarification to last week's classification. i'd like to direct you as you direct staff mr. sucro seemed to be amenable to provide us, as commissioners, more information on the projects, i think four i think. we'll have a better base understanding of what is in front of us before we get in the deals behind is. that would be greatly appreciated. >> clerk: good commissioners, the board of appeals, there was no historic preservation hearing

yesterday. >> good afternoon, manage of legislative affairs. at the land use committee they considered interim controls from president yee for a change of use from a childcare facility to another use. and the intention behind the interim controls is to slow the displacement of childcare terms in the short term. as an interim control it did not come to the planning commission but staff will work with supervisor yee's office for your consideration and adoption. last thursday at the government audit and oversight committee, the committee held a hearing to oppose s.b.50 unless amend. at the hearing there was a significant discussion about the goals and how we're over performing for above moderate housing and falling below other

economic groups and had regional agencies would have known the growth would be this strong the goals would be large and when san francisco produces 100% of arena goals we're only producing enough to meet the expected growth and not enough to counter act the housing deficit and berkeley looked at the feasibility for new housing under s.b.50 in high-income areas such as menlo park and lower income areas. the new housing under s.b.50 would be profitable in menlo park. and most speakers expressed concern about the senate bill. and some changes were wanted from a community process. some are concerned the current bill may cause pressures on

stressed communities and it was recommended they work with the state legislature on amendments that would protect our interest and enable support of the bill. the committee then forwarded the resolution to the full board with minor amendments. at the full board this week, supervisor peskin's union square open space fee and inclusionary housing fees passed and a church passed the first read and on consideration of s.b.50 at the full board specific amendments were considered so it could not be combined win state density bonus to weaken local code and offered amendments to protections for sensitive

communities and suggested an anti-monster home provision and asked for more clarity on the ability of cities to add inclusionary and/or designate areas as with s.b.50. the board expressed interested in duplicating the file and the board voted 9-2 to approve the more general opposition unless mended so the state could state clearly amendments before further action by the slate legislature. the board took up the ceqa appeal for 1052 folsom street for the demolition of five existing buildings and merger of the lots to one parcel and the construction of a mixed use unit. the ceqa appeal dealt whether the shadow was significant impact on the mark and supervisor peskin made comments about the original intent of

prop k and the ability of the rec and parks commission and planning commission to hold joint hearings on shadow issues which did not happen in this case. he also discussed the ability of parks and recs to weigh the project against the protected shadow. this issue was germane because the rec and parks commission had rejected an earlier project that was significantly smaller a few years ago for shad joy impacts -- shadow impacts. the motion passed with supervisor peskin voting against and supervisor safai reused. on the issue of the c.u., the board has more latitude to evaluate the merits of the project. the public comments was long and dozens of children who live in the area and use the park as well as other members of the community spoke out against the project. their concerns were over the shadow in the park and continuing gentrification of the neighborhood. there were also several speaker

who noted the need for more housing in san francisco and the fact the proposed project would provide 15 on-site inclusionary units and not cause displacement. at the end of the period supervisor haney maid made a motion to sentd send the project back to the commission saying it was not necessary or desirable and it passed unanimously with supervisor safai reused. that concludes my presentation. >> commissioner: thank you, mr. star. i have one public speaker card and that's from sue hester. >> sue hester. this report was adequate but the

core issue on 1052 folsom really was the shalloidoin shadowing o and there were more young people than i've ever seen at any hearing, period. they're desperate to have an open space. and so the planning commission will get a remand from the board of supervisors i think in two weeks they'll have that vote at the board of supervisors to send it back to the committee. i am almost certain that the remand will impart be about the decision the planning decision made without any record at all on the shadow determination which is something that shouldn't have happened. it occasionally takes someone other than the planning

commission to remind you that you're responsible to follow the law and not follow staff report. i was wiped out by this project. the other thing that was never mentioned but i'm calling you on, when have a super couldn't verse yal project -- controversial project before christmas your staff should say what the hell is going on. the 20th of december is a day people are leaving the city to go on vacation and having parties. they're not paying attention to huge issues at the commission, the staff level or community. and there was a bunch of us here that were at the rec park commission at 10:00 in the morning and planning commission at 1:00 at noon and i'm in it nor long haul. -- for the long haul.

park space south of market is really important to people. we can't keep low income people in the city. people who don't have roofs. they're squashed housing. they don't have open space on site. it's not middle and upper class housing in the area. the planning commission should be extremely -- the planning depend should be sensitive to how lower income people live in the city and pay attention to open space. it's a really big issue. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hester. commissioner richards. >> commissioner: a couple comments first. i met with supervisor mar yesterday and we talked about putting our money where our mouth is and starting a real community-based dialogue on what the sunset wants to be in the future in terms of adding population and density and its share of growth. i suggested he work with the director rahm and staff and ann

marie and he took that suggestion and you should be get call from him. the other one on ms. hester's comment, i watched the entire hearing on my computer at home on the folsom street project she was referencing and i think supervisor peskin made a good point it's a false equivalent where we start trying to saying this much shadow equals this much housing and it needs to be measured against itself. that's what the voters intended when they passed prop k not to put up against other things to measure. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further if move on i have no board of appeals report. >> this is the review on past events. go ahead. >> clerk: now we can move on to

general public comment. at this time members may address the commission within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. except to agenda items the opportunity will be afforded when the item comes up in the meeting. i do have two speaker cards. >> i have calvin welsh and mr. judisc but anyone can come up. thank you. >> i'd like to address the remarks referred to earlier in the commission hearing regarding the proposition m and the question of public benefits. it's slightly different than the beauty contest but about two hours and 36 minutes into the hearing, there was --

>> clerk: can you go to the overhead, please. >> go ahead. >> there was colloquy at 2 hours and 36 minutes in and commissioner commissionerhl -- commissioner hillis starts by saying proposition m wasn't with the intend of getting housing approved and mr. rahm said it's not possible to compare one public benefit to another nor do i think it's fair or a good way to do land use planning. proposition m was all about, as you can see in the ballot handbook, was all about creation

of section 101.1 of the planning code which is the priority policies which are all about, let me remind you, public benefits. i haired the drafting i chair the drafting committee of planning. i would urge you to talk to two former planning commissioners who were involved in the effort, doug eamon and dennis antonori and i would strongly encourage you to ask our staff to talk to then-planning commission president john morales if you want to know about how they dealt with choosing between public benefits.

notice section 101.1, does not include what you're staff has adopted. which is shovel ready. >> thank you, mr. welsh. next speaker, please. >> i've been here before. for those that don't know i think 317 needs dramatic help. you want to thank you guys and the planning staff. i believe we're getting close to getting it nixed. i leave in noe valley. my son tried to buy a house in noe valley with a thousand square foot house for $1 million

which is ridiculous but was out by half a million dollars. we're cannibalizing our housing stock and 317 didn't work. we have to come up with an alternate approach to deal with the impact of the monster homes. one of these days we're going hurt someone doing what we're doing but we have to come up with another approach. we have another problem and i'll give you three examples. a building that was badly damaged in the fire they get a permit to fix it and the day they're out there working on it, it collapses. he wants to move back in his house but he's going to a hearing in another six months with to you put back his first floor and 600 square foot second floor. it was a modest house we have to come up with a better way on c.u. hearings where all they

want to do is put back their house. another project where somebody complied with the building code to make it a fire wall. they're coming to a c.u. hearing. a third person who can't fix their house because it's so mold infest the only way to clean it is to take every stud down and sand it on all four sides, sand the edge and put it back. that's a demo. there's got to be a way on unique cases where it's fire damage or building code or health issues where there's a way for you guys to delegate to somebody maybe not a full commission c.u. but for this gentleman it's been how many months? >> eight months. >> and the project plans were to put back his 1200 square foot house. he can't put it back without a full c.u. hearing. we have to figure out a better way for the people who aren't

bad actors to get a hearing. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i was a pregnant woman in fall of '86 but i volunteered to help on prop m. i agree with what mr. welch said. that was my recollection of everyone's intent when we all worked to get prop m passed and section 101.1b is still there and is often not always, but often used in the projects i've talked about and mr. buscavic just talked about. one more thing i wanted to say, i won't take up much time. i don't know if you saw the editorial from beverly hills mayor. that's a good response to the chronicle and something we all need to think about when we

point fingers at people who may or may not be for s.b.50 or whatever else comes along. it's easy to name call. it's hard to do something constructive. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> 101.1 is prop p. not the office -- prop m. there was a lot of thought given to the people from the community about prop m and what it was doing. the addition of office space was down in there. i found it because i read and you read as well a lot of staff reports. the resolutions have a pro forma 101.1.

i would say from my experience probably two-thirds are drafted by the developer and given to staff. and the people on staff do a 101 report are cutting and pasting. i read the 101 analysis in the middle of preparing for the hearing on 1052 folsom street and it was embarrass to say the least. there needs to be in-housework done on the planning department staff. no one is doing the right thing if they go on ougautomatic pilo doing an analysis how the project fits into the community. i'm embarrassed by reading the report all the time.

my guess is people who opened the planning code and found the foot notes and it was adopted it didn't make an impression on them? why did this happen? there was legislation that happened after prop m and prop k was asked to codify things into the planning code and they're important. the institutional memory is on this side of the aisle. we're all old and gray now but we did do a lot of work. we got a childcare. the planning department didn't come out of that with their good graces but it came from work from the community. the transit fee, housing fee, all came from the community. we really have a stake in it.

i would suggest there's education necessary from the planning department staff before the planning department makes the report to the planning commission because it's embarrassing to hear the nature of the reports you're making. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. hester. next speaker, please. >> i'm with livable city. we have a lot of 20th century imperatives we need to balance, open space and housing and later you'll hear about biodiversity a crisis facing our planet. none are really mentioned in our planning documents. what i see here a lot is a group of people, you people, would are intelligent and have good values and you are working in a system which actually doesn't embody or personify those values. they're not present in our

planning code or general plan or document. you're trying to add those things on a case by case basis or balance those things on a case by case basis in a system that's not systematically about sustainability or equity. it's not advancing big goals. despite your best efforts and the rest our best efforts, we're falling further and further behind and becoming less equitable and affordable and becoming less sustainable. and we shouldn't be doing that. i guess what i'm making a case for is you need to plan for the city. you don't have one. you have bits and pieces of one but if you look at the office of planning and research they did general plan guidance, it's a good set of documents. it would be great to get a presentation if you haven't already seen it. they look at how do you integrate equity and integrate health. how do you integrate housing needs. how do you integrate

sustainability, climate change. all the big issues face us in a quantitative way into your plans. we don't have a land use element and the state guidance says the land use element is the principle element of the general plan and the elements of the general plan tee off of it. we don't have one bep have the land use index which has a lot of outdated plans covering a third of the city stapled together. some are older and done when i was in high school or before. it's that long good. i would encourage to you work with staff and say let's great a general plan for the city so we have a direction and can look at it and say this reflects the current values of the city. this shows the direction it goes to and it's a discreet plan for getting there. general plan compliance is treated as a compliance exercise. you say there's nothing in the general plan which contradicts what we're trying to do today so

we can go it but it's not a plan we're working off of or for the city and we desperately need one. please, as you face up to all these various challenges that were here, i think a general plan would be terrifically helpful in term of values, vision and actual million to get us to where we are to where we want to be. >> commissioner: thank you. any other general public comment? come on up. >> i'm susan kacasov from the california native plant society. i wanted to thank the planning commission and -- >> commissioner: i'm sorry is this general public comment or on item biodiversity. >> i didn't see it in the agenda. i may have missed it. >> any other general public comment on items not on the agenda?

with that public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> i was interesting to hear the beverly hill's mayor's bias against the city of beverly hills. it's 55% representer and slightly less dense than san francisco. my impression of beverly hills is like beverly hillbillys and you pull up and there's big mansions every. after reading the letter i have a different opinion whatever it looks like and think i have to see kwhat looks like myself. and when the state bill s.b.330 that gives us no leeway to do anything and it relate row actively -- retroactively take things away from us, there's no plan any more. the states it away from us.

[off micro] [off mic] >> veronica flores, planning department star. item before you includes conditional use authorization regarding the residential

project. the ordinances were proposed by supervisor safai who is here to speak on the item. >> hello, commissioners. it seems like it's becoming a weekly occurrence i'm talking to you. but i thank you for your time. i appreciate it today. i came here to speak on this particularly because it's a development agreement. ordinances are being put forward by myself and this say project that has been years in the making. it's gone through many different iterations and conversations. the family is a camly that's been working in san francisco since the early '80s. they started as an immigrant family and started the patriarch of the family started doing

small scale work, one and two-unit properties and here we are 40 years later and they're doing hundreds of units all over san francisco. this particular project they have decided since they bought it i think in 2009 this would be a legacy project for the family. they went through many iterations and this is where it landed. they're doing 50% affordable. they used the home sf project as a baseline. they're doing a tranche at 85 and one at 80 and 100. there was an early iteration that talked about potentially doing some rent control in the

non-b.m.r. units. a few years later since the project conversation started, cost of construction and everything, not only did it not pencil, the project still does not pencil. and on the market rate units they're dedicated five for transitional age youth. you'll hear from folks recipients or have been part of the john burden foundation. they'll come and speak today. so again, that is another new project in the sense for district 11 is commissioner richards and i have talked about is predominantly r.h.1 single-family homes. it will be the first affordable

housing ever in district 11. there's a low-income senior and a senior section 202 for rents and b.m.r.s but there's no family-affordable housing in district 11 other than six or seven units owned by the housing authority which no longer exist in effect. this will be 58 units of family-affordable housing. the other thing that makes it special is it mirrors the income levels of the neighborhood. as you know, district 11 is predominantly working families. to have a spread of units that actually are above the normal tax credit, 50%, 60%, a.m.i. not fundable in the sense we don't have funding sources for them and the a.m.i. tranche is pretty special. for teachers, nurses, janitors,

laborers, folks in construction, firefighters, that can no longer afford to live in san francisco will have access to this property. so we're really excited about that. but it is again also one of the first. it's adding density. it causes apprehension on the part of some neighborhoods because it's surrounded by single-family homes but we feel it's our duty to participate and do some of our fair share. housing is happening all over the city. parts of the city like ours get the highest level of criticism. i think with 50% affordable we're happy the project is moving forward and i don't think i have any other points. i will say i'd like to thank crizia and their team and planning department staff and their veronica.

it's been years in the making. all the folks that have spent time working on this and working through the iterations and the development agreement. this was not an easy deal to put together. sometimes the city has a harder time and sometimes the city has a hard time. when you exceed the affordability that's allowable by our nexus studies, it requires a development agreement. the next us study says 33% is all that's manageable by the market and this is 50% out of the overall. so because of that, that's why you have a development agreement in front of you today on top of the other things but that is the basis for the development agreement. so again, the developer goes in and project sponsor goes in eyes wide open and knows they're not making money and the city is indemnified for lack of a better word. so we're super excited about

this project. and i don't really have anything else to say. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer them or can come back after the planning department staff but thanks for your time and listening today. >> thank you, supervisor safai. we appreciate that. >> thank you. >> planning department staff. first i'll provide a high-level overview of the project and we have the project manager for the team and then the project sponsor will conclude with a presentation going over the family history and the project design. the project includes demolition of the existing commercial buildings at the project site and new construction of a five over two residential basement

with 116 units. again, 50% of these units will be affordable and also just want to make note that 70% of the units will be family sized units with two or three bedrooms. in order to move forward it requires three different ordinances. since the packet was originally published we revised it with adoption to the negative declaration and sao -- ceqa finding i have available. the first is to redone the project site to excelsior and outer mission and it's duly zoned r.h.1. the ordinance would create uniform zoning for the project site. the second ordinance relates to a planning code and map amendment to establish the special use district. the s.u.d. will allow greater

density and height at the site along with other planning code modifications. the s.u.d. will sunset in five years unless the project received the first construction document before then. the previous ordinance i mentioned regarding the unified zoning at the project site will remain in place. even if the s.u.d. sunsets. and at this time i also want to highlight affordability level which relates to the third ordinance relate head to development agreement. it's required 19% affordable. if they elected to pursue the

program they could have 45% affordable housing and based on the modification the project sponsor is able to pursue home sf however, they've decided to exceed the affordability levels and provide 50% affordable housing onsite. this is twice as much they'd be required to provide so because of this high level of affordability there's be a focussed development agreement. and this is pursuant to the s.u.d. mentioned earlier. since the ordinances were

introduced the planning department has since learned about the record keeping error and it consists of one lot not two described in the ordinance. the only recommendation is to accurately reflect this only involves lots 39. and this is approval three ordinances with a modification related to the lot reference. we also recommend approval of the conditional use authorization with conditions and at this time i'll hand it off to the rest of the project team but i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, ms. flores. >> good afternoon, president melgar. i'm the project manager at the office of economic and workforce development and joined by ken rich from oawd.

thank you for your consideration of the project. corrections were made and i have copies of the development agreement if you'd like to see that. the project is before you for two reasons to provide benefits and fees and requirements in the code. in addition to the key provision of the focussed development agreement which is the delivery of 50% affordable and ka -- and it's securely captured through the development agreement. many have been for pier 70 and 5m. 9 9 915cayuga is a single phase development.

11% will be at 20% a.m.i.12 at 30%. it should be noted provisions are similar to what could be obtained through home sf and the highest a.m.i. is set at 110% and the highest for this project is 100%. and it will deliver 70% units as family housing exceeding our 40% requirement. additional details of this benefit can be found in exhibit c of the development agreement. an additional benefit with negotiation with securing the affordable housing performance schedule. it was negotiated in collaboration with the mayor's office and maria benjamin is here if you have any questions on that. the schedule specifically pre

determines review and response periods and clearly identifies roles and responsibilities and requires the project sponsor increase staffing during the lottery and lease process which results in a seven-month review and approval process. again, this could be found in sxibt d. -- exhibit d. this is going to be one of the largest project the excelsior has seen the strategy notes of the 18,000, 27 ho -- 270 units only 30 are b.m.r. it nearly triples the number of

b.m.r. units in the community. because they're privately funded neighborhood preference will be allowed. we focussed on small business retention. with respect to this, we my colleague in coordination with the property sponsor and project sponsor reached out to assist in relocation and three are being connected with the excelsior action group with the goal of securing permanent space prior to issuance. this concludes my presentation. if you have questions i'll be here to answer them. thank you. >> good morning. i'm one of the others of 915 cayuga avenue with my mom, dad

and brother. we're proud to offer a 50% of the residential units at this project for san francisco's affordable housing mark there be giving back to the city where my parents first started their construction business as immigrant nearly four decade ago. my father has been doing business in san francisco for the past 40 years with my brother and i and husband joining the family operations in 2010. and we take pride in our development projects which is why cayuga avenue will be kept in the family. we do not intend on selling it. my parents purchased the lot in and contemplating how to use it to give back to their community. it was a fuse few years ago when they decided to offer 58 units for affordable housing through the city's below market rate inclusionary housing program. i want to emphasize this is not satisfying a housing requirement for other projects. it's voluntary.

it's twice as much as required by home sf. our company participate in many programs and my mother is a passionate local advocate for homeless youth serving on boards. during the past years she's been involved with many organizations that focus on giving a helping hand to vulnerable youth. as passionate advocate for homeless youth we're earmark five of the market rate units to foster youth program here today in support of our project. in vim, it will be -- summary it will provide significant public good in it's construction and throughout the life of the project. thank you for your time and i'll turn it over to our design team. >> i also want to say i'm proud

i'm proud of the project and my family is proud of the project and i'm going see what we have done and we have worked for the last five years to get the project to the states. can i have the overhead. >> clerk: can we go to the overhead sf gov tv. >> on the north side off the block we have a commercial oriented lot that has high height limits. on the south side we have small

single family homes which are r.h.1 zoning mostly. what i'm showing you is the rear bulk of the project. and the homes on the south side have a 15-foot rear yard. what we have done is and this allows it into the family homes.

also, this is the floor we're looking at. most of these units have their living room open to the center court. so we don't have the living rooms facing the single-family homes in the back. the yellow is access to the light for all the units. >> commissioner: thank you. we'll now take public comment. i have a few cards.

>> i'm win former advocates for youth here in san francisco. our organization works to improve the lives that are vulnerable youth oop people i'm here to in support of the project. it provides critical support for former foster youth in san francisco. children in youth enter the foster care system due to serious abuse and neglect and they experience additional challenge such as multiple placements and school change. together the experiences place serious barriers to achieve economic security. the project at 915 cayuga will provide nine units for former

foster care to live and a safe, stable location to improve their future and we work with san francisco college and san francisco state university and expect foster youth attending both schools will benefit from the housing to be provided. a non-profit housing provider will provide supportive services to ensure the youth receive assistance and support. the model has been implemented across california successfully and found to improve education and employment outcomes for the youth. thank you for your consideration of this request. i urge your support of this proposal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm juan carlo hernandez the former president of sf state. i am currently working in my

b.a. in communication studies. i've been in foster care. i was born into foster youth as 1 years old as my mother was an immigrant. at the age of 7 my mother was deported and i was put into foster care in my county of origin. once there, i was shuffled around 23 group homes and facilities and different areas for multiple foster dwrouj live with and youth and i lived where seven or more kids would be put in the same house, sometimes three and four in the same room. not even living on the streets can be as bad as that sometimes. speaking about living in the streets, i've been homeless myself both living with my biological parents and being out of the system aging out. one of the things i've done in

my career as a student is fight for homeless youth and for homeless students. right now we have a little over 30 to 35 homeless students at sf state that live on the side of the street in tents and rvs and places where no human being should live. that's one the reasons why i ran for president and now i'm trying to help the people like me, foster youth. one thing i got lucky with was being adopted by caucasian parents. i was able to be given help so i could get into college, move across state and move to sf state. one thing that really burdened my was the cost of living. coming to sf state is hard. we have one of the largest schools in the state.