because of error in distribution of the notice of the draft e.i.r. i will discuss it before opening up to public comment. the 4.9-acre project is the former california pacific medical center comprising the full block bounded by california, cherry and maple and sacramento streets and portions of the blocks to the east and west. the project would demolish five of the six existing buildings on the site, renovate a portion of the hospital building, retain and renovate an existing nine unit residential building and construct 31 new residential buildings. the proposed 273 dwelling units

include 14 single family homes and 19 multi family residential buildings with buildings from three to seven stories or 36 to 80 feet in height. 416 vehicle parking spaces and over 450 class one and class two bicycle spaces would be provided. the draft e.i.r. finding that the project would result? no significant or unavoidable impacts. impacts related to the following topics could be reduced to less thansitionnificant with mitigation measures. historic resources archeological, tribal cultural, nesting birds and construction noise and vibration, all other impacts were found to be less than significant. the draft e.i.r. identified

three project alternatives. no project alternative is required and assumes nonacute medical uses with minimal alteration to existing buildings. the reduced construction alternative would reduce construction related impacts associated with grading such as archeological, tribal cultural and construction noise impacts. the rehabilitation reuse alternative would reuse impacts related to construction noise and nesting birds for less than significant with mitigation to less than significant. since the project would not result in unavoidable impact they would not reduce the impacts to less than significa significant. sorry that is the slide that shows the alternatives.

today the planning department is seeking comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contain understand the draft e.i.r. for members of the public who wish to speak please state your name and speak slowly and clearlily so the court reporter can make an accurate record. all verbal and written comments received today will be transcribed and responded to in responses to comment document. revisions will be made as appropriate. those who wish to submit written comments on the draft e.i.r. nay give to the commission secretary today or deliver to me by e-mail or hard copy by the end of the comment period which is 5:00 p.m. on tuesday, september 24th. unless you have procedural questions i respectfully suggest the public hearing be opened. thank you. >> is there a project sponsor?

let do public comment. i have speaker cards. if i call your name, please line up. rose hill son, leonard, victor harget. anyone else is welcome to speak. please address the environmental impact report. >> i submitted this document of comments. we sent it because because i didn't want to go over it. i hear showing a bunch of things i wrote in summary. i will read it. there is a reduction of on-street parking. we don't talk about level of service, i want this point. reduction of on-street parking in high occupancy level of

service d. this is a level of service d area, drivers will circle. maple driveway is predicted one to two vehicles a minute. that is 250% increase and 214%. 38% traffic increase on the south side of parker and that is going to conflict with the parker euclid bike path. vision zero failures. two blocks parker south. decrease the garage ceiling parkers to decrease california street impact. french laundry chemicals a concern, increase radius depending on tribal desires. net numbers used reliance on cpnc hospital data is not

environmentally friendly. prior hospital stats would be used to analyze this 3700 project. new low pressure fire hydrants for safety there should be high pressure. 361,800 -- so 61,800 oil movement. 7320 trips. need for construction transportation management plan, contractor parking plan, rooftop appurtenances. negative 23% street trees not environmentally friendly. 150 parker school as recenter within the dir modeling included in the 3333 california. decrease cars seven to two. thank you very much.

30 seconds left to go. >> next speaker, please. good afternoon, president melgar and fellow commissioners. i am victor hargate. i have been a journeyman carpenter for 34 years. i live here in san francisco, and i am speaking in support of the 3700 california street project. there will allow a carpenter like me to continue living in the city of san francisco. this project will help me continue my career as a carpenter moving toward retirement. this project will provide me with the necessary income to provide for my family. this project will bring much

needed housing to the area. i am in full support of this project, and i ask that you move to forward this project. thanks. >> next speaker, please. >> i will remind members of the public this is not on the project but the environmental impact report. >> good afternoon. i am a field representative with carters local 22. i am here to ask you accept era to move this on. tmg partners is using a general contractor to provide a good wage, health and retirement benefits to members. they will offer training and education for those entering the carter trade. this includes women, minorities,

veterans. this will bring much needed housing in the area. we heard over 30 people have said how much we need housing. this is part of it. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak and urge you to accept the e.i.r. >> any other public comment on this item? >> i am marie sullivan, and i am a property owner across the street from 3838. actually since 1968. my parents bought the place. i certainly support new housing. and jobs for people. but i am very concerned about how this is going to affect the environment and parking. that is why i am here to say

that i will speak my concerns. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a few questions. generally, i think the draft e.i.r. is well structured and clear. i appreciate that. however, i am concerned the cumulative impact between two large projects they have cumulative impacts which remind me of creating something too car centric. i am concerned that the high number of parking spaces for each of these projects. i am addressing the 3700 california has an impact not fully evaluated without shifting

overlay of uber and lyft. i am in support of density, however the massive excavation both projects are trying to undertake to achieve this outcome is of great concern to me, particularly because i believe that the infrastructure of public transportation should be increased prior to the two projects starting in the area. it is not just th the expansionf the buses but cross connections which kind of weave this particular large development for cusinto the larger project anddedestination throughout the city. i would like the e.i.r. to address that. there is a challenge probably not within the traditional structure of how we do e.i.r.s.

i like to start to address what we do after cars diminish. in our agenda are two other projects seeing the reinterpretation of parking and if we are talking about higher and better uses of parking, we have a project coming up in a few minutes, i would like this project as it is providing below grade parking to already anticipate that change to a higher and better use. those are my comments. they are a little bit looking into some future interpretations, but i believe they are important to address. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i agree with all of your comments. >> very good, commissioners, that places us on item 12. 2014-0926dnx at 1270 mission

street. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, i am the department staff. before you is an update regarding the project at 1270 mission street. this was approved by the commission on october 27, 2016. proposing the demolition of the existing one story commercial structure and surface parking lot and new construction of 21 story with tw with two 00-foot . the increase was requiring the project to provide 25% on site units or 75 units. the project sponsor has revised

the project eliminating the setback and changing the overall design of the building with a new architect. the elimination of set back is 5% of the square footage and provides 7% more units for 321 new total. still held to the 25% on site this increases affordable units by five to 80 total. it will maintain the rear and west side set backs provided in the original project and similarly propose to improve the east side of the site with shared street with raised crosswalks and special paving. as stated in conditions of approval changes may be approved by the zoning administrator. he has found it to be in general conformity with original project. no action is required today. this is an informational update

for the commission and public to be made aware of changes to this approved project familiar thank you. i am available for questions. >> is there a presentation from the project sponsor? no. just informational. okay. do we have any public comment on this item? okay. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: are we allowed to comment on this project? while i believe that the attempt to create more housing is always a noble one, i do recall that we spent a significant amount of time shaping this project particularly in the context in which it occurs. many of the moves we spent quite a bit of time on and there were at least four or five minutes

where we re-examined this over and over again, i believe that the project as it is presented in the new design is actually a step backward. i want to b see that mr. cider s what i was saying. i believe in project is a step backward. not in terms of numbers of units but in the physical appearance. the project ex trueds itself as a single shape from what was previously carefully modulated between base, middle and top is a step backward in ever taller inner city environment. i believe this project with its numbers is not doing us a favor. by differentiating it is in color is not enough.

if i would be asked to vote i ask the architect and developer who are in a new partnership on this go back to the discussions we had surrounding the particulars of the previous building and carefully exam why we chose what we did and do more study. i cannot support what is proposed. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: it appears that every project in front of us is expanded to the absolute max possible. i guess this is reflective of it. i wouldn't use the term step backward, but it is the current approach from the urban design point of view. it is not an improvement.

both in terms of what the setback used to do for separating the base and the tower and also the large on and dated approach in terms of the precasts shown. it is not necessarily an improvement. >> mr. snider. >> commissioner moore, i apologize for the side bar. what we were trying to do is figure out what the range of options to this commission might be. there are, of course, many. as the sponsors heard the comments just now. you could direct us to prepare a resolution recommending further changes to the sponsor, advising staff, providing comment to the zoning administrator. it is a fairly unusual situation. you have granted thi this

entitlement already. it is in place. you have these options available to you should you pursue them. >> we don't have an action item in front of us. that is it. >> item 13. 2017-002136 c.u.a. at 340 town send street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening. michael christian son, department staff. this is a request for conditional use authorization 249.78, 303, 848 to establish a 178 space public parking garage

by converting an existing parking garage used for accessory parking to a public garage. this is 340 townsend street within the central soma zoning use district. the western district and the 130 district. the site is currently developed with five story structure. first three levels are devoted to parking and top is office space. the existing garage is under utilized with 100 spaces unused on a given day, according to the project sponsor. the department considered if this is appropriate use for the site if the auto parking could be converted to higher use. the site is transit accessible with the fourth and king transit station across the street. central subway is opening

service in 2021. the context of the neighborhood undergoing significant change. the tennis club and creamery will generate construction activity in the coming years. crews come early before transit is in full-service, it is likely providing additional parking capacity in the immediate term may provide relief during the construction. as the neighborhood develops public parking may impede less auto dependents pattern and it may be redeveloped to higher and better use. the department's recommendation is for approval of the authorization with three year expiration date so the department and commission may reevaluate after three years if the sponsor wishes to continue. the department completed

environmental evaluation and found it would not have a significant impact on environment. department has not received formal support or opposition to the project from the public. the department finds it is necessary and desirable and in compliance with the planning code. as such the department recommends approval to limit authorization to three years. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. >> do we have a sponsor. >> i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. reuse of the accessory garage. it is an odd building, if i could get the overhead. it was originally approved with two floors of office and they came back to get three floors of parking underneath. that is how times changed since the mid 1980s.

we are going to modernize it so we have 24 new bike spaces, four new car sharing spaces, well more parking than necessary for the use on site. the traffic study where we had folks go out and watch found that there were 112 spaces empty during the peak occupancy period. it is heavily under-utilized. we also know we are going to lose a clot a lot of public parn the future. they will be removing public parking lots and coming next year the wells fargo site behind the brick house cafe will be coming in the next couple years here. there is definitely going to be the demand. i did watch the hearing from last year not quite apples to

apples. i wanted an indication where the commission was at. in terms every use of the space, it is a very difficult situation to do anything other than maintain it as parking. the comment about does it cost involved with updating the parking garage and eliminating the space to justify that? you have the practicality of doing this underneath an operating office space, not to say you couldn't empty the office space for a while. financial aid doesn't make sense. if we look at other uses, residential use, this site is inappropriate. we don't have any dwelling unit exposure, no open space. former parking garage, office each floor is 50,000 square feet. we are going to be out of small cap in the next year. that is going to be discussed in the coming months. office space isn't available.

finally, we have talked about retail on the block before. if you will remember 505 brannan across the street. this is the back side. mr. there was discussion if 505 brannan should put the retail space on the back. they agreed the retail space right there did not make sense so, you know, assuming it didn't make sense for brand new development to craft good retail space, this is more challenging. thank you, commissioners, for your consideration. we have the three year re-look to check in three years. >> thank you very much. do we have public comment on this item? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a

question for you. higher and better use, these years is not a long time. is it inappropriate to ask what your view beyond those three years might be? >> for this building itself? >> commissioner moore: yes. >> this was originally as far as central soma to be rezoned to 330 feet to 350. it was brought to 130. 330 town send is going to be developed with residential tower. we didn't want that conflict. there was no developer ready to do anything with the site. i thought this was a great redevelopment site. it has highest density in the city and 130 feet. you have an existing building with an existing tenant and existing parking operation. my guess is that everyone is getting rid of their parking garages to do new development in central soma. i would say at least midterm

that is not unexpected. >> commissioner moore: thank you. i voiced my concerns about parking to parking before. if i would have a clear idea what could happen with the site, i would be happier to support an interim three years to know what is at the end of the tunnel. i am not interested to see three years later for the project to come forward and ask for the same. we are maturing within district with the central subway and cal tran and everything else, i would like to see this site become something different from the use that is dependent or promoting parking in the way that it does. i am curious what other commissioners have to say. i am supporting it, but i would like to know more.

>> commissioner fong: you said this building was built in the 1980s? >> correct. >> what is the floor to floor on the parking? probably less than 10 feet, right? >> if we can get the overhead. i am guessing 15. >> commissioner fong: that is not going to make your case. if it was done back then, the ada requirements now would have required the ground floor to be substantially higher to get the clearances, and, therefore, adaptive reuse of the space might be possible. if this was done back then at a minimum floor to floor, then it is probably not likely to be able to be adaptablebly reused on any of the parking levels. the options are keep it as

parking for some other development with residential above or to demo it and build something else, is that correct? >> it is a parking garage that is underserved right now. it is not to be redeveloped. we are in support of three year review. thank you. >> i am supportive of this. i think that we are going to see a whole lot more of this in the next 10 to 15 years, and i look forward to us having some options and policies about the ad adaptive reuse of the spaces. i think that we are making progress with the rent legislation -- recent legislation to have housing on the above floors in downtown. i think there are other options. i brought this up when we

approved 333 california which was a great project but has a lot of parking underground, which is more difficult to adapt even. i think, you know, i am fine with the three years and having it be a public parking lot. did you want to say something more, commissioner moore? >> vice president joel koppel: e year look back. >> second. >> to clarify you want a hearing on that or will a memo suffice? >> memo. >> is that all right? yes. to approve this matter as amended to require three year update memo.

(roll call). so moved that pass pass unanimously 4-0. >> there was discussion for 14a and b to be taken out of order. did you mean to place at the end of the agenda? >> are we ready to go? ok. let's go to the next item and then come back. >> 15a and b2017-000263 c.u.a. and 20-22 church street. the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> can we take a break? >> we are down several commissioners and we just need a little break.

let's take five minutes and then we will go to >> welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, september 19, 2019. we do not tolerate outbursts. please silence your mobile devices. we left off on items 15a and b. 322 church sheet. you will consider the request for conditional use and zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> good evening. sharing young, planning department staff. before usa request for conditional use authorization at 20-22 church street to add two new residential units to the existing two story residential building on the front of a lot.

a one story vertical addition and excavating a portion of the basement floor. it is within the residential transit district. the arthe proposal will increasm four to six residential units on 1990 square foot lot. existing two-story noncomplying structure is at the rear of the lot. the front and rear buildings are separated by an inner courtyards. this would increase square footage from 1615 square feet to 3052 square feet to create two bedroom residential units on the proposed basement and third floor. no changes to the rear of the building. as far as issues for

consideration. the project sponsors conducted a pre-application project. there are no letters or phone calls in opposition to the project. we recommend approval with conditions. the zoning administrator will consider the variance for rear yard open space for this project. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. i propose the 10 new dwelling units, one in the basement and one on a partial third story addition to the building. currently two floors. the site contains two buildings. one is two unit in the front and

one in the rear. we need conditional use for density. you will like the configuration. there will be four units in the building, two bedrooms each from 647 to 786 square feet. two bedrooms, these are going to be affordable by design as much as that is possible in san francisco these days. third floor is five feet from the front and i want to point out the elevation if i can get the screen. you will see it. this is consistent with the street wall. we are not going taller than the right neighbor. left is shorter. they have been afproved for vertical addition to add seven feet. they should be taller. they are not set back. we feel this is very consistent with the neighborhood.

we need variance for technical issues. we are working the issues. we are here today to ask for increased density. we would like to continue to workout the technical details for the variance. thank you. i appreciate your support. >> thank you. we will take public comment on this item. anybody wishes to comment, please come on up now. okay. public comment is closed. commissioner richards. commissioner fong first. >> commissioner fong: for the project sponsor,, is that cornie original to the building?

>> good afternoon, correct, as you see on the top side sheet a. we are keeping it as is. >> commissioner fong: is that original to the building? or was it added? >> i am not sure about that at the moment. >> commissioner fong: it doesn't integrate the bay very well. >> i am not sure. the project is deemed not historical, but as far as the cornice, i am not sure. >> you prefer to keep it though? >> are you done, commissioner? commissioner richards? >> how far back is the living area from the cornice?

how far back is the addition? >> five feet. that is how it is sitting back five foot from the property line. the cornice is extending out about a foot or so. >> the addition behind it is just five feet? >> correct. >> just address some of the technical issues. the top unit technically is triggering a variance for rear yard and for open space because the as we were just referencing the front deck is only five feet. the minimum requirement for open space is six feet. that is something we will talk about going forward in terms of the modification can be made

relatively minor and avoid that variance. the basement level unit requires a variance for exposure and open space, and generally when we have had proposals where a new unit was viable as a.d.u., you can get administrative waivers from exposure and open space if you need minimum criteria. we are reluctant to grant variances when you have an administrative path forward. generally speaking, the proposals and variances are fairly minor through the variance or converting the basement level to a.d.u., i am generally supportive. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i would be supportive if we take the extra foot off on the top and make it six feet and then

approve it. >> i just have a question aboutt the variance for the basement unit. is there anything to improve it in terms of the light and exposure? >> generally, what is done in this situation is maybe not able to be done at the front. there could be some level of excavation at the rear to dig out to provide depth to the window and light they can come into that space. absent that it is excavating and removing that earth to allow more light in and other than maybe raising the building completely, i am not sure what options are available. the project sponsor may have evaluated and discarded other ideas and may speak to that further. >> i don't want to have that -- i like the fact these are

smaller units and more affordable. i don't want to excavate to make it less affordable. did you consider other ways? >> good afternoon, commissioners. the option was to raise the building but unfortunately those front stairs are going to extend further to the building and would wipe out some of the existing unit's square footage. >> i am okay with it. commissioner, did you want to say something, commissioner fung. >> i can support it as it is i move to accept with conditions proposed by staff. >> second.

>> did you want to say something? >> can we have that additional foot? i see the project sponsor saying yes. since there are four of us, we all have to agree. i accept the amendment. >> i second. >> that is taking a foot off the top, the front of the top floor one foot further. >> very, commissioners. a motion seconded to approve with conditions as amended setting back the top floor one foot. (roll call). >> so moved. that passes unanimously 4-0. >> i will close the public hearing and take the matter

under advisement to explore the exposure and variance for the basement level unit. >> very good, commissioners. shall we move to 16? >> let's do 14. >> we will go to 14a and b. 2016-00179dnx at 95 hawthorne street. the shadow findings and downtown project authorization. >> this is department staff. on the aggregate all of public comment the vast majority of which you received. i have updated motions to describe. the item before you is downtown project authorization for the proposed project at 95 hawthorn

at hawthorne and fulsome streets. -- fulsome streets. the action items to approve the downtown project pursuant to 210.3 and 309. to adopt shadow findings pursuant to 295. it includes demolition of five story office building and new residential building reaching 444 feet, 462 inclusive of the rooftop. with approximately 3500 square feet of ground floor retail. would contain 199 one bedroom units, 144 two bedroom and 49 two bedroom totaling 392 units with 55 below market rate units. no studios. a total of 107 off street vehicle parking spaces. well below the point 5 cap in

the zoning district. car share and bak bike parking. this is the bonus program 206.67 and california government code sections 65915 through 18. maximizing the residential density on the site. it is seeks six waivers from development standards. set backs in street wall, rear yard 134, common usable open space, dwelling unit exposure, ground level wind cents and lastly height which is section 250. on june 5 and 20th the recreation and parks review the project if it would adversely

impact the use. the park under the yard of the recreation and park commission. through 1906-12. the shadows cast would not have a significant impact. the department has received two dozen letters in support. they are before you. the motion is this. we have some late conversations. we have lifted the exception before you at the previous draft motion 309 exception to one of the state density bonus waivers. five waivers going to six waivers. that is it. the department finds it is on balance consistent with objectives and policies of downtown and general plan.

it will provide 392 dwelling units, 49% are family size two bedrooms or larger helping to alleviate the severe housing crisis. we do remember approval with conditions. that concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is here for you as well. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. thank you for giving us the opportunity. we are here to present a project that you will find everyone is excited about. density bonus, large increase 291 to 33, 55 units throughout the knowledge. i will have som come up with a presentation of the building. >> i am design director.

i had some opening remarks but i think nick and john have covered them. i will go to the presentation. if you focus on the screen there is a building highlighted there in red. the building is located in the transited center district plan on the edge of the central soma plan. we think this is great consistent with the objectives of the city high density transit oriented mixed use development. this is the current building on location. it is pretty much a building that has not been occupied for some time. it has narrow sidewalks. there is much to be also wish for in terms of landscape. it is generally also pretty dark at night. we think our building will have

a positive transformative impact on this immediate context of the city which actually is when you move towards the freeway this is the important experience coming into the city. again, here it is in the plan. this parcel does not have the requirement of power separation. i want to talk during the presentation how we sculpted the building to allow the building to have access to light, ventilation and views. again, if you focus on the screen showing the major fulsome with one way traffic street toward the water. we have a parallel street howard in the opposite direction. hawthorn is a small scale residential type of street with a fine grain component to it

which is something we want to add to and also it has quite a number of mixed uses there on one block. you have a yellow in the residential another residential building on the opposite corner, small buildings and brick which are retail. galleries relocated to this area. you have two office buildings right there also on the same block. the general profile of our project adding to the component of mixed use of this project. so just in summary, you can see we are at 444 approximately feet in terms of height of the total area is 522000 square feet above ground. below grade 80,000 square feet. 392 units. we don't have studios. we are providing 50% of the stud

aunts are two and three bedrooms. 55 are affordable throughout the height of the building and laterally in location. five basements. 107 parking spaces one for four units. 128 bicycle parking inside and 28 outside. if you focus on the stars there, this is an emerging neighborhood. it is a new art district with museums. there have been some significant national galleries relocating to this area. the theme of art how it is integrated and how the building is positioned in the city with this component is important for us and we want to strengthen this as a distinct district --

distinct district. it is landscape coming to extend in this location, and also re-enforcing the active uses including retail on the street. we also have important developments on the south side of fulsome, two smaller buildings are entitle projects. right next to us is not a project that is entitled. we think there might be a future tall building there. the way we thought about the building and it has been shaped anticipates another building there. so if you focus on the rendering on the center, this building is going to be experiencing from the street up fulsome.

the idea of the slender profile re-enforcing the corner is part of the design here. making a very loose reference to the idea of the bay window. we have achieved the slender profile by narrowing the profile of the building and setting back from what is another building at 620 allowing for separation to allow for views and ventilations for not only our building but a future building as well. we have developed the project to address the northern side, open plaza. the building next door is part of john hancock's property. we are invested in improving the open space on that side. if you focus now on the left-hand side of the screen, just re-enforcing this idea of creating a slender profile element at the corner using

several strategies which i have already touched upon, at the base we will talk about the ground floor. if you folks on the right side of the screen. like i mentioned the sidewalks are pretty tight. we have enlarged the sidewalks by setting to the property to make them from in some cases nine to 14 feet. around the corner on fulsome we enlarged them to make that dimension 15 feet. generally along the active uses of the corner we provided for more generous sidewalks. we pushed vehicle entries away from the corner, and we have provided the ad what number of drop offs and curb management strategies on hawthorne to manage the traffic that we will have on the street. in terms of design, the idea is

instead of a closed building we currently have we wanted to open the building to a transparent open lobby on the two sides by opaque panels with concrete to each the mechanical portions of the elementsness air reat will lobby at that -- at the lobby at that corner. at the sixth level if you folk see there is a series of terraces to be activated by users like the gym and yoga space. there is important there will be active uses towards the street but elements of landscape in the design on hawthorne street and full some. we are setting back to power of the building and the two

flankses to create a cornice specifically the red building that is on 620 fulsome. further, we are breaking these things by using the balconies not only as way to bring life back but breaking the base into smaller scaled elements that relate to the smaller scale of hawthorne street and fulsome. if you focus on the left-hand side of is slide we introduced from the base to top a series of elements to create rhythm as it goes up. every four buildings is a band that establishes a rhythm reinforced with balconies. this is incorporates o on the mn

facade balconies that are lined with a material that has warmer materials. as are the undersides of the balconies and areas that define the space of the balconies. the idea is to push the image away from the commercial and introduce warmer materials that have a reference to the residential interiors. this is a typical plan. 12 units per level. as we mentioned, it is family focused. we have two bedrooms and three bedrooms. we have no studios. they are all high-quality. the units are larger. the majority of the buildings currently be being built in the area of town.

>> thank you, sir, that is your time. >> any questions? we will now take public comment on this item. anyone who wants to provide, please come on up. >> good evening, commissioners san francisco housing coalition. we are happy to come here and all conversations led to a positive project supported by folks with density and two and three bedroom units, not a lot of parking. we think it will fit with the neighborhood. we appreciate the project sponsor and everybody going through these conversations. please approve. >> next. >> good evening, commissioners.

i am karla. i am here speaking on behalf of the soma community organizations to move this project forward. the project sponsor agreed to prioritize our community conce concerns esspace leaddressing -- especially the new impact on the gardens. should the agreement be met and formalized we support this project moving forward. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> labor local 261 field rep. , 6,000 members. thank you planning members. it is my pleasure to be here. 95 hawthorne has committed to construct the building with 100% labor. union labor provides benefits to

allow members and family to survive in san francisco bay area. there is a job housing in the south market neighborhood. many of the jobs are high paying positions. the housing crown much is driving out members and residents. this provides effective affordable housing and fees to fund many other unit construction jobs in the transit district. the project replaces a vacant office building. we respectfully request you fellow commissioners approve this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am army morgan with operating engineers. i will keep mine kind