families that have really made the mission district such a diverse and culturally important place within san francisco. these two bills will displace them and i think that it will see the complete cultural erasure of a lot of things that made the mission so special. i think that right now while we're looking at sb50, ab1279 would be a much better bill to look at. granted there's still a lot of amendments and changes that need to be made to that bill, but on the whole it provides us i believe with a better framework and a focus on high resource and affluent areas where upzoning and density could occur. and where those communities could bear the burden of market rate production. if that's the direction that we want to go. and so please take a look at ab1279 and i believe that we should look at reforming this casa map to make sure that communities that have already experienced gentrification and might not be on the map due to the high income inequality that has resulted, should be looked at and protected so that we can

make sure that we have stability for the residents that are still there. thank you. >> thank you. any more public comment? >> good afternoon again. can i have the overhead, please. i want to focus on the a.d.u. issue which is something that this commission has sort of already kind of wrapped your hands around in improving a.d.u.s. the overhead. so this is the -- in the one, r.h.-1, and you can see that it's a huge excavation and here it is just the other day, they filled it in. i think what's going to happen below that is that where the a. u. are d.u. is going to be. here's the house as it was completely and was it a tunnel entrance house that was built in so it's a template for a.d.u.s. just go through these photos really quickly to show you that it was a sound house and it was

demolished to add -- to expand the house and to add the a. dumplet ud.u.which the commissit two years ago. and i guess that my point is that i don't think that this house should have been torn down. i think that you could have added the a.d.u. and it would be done now. it's a speculator project. and the a.d.u. would be there already and the house would still be there. i don't think that is a terrible thought to think of robson having a big 4,000-square-foot house that includes a 1,400-square-foot a.d.u. as you proceed with the a.d.u.s, it's something to think about, is the house worthy of being preserved or should it be torn down to add an a.d.u. and can we add an a.d.u. in an existing house, something like this sound house and to have housing that much faster? this has been basically empty since 2015 when the speculator bought it. and you could have housing there

now, two units. so it's something to think about as you proceed with your a.d.u.s, wherever you decide to put them. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public want to publicly comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner fong. >> a couple questions for staff on the report. was there pretty much agreement on the methodology used to determine the demand? >> demand? so the framework in terms of the level of housing growth is actually the regional plan. so it's looking at calls for about 35,000 housing units being built every year. the most recently adopted plan through 2040. and the region, the nine

counties collectively there's about 20,000 or so that have been permitted in recent years so it's quite a deficit. there's also, you know, a pretty steep disparity between most of those units that have been permitted are above moderate. so there's relatively limited low or moderate income housing being permitted at this point in time. but that's the basis is the adopted plan, adopted by (indiscernible). >> in terms of the section that dealt with a.d.u.s, it talks about residential districts. in san francisco would that just be our districts or other mixed-use districts? >> i think that james can better answer that question. any district that allows residential which includes our n.c. districts. >> n.c. and u.m.u. >> u.m.u., that's correct. >> is that correct? okay. was there any discussion by the work groups on a.d.u.s in

commercial districts? >> there's a lot of discussion on a.d.u.s and i would say that it was one of the areas where there was quite a bit of consensus early on that they're seen as a relatively good tool. and essentially they looked at some bills that doesn't make it out of the legislature last year and put forward, and they also looked at best practices from the city of santa rosa and sonoma county that adopted a.d.u. policies after the wildfires up in sonoma and they used that for the basis for what they put forward in that element. >> commissioner richards. >> miss hester got up and said back in the 1980s that there was a clear understanding that there was a linkage between job growth and the need for housing and transportation. it seems like probably late in the last decade we got a sense of amnesia around that because we added so many more jobs than

we added homes. and this is not a dig at this organization of which i'm a part of or the city, we screwed up. i mean, we added -- i actually remember pulling out of a drawer the other day when mayor lee got elected and the pamphlet was called "jobs, jobs, jobs," and how many jobs we'd create. and we didn't understand that the technology and people will move back to the city, and it was like a tsumani that came over us. and we built out office space and created all of these jobs. and now, you know, we've looked at the enemy and the enemy is us. we have created this problem ourselves. it's not like some external force did it. i mean, seriously. so, you know, one of the things that i'm looking at or i'm asking is, population -- i read yesterday that the population in california is actually increased

by .047%, the lowest since recorded in 1900 on. is this a good time to actually take our breath and catch up? and to create the infrastructure and the housing rather than trying to add more people and jobs? i mean, otherwise we're just churning. you know, we are going to keep adding more people and oh, we have another crisis. well, we recognize that we have a crisis that we created. why would we want to throw gasoline on to a fire. that's a question that i have. and i mentioned this a lot about shared prosperity. i mean, we're, you know, we want to keep taking more of the spoils of the economic growth. and i mentioned the statistic before that most of the wealth has been created since the last recessions in 25 counties out of 3,000 in the u.s. and several of them are here in the bay area. it's like we have got a problem and it's a good problem but it's still a problem. so i guess that the question that i have is -- we're now going to be coming back and

maybe miss karen can answer this in setting the population targets for the future. i understand that we're in the process now with the state demographer. how is that set, given the fact that we actually see the population -- los angeles had zero increase in population and they lost about 100 residents. how do we set the targets which puts all of this into play? can you explain it? because we're at the cusp of setting the population targets again. >> meeting with the planning department, i think that my colleagues here can address that in more detail but i'll give you my perspective. so the forecast, the population, employment and housing forecast is based on growth that is triggered by investment, by jobs, as well as natural growth. and a combination of migration. so the demographers at the state level will assess where the economy is and where we're expecting to be. and to find new targets.

our assessment is that the targets are going to be much higher. we are experiencing a period of sustained period of growth as we have discussed. it has been the longest in a long, long time. our own chief economist has decided not to forecast a downturn any longer. we think that eventually the economy will need to find some stability, but at this point we're expecting a higher target. how will that be defined in relationship to economic growth and natural growth? that would be a substantial conversation at the regional and the state level. >> right, that's the hard part that i'm having a hard time reconciling. we're forecasting all of this economic growth but the population growth has now pretty much leveled off at .047%. so how is that reconciled? >> well, some of that -- we had a period of economic decline prior to this growth, where we

experienced a substantial unemployment. so some of that is absorbing and some of that is bringing new workforce to the region. it finds its own balance, with more or less pain. if we don't build enough housing like we're doing right now, the workers -- a number of workers still in the region, either they are having substandard housing and long commutes or are on the streets. so we will need to figure out how to cope with the housing needs. now when you ask about how we manage the economic growth. that's a harder question. and how -- i think that in san francisco we have put an effort, as indicated, in terms of how much office space we built. we tried to have elements to manage our growth. but the reality is that once

investment comes to this city or any other city, that a lot of things are to capture the growth and to figure out how to provide for the services in the best possible way. >> okay, great. next, another question that i have -- we talked about the middle income band and the fact that we're severely underbuilding it. i talked to builders and developers and they say they don't make any money on that type of housing. so -- and the nexus study that we had in 2016 said for rental you need .3 units for every housing and .37 for ownership unit. and yet all of the figures that we've got with sb50 and our own inclusionary percent are much less than that. how do you reconcile that? shouldn't we be producing whether through subsidy or

higher levels than .37%? aren't we digging ourselves into a hole? >> i believe that you used the word "churn" at one point when you were posing your first question. and i think that in a lot of ways what casa -- which is -- it's not an ongoing committee and it's not a commission, it's a result of a lot of work that a lot of people put in over 18 months. as i said from pretty different perspectives. but i think that especially over time what those people would say is that what they are attempting to address is the deficits that you're talking about. they're recognizing the fact that i have been at this long enough that, you know, 10 years ago we used to say if we don't build enough housing that nobody will come. it turns out that is not true. people do come. and the most significant innovation industries in the world want to be here. when you don't build enough housing and particularly when you don't build enough housing at the moderate, low, and very

low income levels you have clurpb. and you have mr. people -- churn. and you have some people who live here and some can't. and some have the impacts that myriam describes and some just leave. this is what this is attempting to do, and to do it in terms of protection by putting some basic policies in place that will protect the most vulnerable residents from displacement. now san francisco is somewhat unique in that there's already a lot of protection policies that you have on the books in san francisco. and some of the policies put in place are proposed in casa, that would be for communities that don't have any policies at all. and in terms of production and the way of getting at the moderate income housing that you just mentioned is envisioned through streamlining that there would be incentives for developers to build it. so that the funding for affordable housing would be directed specifically to extremely low, very low, and low income housing. it wouldn't be used for moderate income housing because there's

such a huge need for the most vulnerable residents who need affordable housing. so it's an attempt to pull all of these things together. but it's based on the assumption that people will keep coming here. and they do keep coming and it's desirable for people to not have to leave to accommodate people coming in. >> and a question they read recently around -- i don't know the exact figure, the mayor's office of housing said for them it costs $700,000 to build a unit of housing -- $800,000. so if you look at the $800,000, how much is due to streamlining? if we got rid of the planning department and every red tape and i had a crane and i start building, how much could i reduce that $800,000? i mean, seriously, are we nibbling at the smallest piece of the pie? what effect are we going to have? i think that it's a great idea but if casa builds a unit and my

husband has peers who make $1 on 00,000, how can they afford to buy one even if it costs $600,000? how much can we wring out of the system without materials and labor and land and all of those other things? do we have a breakdown? >> we will put together that breakdown. but the streamlining, and in the kind of most substantial equation, no more than 10%. and even that is stretching. and, unfortunately, as ken was describing, we have created a very expensive region and we are right now have about 10 studies to see what kind of construction and what kind of projects, and we are getting very, very limited results.

and so it costs a lot of money to create a product and if it's an affordable housing unit, sometimes we have additional complications. so it's a complex situation at hand, and we have a lot of resources in the region. and we need to figure out a way to redistribute the resources in a way that we can support the different income levels throughout our economy. and those are the mechanisms that we're trying to articulate. >> that's great, because that's the first time that i have heard a quantifiable, with streamlining in the best case scenario could be. and but even at that, you're still looking at -- for many of the people that are workers and people that work for the city, they still can't afford it. so there's got to be some type of a funding mechanism for that gap somewhere. because just building more

housing is not going to make it affordable for the people that can't afford it. >> right. i think that is correct. and part of the challenge is that this a regional effort. and the only place in the region at this point in time where the market is building moderate income housing are salano county and a few places in eastern al meetah and so forth, where the market can do what the market in most of the country does as its core business. most of the country, middle-income housing is what home builders build because it's the core of the country. here increasingly over the last couple decades, you know, it's further and further out from the city, the peninsula, western santa clara county and it's become less and less possible to do that without a subsidy. >> right. >> so it may require a subsidy in a number of communities and it may not be enough to say that streamlining gets you there. >> in the 25% that the region is going to share, does that go to subsidies?

>> so the basic framework that was put forward and i don't believe that any of the bills in sacramento get to that level of detail at this point in time. but the basic framework is that 75% would be returned to source to a given county. and 25% would be given to the regional housing enterprise distributed regionally. and it wouldn't stay there but be distributed regionally. >> when the director mentioned to preserve and to protect, i got really excited. one of the questions that i -- that keeps coming back to me is why don't we join all of the bills together and sell this as a solution, rather than get pieces of a solution? because, like blooms, ab36 was pulled on the protect piece. so we may get just production and very little protection. i mean, i don't understand why the bills aren't joined. >> i'm not a legislative expert. but my understanding is that the bills can't be joined in that manner. there's significant effort to try to make sure that protection

bills move forward if the production bills are moving forward, for example. >> so the only protection bill is to have rent increases to no more than 10%. >> correct. there were efforts to incorporate some of the protections within sb50. and the governor has been working with some of the groups to do. that and there was also some integration of sb50 and sb4 to address the concerns of small jurisdictions and large jurisdictions. and the governor is trying to see if platform of various legislative pieces can be articulated. and it's a hard task given the diversity of our communities and our cities throughout the state. >> so you mentioned sb50 and sb4 and the money shot question is, how can we have a regional solution when sb50 does not apply to part of the nine county area, napa, sonoma and that's

not a regional solution, is it? it's a yes-or-no question. >> i believe that it applies to sonoma and i think that you said moran. >> county is under 600,000 population, and i think there's four counties -- and it's not a regional solution. >> i don't think that is true of the four unit -- >> right, right. >> but the whole issue around transit were also applied and it should be all nine counties. and just a couple specific questions on the report -- a couple more. on page 3, element number 4, we remove regulatory barriers to a. dumplet and -- a.d.u. and require reariard cottages. and the word "require" caught me. how would we require them?

>> i certainly don't think that it was "require." >> okay. >> oh, it's saying that san francisco currently requires a.d.u.s to be in the buildable area of a lot. so allowing new cottages in the rear yard would require legislative changes and that would represent a change for us. >> and also that the next line is prohibit occupancy requirements. if i want to build an a.d.u. and i have a two-unit apartment building i can build an a.d.u. in the back but not have to live in the two units, that's what that means? >> i think that they were changing certain requirements that you needed to have an owner living in the structure. >> okay. >> and i'm not sure that we had those here. >> i agree. and the demolition controls, page 4, i still and i think the demolition controls are moot and

i asked the city attorney on record and miss chiu brought this up, if i want to demolish a house, we can't say no. we don't have demolition controls and i asked it on the record and the city attorney answered me and you can review the tape. and element six and seven, i have a question here and it looks like the state is going to get into telling us what the inclusionary housing percent is going to be because it's going to be -- the policy calls for state law to have uniform standards with impact fees and inclusionary housing requirements and downzoning and moratoriums on housing productions and when you look at element seven. (please stand by)

>> the map issue directs housing toward -- i forget the term. >> high resource areas. >> thank you, it's very informative. thank you to staff for your questions. i want to start my -- i would like to start my comments by just pointing out a couple of things that you shared that i think are important to restate. one is that we failed to produce enough housing at all income levels including market rate and moderate and low income that we failed to preserve our existing

housing that we failed to protect tenants and protect our housing. we failed to work collaboratively as a region. that's my add on. we don't have the appropriate funding mechanism to fund affordable housing. people will keep coming to the region. right now, we have this system of housing that favors the lucky people who were able to buy before prices got astronomical. people who got to move into a representative-controlled apartment. and they're holding on for deer life. the folks that make enough income so they can put down a $200,000 down payment on a house. it's a system that we currently have. when i look at this framework for the compact and i look at tenant protection, rent caps, legal services and rental is east as soon aassistance, zone l homes, buildings code which is

really exciting for me, i have lots of friends living in tiny homes and it would be great to have zoning around that. up zoning near transit stops. good government reform. expedited approval of projects that meet the city's housing goals and needs. activating publicly-owned parcels and finding ways to fund it all. this is an extent framework and i'm glad we have this to work with. some commenters shared this concern and i could agree with them. when we talk about equity, if equity isn't baked in and clear and put at the forefront it's hard to take a process seriously and it talks about finding ways to be equitable and i think the map that we have around equitable communities and the ways in which beer designing those, ar problematic. even good policy and framework

and legislation. if you do flush tha don't flushm the beginning, the bottom falls out and we see legislation that doesn't have the stuff baked in. where we should -- i think we are in a emergency moment so we need leadership. we needed a small group of people to come together to create a framework and a regional effort that actually has all of these efforts coming part and parcel. i am so glad that san francisco has tenant protections and other things and we actually have legislation that goes beyond what is here. yet, i want my friends in oakland and richmond, my co-workers, my lyft driver, all those people to have a baseline of the same protections that i have.

finding what sensitive communities are and i think a lot of us from a non-profit community are pretty concerned about the 2020 census and the census being problematic so looking for other ways to measure what vulnerable communities look like and getting that extremely clear as soon as possible. the other thing i would say that inclusionary housing, making sure, if we are building market race housing, we're living and city and integrated people at all income levels. every new development that gets the benefit from new zoning, should have inclusionary housing on site.

it's great that we have language around sensibilities but i'm a big fan of aba12-79 ex points important we're talking about the neighborhoods and communities that will be most effected by this, which are rh1 and rh2, which could stand with more density and really counterbalancing that with communities of opportunities that have the opportunity to take on significant ant amounts of market rate housing. there's just feels like when we're talking about equity again, we should be talking about it all around and not just talking about vulnerable communities but talking about communities that really need to be doing their part. and then i would just say that i hope we get to put tax measures on the ballot to raise more income because san francisco has a very good track record of supporting funding, housing and i think the region will as well.

>> commissioner moore. >> thank you, staff. thank you commissioners johnson for what i hair tenant protection both of community and protection of sensitive communities. the question i have for you, just to cut to the chase and keep our comments a little bit more confined, what are -- the see similarities and it's based not my not complete understanding of ab-1487 kind of a compact as a regional housing enterprise and taxing authority. how does that distinguish itself from what ab-14 establish a housing alliance for the bay area which also provides new housing revenue measures to be on the ballot? how that different? is it similar?

can these two be combined. are you competing? what are we doing here? >> they're related. one creates a mechanism to raise funding. it would essentially set up a framework in the region and i think a lot of times, they talk about a giant new agency with hundreds of staff people around it and it's not true at all. it would not have regulatory authority at all. it would have the ability to go out and raise money, which means that it could go, if it was authorized, it could go to the ballot in the nine counties and put measures up for voters to consider for approval. they still would have to approve them many of this is a multi-step process. a framework for raising funds and then if funds were raised, it would create an entity to distribute funds. and a proposal for 75% going

back to the country as a source of funding and 25% would go to the regional entity for distribution. it's essentially to primarily pay for affordable housing. i would also say that, and this is an area where some of the regional differences come up. san francisco, still today has far and away the most expensive, comprehensive planning and housing infrastructure in the region. many cities, particularly smaller to medium sized cities in the region, once had a redevelopment agency, when redevelopmentment "the watchlistdevelopment went away,o incense market rate development when the market is softer, to fund affordable housing. all of that went away. so did the staff expertise and it happened just prior to the boom and that is why, for example, the city of oakland sought very little housing development until two years ago.

despite the job growth in the region. so it would create a framework for that at a regional level at a way that jurisdictions that wanted to opt into that and make use of those resources, they could do so without trying to create a infrastructure and a smaller community. >> can i just add to that. this was a very big point of discussion as the legislative commission that i sat on. frankly, i was surprised at the push back from many of the communities in the region. this bill does not create a new governmental entity. it actually uses staff from mtc to staff it and it creates two things. a mechanism for raising money and providing technical assistance. but no city has to take it, right. in my mind, it's helping smaller communities that do not have the funding mechanisms or the technical assistance to build accord ablbuildaing affordable . it's a huge plus for the region to create a regional entity that

can raise money for affordable housing, it seemed like a good idea. i was surprised, frankly at the amount of push back for my colleagues on this. >> commissioner hills. >> thank you for the work you've done on this. i also think it boils down the issues well. it really hits all the points. if you look at it at its core, the three ps, i think even when you hear comments about it and people are negative, on the plan and there's too much introduced and it's not pre and at least comments i hear and no one throws this out and i'm glad and mtc and others step up to do this and it's the right approach and it's the only approach.

one issue, which think everybody is gra grappling, this is at the regional level and this bill we just talked about, we're not governed that way and the state is passing bills that will work for our region and l.a. and san diego and if we try to collectively do things at the local level, we feel like we're doing more than san mateo where they feel like we're not doing enough. so did you look at that at all? just the governance aspect of this? it's a difficult task to try to implement this in the municipal governments to do the right thing or, you know, people say we like the state coming and telling us what to do. is will a thought on some form of regional laws or governance that would get at this?

>> it's a difficult task. i think at its core, along with the three ps and the premise i mentioned that people see there's been all this churn in the region and lots and lots of negative impacts on way too many people. it drove this. another aspect that developed over the course of the process was an acknowledgment. the region with 110 jurisdictions, coming up with a regional framework where possible can be very beneficial. the bills, not the bills but the elements that were adopted as part of the compact most of them were envisioned as regional bills. the legislature i think for reasons you described have chosen not to advance them at least today other than the regional housing enterprise and the funding piece in that manner.

even at the housing push back, i've been encouraged by the level of dialogue that is occurring across jurisdictions which is largely not people saying -- hopefully a little further down the road. >> i hope so. my only critique of it is probably for the reasons when you get a group together and you are trying to be innovative and advancing these, it doesn't go far enough in any of those categories, produced, protect, preserve. that's the nature of this. for me, we should have state wide rent control.

that would be great. that's the kind of level we need to produce housing. as you can probably fall shortest is on the funding side. even if this report, you say there's $1.5 billion needed and the revenue sources, some of them which are not a big hope of getting passed, don't even get you to that $1.5 million. things like prop 13, where it necessarily mentioned, i don't think in the report, which i know gets political. that funding, because ultimately when we've got income inequality and we need affordable housing and middle income housing, the only way to fill those gaps is to tax people and transfer that wealth. i think, you know, especially on that point, it doesn't go far enough. every aspect, it doesn't go far enough. i think there's a premise of this report and it's great. it's what we need.

i think the difficult challenge is going to be either how you implement it at a state level or try to get these municipalities together to do what is in here because i think it's a great blue print. thank you. >> to point out ab-11, thi11 crg effectively redevelopment 2.0. which is one of the bills that would probably be the most effective in creating new funding sources for affordable housing. if you remember, redevelopment was the biggest single source for affordable housing and i know it was true in many other cities as well. the good things will this version, and i think there are concerns about some of the details. the good things about this version is it puts more protections or more safe guards so that redevelopment cannot be abused the way it was in some parts of the state before the dissolution. the second thing is there was a very robust discussion among the

legislative committee about job production. and at one point, it got a little bit interesting when some members of the committee pointed fingers at the three counties where most jobs were being created and said you solve the problem. i thought that was an interesting statement. number one, it means we're still not thinking as a region and number two, it suggests that if the jobs hadn't happened here in san mateo and they wouldn't have happened elsewhere. it just isn't true. members of the committee from salino said we'll take the jobs, give them to us. and of course those are places that are much less transit oriented. and it would have created the same problem if not a worse problem than we have today. i think, i mean, there's this constant discussion and i've had it at neighborhood meetings about can't you just stop creating jobs? i think the answer is no.

there are 101 municipalities in this region and one that wants the jobs will take them if one that doesn't want them doesn't. it's a regional issue. we have to realize we're a region over 100 municipalities each of who control their destiny. >> commissioner richards. >> just a couple of follow-up questions. i think the commissioner hit the nail on the head that some bigger bolder things need to happen. that's where the trust is in this process. the ellis act. people buying buildings that know their businesses and the rentals and two much later and they get rid of everybody. you have to change too because you are a part of this. also, prop 13, some type of reform. my house has gone up in value.

i can't pay the stepped up taxes every year, maybe upon my death or sale you could get it back. i mean, there can be things that can keep people in their homes but still give a part of what they've made through no effort of their own, back. i mean, i think there are thinge table too. it would engender a lot more trust and sane ti anxiety. the communities of concern to commission johnson's point, the process of a 5-year pause to a community plan, what is the criteria at the end of five years? is there a goal? i know the amendments have come out to sb-59, but how is a community allowed to get a pass when they do the community planned process? can they say, we don't want growth? that's our planning process? what are the criteria acceptable and not acceptable? is there something set? >> i don't know the level of detail on that front and the

current of sb-50. what was before it was the idea that a city could say, you know, in these areas, these provisions would not apply and there's five years to do so. not unlike neighborhood plans that have advanced in san francisco today, where there's a lot of community involvement, looking at specific issues around affordability and making sure that some of the protection elements that are part of casa would be put in place to provide further protections and i don't think it got to the the level that you are talking about. that would be part of the consideration of developing the planning process for those plans. >> as the discussion continues, we'll see where it lands. the five-year window is to delay

the application of sb-50. at the end of the five-year planning period the community will have to identify where the units will go. they have have the ability to relocate and redesign and identify which areas need to be protected and what areas might be open for more housing. the concept of adding more capacity, more housing capacity remains after the five-year window. >> so there's a bass line under sb-50, your zoning capacity could increase the the end of five years and your goal is x, however you want to do it. i think that's ok. if this comes to pass, in six months i would love for you to come back and say here is all the legislation that got passed and here are the details and here are the holes we have. i don't know if it's this regional housing authority or we need to start measuring these outcomes because these are big

things so five years from now, if this passes, what happened? did we achieve our goal? did prices go up or down? what's the diversity look like? we need to bank into a robust measuring to be able to change course if it's not going the say we want it to. >> thank you. >> thank you, all. >> thank you. >> thank you, very much. we can move on to items 14a and b for cases -- 2015-016326cua for lots 323 and 324. these are general plans findings of consistency and a conditional use authorization.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm christie alexander, planning department staff. the items before you are conditional use authorizationation to allow a hotel use and findings of consistency with the general plan for vacations at sea lots 323 and 324. this project site is under port jurisdiction. the project, which is also known includes the demolition of a existing ser face parking lot and a mixed-use development consisting of three com compones and entertainment venue and 112,700 gross square foot four-storey, 450-foot tall hotel accommodating 194 guest rooms and 14,000 gross square foot

privately financed and maintained public park. now, this project would include the portion of billow hoe street and david street which total up 14,461 square feet. these portions of davis street currently do not exist as actual roads and are being used as a surface parking lot. the easement bisect for the park. the continued existence of public easement would make it feasible for privately financed public park. since the publication of the final mitigate negative declaration on december 21st, 2018, the planning permit has issued a note to file and this document provides clarity to the required approvals associated with the project but these clarifications do not alter any environment alanal scissor

conclusions for the proposed project as stated in the fmnd. on march 6th, 2019, the historic preservation commission found the project to be consistent with article 10 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards for rehab and the department to state and the staff report has upwards of 87 letters in support of the project signed by neighborhood groups,. [ please stand by ][.

>> the ar timlation articulation and brick construction creates a visually interesting street facade consistent with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood as well as the secretary of interior standards and it meets all applicable requirements and planning code and the objectives of the plan and northeast and water front area plan. this concludes staff's presentation. the project sponsor would like to make a presentation and we have port staff and preservation staff in attendance if you have questions for them. >> commissioner: thank you. project sponsor. hello mr. president for the day

and commissioners, thank you very much for serving our city again. glad you're here. i'm jay wallace, project sponsor, joined by a partner, rakesh patel in the way in the back and a partner from zinzanni who will speak at the end. i want to thank the staff. it's been a long process. we're now here and i'll have mark give you a couple slides presentation and happy to answer questions. we're thrilled to be here. it's time to move the project forward. i see in the audience many friends are here and to all who came, i want to say thank you. it's a long afternoon but worthy of our time and thank you very much and with that i'll have mark hornberger give you a quick

presentation in order to answer any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners and welcome commissioner. i'm the architect of the project and i have a very brief presentation if we could get the overhead on. i just wanted to take you through a few attributes of the project, share them with you. we can go through these quite briefing. to reacquaint you with the location of the site, here we are at the edge of the northeast water front historic direct and the embarcadero at broadway.

the project conforms to the 44-height limit and we tried to be careful and respectful of the adjacent buildings and scale and mass as seen along the embarcadero. it's a complex project. three key elements. the hotel, 192-key hotel. teatro zinzanni and the supporting spaces and the effort to bring them together in a single melded plan. then the third element which is the public mark, 14,000 square foot privately maintained public opening space in this key really underdeveloped portion of the embarcadero now.

it's two open surface parking lots and we're converting this to important uses that will benefit the public. over the last almost five years now i think collectively or individually, our client and i have had over oo -- 90 meetings with neighborhood groups and members of the committee, w.a.c. and new-ago and tried to bring the best ideas together in a building compatible with the district and with its neighbors. we've worked closely with planning staff and the director to try and make sure that the

glass pavilion for the historic tent is correctly located at this nexus of davis and vallejo. that it addresses the new park space and it's as transparent as possible. at the interesting gateway to the new park we added public art which helps enliven the intersection and draw the public to that place. staff mentioned historic preservation commission. we worked closely with the design review committee, addressed secretary of interior standards and tried to bring a buildi building of our time but

respectful of the district. two more slides. the nighttime view subtle but reflect the entertainment aspect of the project. the mark is the really -- park is the really important community benefit. a place where children can play. we can have morning exercise. you can go read a book. you can stand on the podium and speak to folks there and play music. it's a real community amenity. happy to take questions do you in due course. >> commissioner: we may have questions after public comment.

i have a couple speaker cards but anyone not mentioned can line up on the right side- [calling names] >> hi, commissioners, i'm janet clyde. i have terrible handwriting. we need them back and i hope you move the project forward. we need them, thanks.

>> my name is cynthia gomes here representing hotel and hospitality workers and spokin in support of the project and here to do the same today. the question that comes up often before you is that the project should be approved because it will bring jobs to the city. my constant drumbeat is what kind of jobs will they be? will they be able to have afford living and health care and this project brings these kinds of jobs. this is supporting jobs for the construction and staffing of the hotel to allow a living wage in the city in san francisco which is no small thing. that's the reason we support the

project and the question we'll always ask you to consider when projects are brought before you and hope to see it approved today. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm president of local 856 and also the hotel rep. we represent over 1,000 hotel workers in san francisco. we have the city wide contract that provides employer-paid health insurance and protections. we work closely with local 2. and the developer came to us early and agreed to a car check meaning once the hotel's open they will throw no barrier into organizing these workers and are in favor and hope future projects are as easily obtained. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm bruno kantor and represent northeast neighbors on the northeast water front advisory committee. i've seen the project go from its initial stages. i've been impressed by the amount of community outreach to the local organizations and north beach neighbors and new-ag. i was glad to see they came with open ears and eyes and made adjustment to the project as it developed and they were hearing from us, the articulation and i saw a lot of development of the project and appreciate the sponsors brought the project to the community very early in the initial concept phase of the