requirements. this is really a trend that we're seeing citywide. projects aren't pencilling due to increased construction costs, but also due to new requirements. construction costs have doubled since 2013 and increased 5% since last year. so increasing, this is also sort of contributing to the feasibility of projects. so we're really trying to find a balance between generating public benefits but also making sure these projects take place. so the next step is to work with public economics a little bit more, and we will revisit this one more time before plan adoption. so given the anticipated development, particularly at market and vanness, there will be even more people that will be accessing this station, and so the sfmta has been leading the study to find out how

people access the station and moving within the station. they have a study underway and they've done counts within -- i think it was a week period. and then, preliminary studies show they don't see a lot of crowding from the entrance to the mezzanine, so they're developing their final recommendations and cost estimates, and the hope is that some of these recommendations could be added and potentially funded with some of the impact fee money for the transit category. and the last study that i'll mention is the community stablization strategy. it's an effort that the project -- that the department initiated in 2017 really recognizing that the city is in an affordable housing crisis. the department wanted to better

understand what the city's doing with respect to the preservation and that protection with residential and commercial tenants. it's slated to come out later in the summer, and this is a citywide strategy that could be applied to neighborhoods such as that. so i'll quickly walk-through where we are in terms of recommendations. so this is our land use proposal. it hasn't changed significantly since it was before you last. the map on the left shows existi existing zoning and the map on the right shows the proposed zoning. so we're proposing to rezone all the n.c.t. parcels to c-3-g parcels, and all of that would be within the vanness market

s.u.d. we're also planning to make a few tweaks so allowing a little bit more flexibility for nonresidential use dos, stricter parking -- uses, stricter parking requirements, providing some incentives for art uses, and some requirements for microretail to really ensure a mix of retail types. this is the height proposal. the mix on the left shows the towers that are allowed today ranging from between 250 feet to 400 feet, and the remaining parcels are usually about 85 or 120. and so we're proposing to raise heights on 18 parcels. this is showing with the orange boundary on the map on the right, and towers between 250 and 690 feet would be allowed

at the two intersections. we've made two changes to the height map since we were here last, which includes 170 otis, and i'd just like to highlight that, you know, the biggest change that we'll see in this area really is built out under the existing zoning. under the existing zoning, we anticipate it's a little over 1800 units. so the third piece that we looked at is the public realm. so given all the increase in land use and the increase in the number of people that will be living here and moving here, this is really a plan to revision the alleys and sidewalks and streets.

march of 2017 we released a design plan that included all of the sidewalks, streets, and alleys, and we've been working with a lot of departments and projects that front these streets to inform them of the design responsibility and implementation. so here's a level of design that's in the public realm plan. this is 12 street. we're proposing to repurpose the road way to make wider sidewalks, to make it greener and a little bit more pleasant. so with all this new development, there are fees associated that can help fund infrastructure projects, so we've calculated the amount that can be generated under the

existing fees and existing requirement. we've estimated about $720 million and with the rezoning of the particular sites, it's a total of about $946 million. and i'll just walk-through our recommendations for each of these categories. so we've estimated about $670 million for new on-site affordable units and resources. all projects would be subject to the inclusionary requirements that exist today as well as the affordable marketing fees. so this -- we estimate about 2100 affordable housing units.

the fees associated with the upzoning on those 18 sites translates to an additional 643 units which gets us to about 29% affordability overall for the plan area. we estimate about $116 million for transit improvements and thinking this would largely go to improving transit service and capacity at vanness station. we estimate $71 million for street and alley improvements and have identified three priorities for how this funding would be spent. the first on sort of the major streets in the area, the second adjacent on alleys in the major development, and the third for new streets and alleys to be determined. we've estimated about $57 million for child care centers and schools, about $20 million for child care and about $37 million for schools.

and $32 million for new parks and enhancements to existing open spaces and we've identified the following priorities. so the first priority would be the new park at 11 and natoma, improvements to some of the parks, and the last new open spaces in the hub. and because the hub is a relatively small area, many of the new open space opportunities fall adjacent to the plan area. so in order to use impact fee revenue to fund these open space improvements, we would need to expand the area in which impact fee money can be spent, and this is something that we've been getting public input on. so i'll just conclude by our next steps. we're going to continue to advance the environmental review process. the draft e.i.r. is anticipated to come out in about two weeks, and there's a hearing in august. we're going to further refine the public developments

packages based on the information we've heard. we'll be drafting the planning code and general plan amendments, and we're expecting adoption in the winter of 2020. so that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to hear your comments and answer any questions. >> vice president koppel: thank you. like to open this up for public comment. anyone like to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners, peter papadopolous. yeah we -- i've been meet with the department, we've been meeting with citywide allies. we have a lot of concerns about this, and just the simplest way to say it is from a framework

perspective. this is partly because of the work done by the planning department and other strategies. we think when we haven't done is take the last and clear next step which is to say what is the equity lens that things are coming out through. and in fact as many of us probably know, right down the hallway will be an office of race and equity hearing today as the supervisors propose to take exactly that step and in fact, i would suggest if it looks like this is going to be going forward, it would be a good idea to run this through that among many others. people in the neighborhood specifically, what can we expect instead of really hoping we're going to catch up with

mitigations because things like affordable housing -- and i say this from an affordable housing builder p builder perspective, and i think we should call them strategies. what we really want is a community cultural stablization ecosystem. that said, i just want to note a couple of other additional items. i think that one of the issues that frames this, too, is i'm worried about shifting from an n.c.t. to a c-3-g. n.c.t. is specifically neighborhood serving community

by definition. that's what the point of it is. c-3-g said this is regional serving. yes, this is a bit of a transit hub, but this issue of we're going to up zone and now we're going to regionalize is sort of gentrification. there's no capacity to add fees beyond this, yet we know we're transferring huge, huge amounts of wealth. and what does that do to our wealth inequality we already have in we're worried about it. we're using the same metrics. if we're transferring tens, hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth and we can't recapture that. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. lisa petrucelli with our

commission, no eviction. you think we would have learned the lessons from not having robust area plans and valuable captures for our communities. and to up zone adjacent to these vulnerable communities, are we not learning? 30% increase in homelessness, 40% increase in people living in their cars? at 1801 mission and 1863 mission, as soon as they broke ground, we've lost 70 of our neighbors on minna, natoma, and 14. and director rahaim, you live in the neighborhood, and you see the conversion of these houses. we're talking about strategies that we're going to be talking about at the end of this summer, but we're just moving ahead without any of these things in place. where we going to learn?

we can't up zone until we have robust area plans and strategies to keep our communities impact and to stablize. we can't just continue at this pace until nobody's left. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first, i want to thank all of you for, you know, always taking in the community concerns on a number of different projects and lending your ear to some of the community concerns that we're seeing play out on a daily basis. we do want to kind of look at this under the equity lens. this is a pretty big plan. to me, if you drop a rock in a pool of water, the ripple effects, they bubble out in the areas nearby there. i work at the edge of the market octavia plan.

we're seeing businesses moving in that use the police to push their agenda of gentrification. i lives on -- lived on hayes, and the property information plan back then, you could see each building as it was being sold, so it was kind of interesting on watching it on one page for that to happen. i agree with the other speaker about fee recapture. we're seeing community benefits, we're seeing land donations. i think this plan needs to look at some of the same ideas. we're getting hammered by these big rocks of density bonus just dropping and the ripples moving

around. i live right next to a couple of blocks where 70 people are know out of place. a couple of them are even homeless. it's not on record where they had help with some of their forceful eviction. we need local business protections. we're seeing evictions for businesses, as well. the alleyway and treescapes, it's a stuff one. they seem -- tough one. they seem to be progentrifying. a recent article in the atlantic, to be desirable is to be devoured, and that's what we're seeing right now. a market stablization plan, that would be nice. there's book stores on market street that are just barely hanging on. i didn't really see anything -- this may happen later, but

addressing homelessness, navigation center sites. can we actually i'd fee some parcels so we keep navigation centers in this area, too? thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andrew. i am a resident of d-6. just want to talk about this plan. we do not find that this plan is equitiable. there will be a hearing today about the new market of racial equality that will analyze with how they impact certain communities of color in san francisco. the office's is to advance racial equity in the city, with racial disparity defined as where one group unfairly and

disproportionately experiences discrimination more so than others. -- indeed, that actually everyone would be worse off if immense private wealth were not created. this is mirrored in the hub plan while in the same breath attempting to justify this to the public through public benefits. the plan website states following the plan's adoption in 2008, most of the housing imagined in the hub was stalled due to the recession. now the area is receiving

concentrated attention from the development community. the website continues that the plan will help create new and additional affordable housing, continuing to transit improvements, provide new open space opportunities and/or enhance existing open spaces, improve streets and alleys and others as identified through the planning process. and if there is no upzoning, there is no additional benefits. the city gets wider, richer and more unequal as these places aided by the hub and central soma push out working class black and brown people. appreciate your time and consideration. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> sue hester. i am really wanting to commend my friends from the mission from what they just said. there is a lot of truth to what they said about this plan. what is on the overhead is the projects that were approved. and here, you have market and vanness, otherwise known as 1 oak. here, you have the building right across from the planning department that was approved probably four years ago. market and vanness got approved two years ago, and when there is a rezoning provision, they're planning on approving the height limit for a project -- pardon me, for a parcel that has already been

approved, and i just noticed it for the first time when she talked about it today. this is -- this is all right approved. it's going to go from -- it's proposed from going to 400 to 450 feet. why? people that sit on approvals are increasingly the norm in san francisco, and this area is one of the areas that you can sit on a project approval and hope to get really rich from selling your approval. i went through the process at the board of supervisors because it was working with people from hayes valley on 1 oak. and it was a troubling process not at the planning commission but at the board of

supervisors. vanness and market is a concentration of transit lines and bikes systems, and yet, you have really dense housing going in here, and what no one says, it's also the place where demand is dumped from silicon valley. housing demand is dumped on san francisco from silicon valley because of the buses that come right by the planning department may go through this intersection. and we have not factored into the fact that we are providing housing now for silicon valley, not for people who live here. this area of the city has traditionally been a working class area. people had jobs, and they were not high end. now we are accommodating people that make $200,000 or $300,000

and up with luxury condos up to 400 feet. the one thing that was c-3-g zoning. there was industrial zoning entirely in the area. regional, nonneighborhood. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i was sitting here listening to -- i was thinking of a couple of things. one, since we had that earthquake in the mojave, i remember when i used to hear the pile drivers at the high-rises in the 90s, i don't hear that anymore. for the salesforce tower, i didn't hear that anymore. i've been told that the

goodwill -- millennial tower, i don't hear that anymore. i've been told that the goodwill tower is constructed the same way as the millennial tower. there are hundreds if not thousands of unoccupied condos in all the high-rises that have been built throughout the city, and maybe even the things that have been converted to condos in the neighborhoods that are not occupied. so maybe we need to think about what kind of occupancy that we're building because condos are a way for people to invest money and hide money. maybe affordable housing would be a lot better.

thank you very much. >> vice president koppel: thank you. anyone else for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner john? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. thank you to staff for the presentation, and thank you, thank you, thank you to all the speakers who spoke on this plan. you know, i think this department and we have had robust conversations around racial injustices. i remember there was one project that was brave enough to have a racial injustice analysis and then we haven't had any hearings since then. i think when we're going to have information about one of the largest projects that we're going to see, it's crucial that we -- that it's not kind of just a slight of what our community plan is but that we're really implementing the goals of the department and bringing that racial justice

and equity analysis forward, and i know that there is a department that we're going to have. not many speakers spoke up, but i think we need to have a tool that we name that we're at least having those conversations and that there are things that we can do now to begin to explore those issues. the other thing that i would say is i just really appreciated mr. papadopolous' comments around goals and strategies, and that affordable housing and some of the other things that we're thinking around stablization and strategies, that's great, but explicitly saying the goals that we have for our communities. making sure that people aren't displaced, making sure that we're placing more vulnerable populations, really stating the type of integrated community that we're trying to build and making sure that we're drawing

that down to different strategies that we're trying to place, and i think that's something within our power to do. so i just really encourage us to continue to work hard to really state clearly and explicitly our values and the ways in which those tie in the strategy, that every opportunity we are informing the community about massive changes for different communities in our neighborhood. >> vice president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: multiple questions for staff. i guess in the draft e.i.r., we will see what the traffic patterns will be, and the impacts. >> yes. so all of the street change designs will be represented and implemented in the draft e.i.r. >> commissioner fung: you know, when the freeway changed and then was demolished, it dumped

everything on to the octavia plan based upon the urban design that was pushed forward. now, that neighborhood is impacted because if you try to go through that in commute hours, it's just solid packed. so what is being proposed for this area in terms of traffic plans? >> so we have specific designs for the major streets in the hub area. we aren't looking beyond that, so this e.i.r. isn't going to look at hayes or grove or octavia. the specific streets that we looked at were 11 and 12, duboce -- >> commissioner fung: okay. >> yeah. >> commissioner fung: all right. the two things that wasn't brought forth in your presentation, one was the

utility infrastructure. you know, with this increase in density there, you know, what's happening with the utility infrastructure? there's an increase in demand. >> so each project to look at that as impact to their project, and it would be looked at in the area as part of the e.i.r. >> vice president koppel: yeah. it's looked at in terms of the whole plan area. >> commissioner fung: right. but a project only looks to connect at their property line. if you find, then, that this greater density is going to generate much greater utilities

and entire streets being ripped up takes a long time. affects traffic and everything else, is there a conversation on that? >> commissioner, we work closely with the sfpu kr as it relates to water and sewer. as you know, vanness is being torn up. >> commissioner fung: it's taking forever. >> it is. and those are being informed by long-range projections out through 2040 and beyond, not just for the city as a whole, but the broader neighborhoods. all this is being looked at, and as they are undertaking these major infrastructure projects, whether it's vanness

and b.r.t., whether all of these streets will be torn up to redesign them -- >> commissioner fung: do you see this as having core -- coordinating planning studies of their own? >> well, they review the e.i.r., all the key agencies. not just sfpuc, but all of them review the plan as a whole, and they identify major infrastructure needs that the plan might not call for. >> commissioner fung: last thing is in the presentation, i didn't see anything related to sustainability. is there any sustainability goals and requirements? >> there's a number of citywide policies that each of these

individual buildings would be subject to, like the green building ordinance. >> commissioner fung: yeah, but that doesn't necessarily coordinate to an entire area. >> so each new building would be subject to it, and what we're trying to do in terms of street designs is sustainability with things like stormwater issues and things like that. >> commissioner fung: my concern is that would be a short-sighted approach. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so one of the disappointments of market octavia for me was the market recapture rate was around a third, maybe 35%. we went around, saying we're

transferring this wealth and only getting a third back. when i was dealing with central soma, i was asking mr. orfelia, what are we getting back? we just approved central soma, we'll be doing these projects -- none of them are all residential. maybe they've got a mix of office and hotel things. but i go back, and we're still getting the 67%, but i kind of look at the 33% value recapture, and i go why are we doing this? why would we want to do this? we're creating more demand on this infrastructure that's already bursting at the seams. when i used to commute from embarcadero station to castro,

i used to kind of giggle when we'd go to vanness because the trains were already packed. all these people were standing there, waiting to go further out, and i'm saying god, i wouldn't want to live here or work here because i couldn't get home. trains would go by one after another, and you can't get on. we have an existing infrastructure capacity issue i think that came out when we were dealing with the affordable housing density bonus program, sb 27, sb 50. i know that mr. welch put up some numbers from the m.t.c., and i know we have somewhat of a need based on the current population. i just look at adding more load to an already dysfunctional transit system, and i start to

get worried. also, i get really worried when we bandy about preserve, protect, and reduce. my fear is we're going to get shovelled with the production and the preserve and protect isn't going to happen. i wouldn't support any upzoning until we have really, really solid equity and race lens, that this plan -- this upzoning would go through as well as to really understand that we've got -- we've got the capacitor we actually have a plan to be able to handle this. -- capacity hice or we actually have the plan -- capacity or we actually

have a plan to be able to handle this. a couple of things came up, as well. before market octavia, what was the population of demographics -- i'd love to see that -- with market okctavia t now. what would we expect to see after a marketing impact? what didn't work on eastern neighborhoods? let's not replicate that here. i just don't want to power gas on a fire. >> vice president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i just want to get at what i think commissioner fung was really pointing to which was just again, when we're hearing an informational report, it's an opportunity for us to really connect the dots not only for

ourselves but also for the public, and what we're asking for is just a better cut of data and information that relates back to the city's objectives. so if every single cuts -- how do we think about this on environmental impact, and racial goals and equity, and i think it would just help not only us but the public. and to just have that for anyone who's going to be moving forward to think about building in this space. so i just want to kind of echo and state that i think that we can get a little bit better about linking our updates to larger city goals and really connecting the dots, not only for ourselves but also the

public. >> vice president koppel: commissioner moore? >> i appreciate staff's moving to stay ahead. i ask myself why is this amendment being done now? why has it taken so long? the market octavia plan was started in 2008. we have looked through it, seen the pressure points over ten years. the hub was thinking in 2012. we are at 2019, and the pressures which further put pressure on market octavia are even becoming more obvious throughout the time, and people have asked questions. i appreciate commissioner johnson's comment. i appreciate commissioner fung's comment on equity, on green statement, on infrastructure capacity, and

i'm wondering, is this plan really anticipatory or is it just a retrofit of the inevitable? we all know that everybody who's going to be affected with this plan is already sitting at the table and pretty much has designed the projects, and i'm questioning whether or not if what we're proposing here is enough -- visionary enough to challenge some of the premises that are quite critical. let me be very practical. i have looked for example at the 10,000 s project. we have pressures at the b.a.r.t. station at vanness and market. the very logical solution is to look at that particular site to deal with below grade platform access which comes out of that parcel not accommodating an

already hardly workable station within the current configuration of how it's built. this is just a simple question. these shadows -- and i'm speaking of this one project, but it applies to others whose configurations that i'm familiar with. the 10,000 s project because it is slightly west of your own abo building is going to create significant shadows over the residential portion of the building which you'll be living adjacent to. those are issues to me in good planning that are discussed before plan is presented and amended. a first flush out for me is basically good climate planning. so is the retrofit there to accommodate the inevitable?

has the train already left the station? are we hanging on to try to capture something out of this ride? i wish we could step back a little bit and make certain decisions but look at the broad issues touched on by all commissioners who have spoken and touched on by the public. those are my comments. those aren't negative, i'm trying to put some wind under your wings. planning has to be bold, planning has to be courageous. i'm just trying to challenge some of your ideas here. >> vice president koppel: building on what miss hester said, the upzoning at vanness, is that going to be going

forward? >> when we looked at the urban design considerations of this intersection, we felt it was possible to raise the height limit within the overall urban character that we looked at, thinking that there might be a different version of this project that might come forward. >> if i could add not specifically in response to that, but to build off of commissioner moore's comments, there's been a lot of analysis going into this project. dozens of hearings to talk through all the issues. this is -- to some extent, it is jumping on a moving train. as commissioner moore described, this area was rezoned in 2008 for very high densities, and there's been a lot of projects underway.

this is an opportunity to learn from those not just from a design standpoint but from a housing production standpoint. we obviously came out of central soma for a lot of calls for more housing. we're building a lot of jobs in central soma. can we build more housing in soma? can we build more housing elsewhere? this is one of those elsewheres. it's already planned for high density housing. we're just trying to squeeze a little more affordable housing out of it as we get to where we approve the design of the projects and adopt a contemporary public benefits package. it w this is basically taking a plan that's already zoned for basically the same thing and just making some tweaks to hopefully improve the outcomes

and get more housing. we're not looking at it as sort of holy ground that's fundamentally transforming it from what it is. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on. just for benefit of the public, items 15 and 16 have been continued, as of 18, and 19 has been withdrawn. so we are on the final item on your agenda, items 17 a, b, and c at 150 eureka street, and the administrator will be considering a zoning request for variance. >> all right. good afternoon, commissioners.

gabriella pinto from department staff. a mitigation monitoring reporting program and a statement of overriding consideration in connection with the approval of the project. the project entails the conversion and expansion of a two story building formerly utilized as a metropolitan church into a 40-unit building. the subject property is located within the rh-2 zoning district and 40-x height and bulk. the proposed residential building will contain four off street parking spaces, four bike spaces and three independent storage areas. the project will provide 575 square feet of common use space as well as 575 square feet of

useable space in the construction of a new outdoor area. prior to the listed project, the project sponsor sought to demolish the existing two-story building located at subject property and construct two new four story two-unit residential buildings. the project was evaluated for compliance with ceqa. the department determined that environmental impact report was required, and on july 26, 2018, the planning commission held a regularly scheduled meeting and approved the e.i.r. under motion 20254. the subject lot is located on the west side of the street between 18 and 19 streets. since 2018, the building has remained vacant. prior, the building was occupied by the metropolitan

community church for more than 46 years. the subject building is considered a historical resource class a pursuant to ceqa as identified in the certified final e.i.r. which identified the subject building to be individual eligible for listing in the california register of historical places due to the associated history with the city's lgbtq community. the items before the commission and the actions listed for the project to proceed are as follows. [please stand by]

>> on behalf of the project sponsor, i'm also here with the architect who will walk you through the design here in a second. a lot of competing policies. this is like trying to solve a multivariable equation. could issue compliance, it is about as much as you can get on the plate of a single project. i don't think anyone can argue that there should be housing at some level. it is an r.h. two building. it has a long history in the neighborhood, but it is certainly not really suitable for much at this point and i think housing is the appropriate use and i think the staff and the commission agree with that. we got clear direction from the commission over the last year to save as much of the balloon as you can, but as much residential

development into the building as you can. we believe we have done that. also, there is a variance issue on calendar today. i am ready to answer any questions you may have. it is a very unusual site. it is a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot. it is almost impossible to develop it without some relief from the code so we are hoping that the zoning administrator will provide you with relief and guidance today. we are happy to answer any questions you might have and i will handed over to gary for quick presentation. >> can i get the overhead? >> during our last presentation to you last july, the commission recognized this as a 50 by 125 a lot as a housing opportunity lot besides the allowable four units , you asked us to go back

and provide other housing on the property. the initial housing you see is when we proposed in august 2015. we added two building permits to ask -- demolish the existing building. both units were three or four bedroom units in each building, after the e.i.r. study and along with your direction, we went back. they say can we save the first 23 feet of the building, which used to be the gathering space of the building. and preserve the two story space on the next line. what we can see here -- so we took the building -- okay, as you can see, that is 150 eureka. that is 150 eureka in the front. eighteenth on top and 19th on the bottom and then douglas to your left. there we go. you can see the building in the center.

it occupies 100% of the lot. there is about a 3-foot setback. there are other structures over to the right. and to the left, there is an existing garage, so clearly there are other buildings in the mid-block. next slide, please again, as you can see, the heavy dotted line is really what is the existing church footprint structure. what we did is we took out a piece of bread and we sliced it. we took out the areas that we felt we could open the adjacent light wells to the adjacent buildings to both the south and the north and create a central courtyard there. and the building and the rear, we kept this originally as three storage areas which would be converted into three a.d.u. here, what you see in the green area is the open area of the building. it is open to the sky. and their you see a 15-foot, 2- inch wide open court in the

center. his 50 feet wide and open on each and. eureka is on the right there. there is the garage and some infrastructure storage for bicycles, along with parking on the back. there was a two unit -- two bedroom unit at grade and that is a fully landscaped court with planters and trees and so forth. next slide. here again, this court, what you will see on the upper right-hand corner is the court. below that on the lower right-hand corner is a section. it looks like my dialogue is blocking it out. on the left, the upper left side is the east east wall which shows the four flats and on the bottom is the other court. next one. again, the area in the blue it's really as the building goes up in storage. it opens up more. those are the areas open to this guy. you see the second and the third

floor. next one. then again, that is the top floor. the blue is the area that is open to this guy, what you see on eureka is you have kept a two story space and a sloped roof which was directed by preservation staff. the roof deck, as you can see on the top, we have both a common area open space which requires two staircases by the fire department for exiting and we have an elevator that is required by a.d.a. for the open space and a small elevator equipment room. here is a rendering from the street. this is a photo montage. we had a rendering insert. this is what you will see because of the tray and the pit -- the tree in the parapet area. is anything else i can answer? one more. >> time is up, make it clicked -- make it quick. >> thank you. would anyone like to publicly comment on this item? i have two speaker cards. kenneth edwards and merrill. anyone else can line up on the screen side of the room. when you are ready, come on up.

>> good afternoon, everybody. i e-mailed a copy of a letter here that i can leave for the record, but i wanted to give a quick comment on this and read my letter, frankly. my partner and i have purchased 227 douglas which is right behind the property. our backyard butts right up to the fence. we support continued growth in the city and create additional housing units, but we are opposed to the project as it is right now. when we were first introduced to this project, they would be four units that said close to the front of the property and it sort of occupied this space that the church is in now. now with what has changed to it, it encroaches on privacy, it doesn't adhere to regulations. i think that is why they are

asking for the variance as it is so we wanted to chat about that. in our last meeting, according to your last meeting with the developers, they say they are required to utilize the front façade of the existing church for historical preservation. with that recommendation, the architect and developer informed us that they had to preserve 23 feet of that building which also contributes to the variance argument. and with the new design, the architect is taken liberties to expand the overall scope and intention of the original plans that were shared with us originally. we feel the need to expand the scope and size of the project, just based entirely on profit for the motives because it is much larger than what the original plan was. also, it doesn't honor the true sense of preserving the landmark as it once was. i believe the advocates in the previous meeting could use a different type of memorial him

to pay homage to that. third, was also noted in the original plans that do to the current zoning that there would be a four unit building. we were told that the commission would have three additional a.d.u., with those would sit right on the property line and that also gets rid of the open space that we thought was a requirement. so well we support developing the blighted property, it is important the architecture and the charm of the neighborhood be preserved, while adhering to the current rules as we understand them. we report -- we support our neighbors and in delaying any decisions until any of our neighbors have had a chance to view the changes. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am jeff and his partner's neighbor. i met 225 douglas, directly behind 150 eureka. i have lived there for 32 years. additionally own mama g.'s

restaurant right around the corner half a block away with my wife. i have a vested -- i have invested in this neighborhood for quite a long time. we need housing. i have no argument that we need housing. in fact, i would rather see them build 80 units. in the project they described this as family -sized housing. but they haven't looked very well at the neighborhood because the average family in my neighborhood is two people. we need a lot more family size housing. we don't need four large units with density that is occupying so much of the open space. there is nothing in any of the prior meetings that compelled the sponsors to create their a.d.u. was at the back of the property structure. i have a tremendous problem with that because it just pushes that right against their property and takes that open space away. from my standpoint, the open space should be at the rear of

the building. putting in the center not only -- it might be nice for the few occupants there, but it doesn't lend a neighborhood field. it isolates it from the rest of the community. i know i don't have a lot of time so i will jump to something else. i made a request in my letter to all of you, as did two of our other neighbors, scott campbell and alice that this hearing be tabled and pushed out because we feel that none of us have been adequately informed of all the facets of this project. the plans that i was given by the sponsor just recently, are not consistent with the plans that are filed with the planning department. it was very hard for us to figure out exactly what was being built and the storage units being converted to a.d.u.s , there is no real design of what that would look like, but i could not imagine it could be done without windows on those buildings, which are right adjacent to the setback

whatsoever against the property lines. i am requesting, along with my neighbors that we don't approve this project today. that we push it off and allow the neighbors to get a little more clarity from the project sponsors and what exactly is being built. additionally, i'm asking you not to approve the variance, particularly in the rear that they require a reasonable set wet -- setback. i object to the project sponsor 's claim that they only taking up 16 feet of the open space. when i looked at the plans and it was measured, it is only 40 feet being taken away. thank you. >> thank you. would anyone else like to publicly comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> i think he summed it up. there's a lot here to keep balanced. we asked for this historic property to have at least -- partially be preserved. i think mr. g. did a good job