good noon. welcome to the planning commission of february 20, 2020. please turn off any cell phones. if you would like to state your name for the record. before we begin, those persons standing and cannot find a seat, you're creating a fire has haza. we have set up room for 16 on this floor where you'll be able to watch and listen to these

proceedings and when the item of interest you're here for comes up, you'll be allowed to come in and provide public testimony. so, unfortunately, if you don't have a seat, you'll have to make your way to room 416. i would like to take role. tea(role call). disagree expect commissioner diamond to expect us shortly and commissioner richards to be absent. first is consideration of items proposed for a continuance. item one, 2810-001018, 4211 26th street, propose ford a continuance to ma march 12th 12th and item 2 at 2254 green street, a discretionary review proposed for indefinite

discontinuance. and item 3 at union street, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn and i have no other items proposed for continuance is no speaker cards. would any members of the public like to speak on the items proposed for a continuance? >> yes. thank you, president. i'm with the san francisco coalition and i am here to object to the 2211 4t 4th stree. the community wants to weigh in and there are neighbors not available and we are they're ask you to please consider alternative dates such as march 26th or april 2nd. so i really appreciate it if you could consider it. this is an important case and there are neighbors and tenants

involved and we would appreciate it if you would give us the benefit of a better date where everybody can be here. thank you. >> thank you. networknext speaker, please. >> i'm also a district 8 tenant and i would like to consider changing the date for the continuance to march 26th or a later date. we were here today to speak on this, but now we feel we need the time and would like you to consider this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> anyone else wishing to speak on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> did you wish to speak on the items proposed for continuance? someone is coming up right now >> there's a motion to continue

2 indefinitely and item 1 to the second. (role call). >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0 placing us under your consent calendar for item 4, number 2019-004211 cua at 3829 24th street. anyone wishing to comment? seeing none, public comment is closes. closed. commissioner moore? move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve item 4 an4.(role call). >> so moved and that motion

passes unanimously. and item 5, i have no speaker cards. any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt minutes for february 6th. (role call). >> so moved, and that passes unanimously 6 of-0. item 6, questions and comments. commissioner we can move on to item 7, contractor's announcements. >> no new announcements. although i'll have comments next week, i believe. [ laughter ] >> very good, item 1le 8, revief

past events. the historic preservation did meet and what item of interesting to the planning commission could be the spreckles temple of music. the outdoor auditorium or band shell as part of the 150t 150th anniversary celebration of the golden gate park. they're proposing improvements to it and they're doing maintenance work including a temporary lighting installation, so the preservation commission acted, approving all but one portion of the temporary installation, eliminating the word sign that would sit above the bandstan and fel bandstand t

would be too distracting. if nothing further, we can move on to public comment. members of the public comment address the commission. your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission up to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda and i have several speaker cards that may extend beyond the 15-minute limit. are h were were were

>> good afternoon, commissio commissioners. concombacongratulations to richs regarding his appointment. can he effectively lead the 240-member planning department staff .rich hilles who has no ac

background will take over what may be the single most important department level position in the city. quote, it was an indefensible appointment, supervisor peskin stated. mayor breed had a number of qualified candidates, including women of colour and chose someone with no qualifications for running an urban planning department. this is going to make us the laughing stock of professional planning departments around the country. finally, i worry for the well-being of the sanfrancisco planning department staff. many who are more qualified than rich h irilles. there have been a lot of smirks and rolled eyes from the

planning staff and planning complication. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, pleaseplease. >> at the time when the city is facing a lot of scrutiny for possible corruption issues that go back a long ways, the selection of somebody like this presents an opportunity for the city to, perhaps, get for scrutiny in a way that would be less helpful. plus, there's the issue about his prodeveloper standing in all of his actions here in the

planning commission. you need to remember, if he is the new planning director, which i hope not, that you are in charge of him and his practices need to be fair to the neighborhooded, tneighborhoods,l communities and not down-the-line developer. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. youhow does the planning commisn

plan to restore its credibility? thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good day, commission and fellow commissioners. i'm the district 8 tenant union and san francisco anti- discanti-dis-coalition me. he fails to meet the minimum requirements of the planning director and the experience set forth. i ask, how is it a group of intelligence commissioners tasked with choosing an be

eligible candidate found rich h irhilles qualified? this is a serious violation of the equal employment opportunity guidance and completely unfair to women and minority candidates who are overlooked in the interest of selecting a white male with no qualifications for the job. furthermore, i feel abused and betrayed by there process. we came in ernest to tell the commission what qualities we wanted in a new planning director. >> if you, next speaker.

>> i asked a city hall insider why did it take the fbi to do this, some things were an open secret for a long time and the response was, look to city hall, look to the mayor, look to the board of supervisors and the thing, the issue was no hands were raised, no questions asked, no challenges put forward. we're raising our hand and

asking questions and we're challenging the situation. i have to question that mr. hill sessioles is a good administrator but our city and planning department are at a critical juncture. we're in the process of deciding what the city will look like for the next 50 or 100 years and how it's going to enhance life for our citizens. as important as administrative skills are, the understanding of an acting architect to head up the department, to nurture the professionals there, to push them to do better is absolutely critical. we deserve more. can you honestly say that your selection is the best, the optimal at this critical juncture of this city and this is the reason we're raising

hands and asking questions and challenging you. please consider it. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> our hope was someone would be possibly a woman or person of colour. was there no one trained in these fields with everyone who applied? someone there must have been someone more qualified, unless that was not the intent, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. to 1.

>> back in september, people lined up to implore you to pick someone sensitive to the community's needs, who knows about urban design and planning. we thought we had a say in this matter, and little did we know that someone who has never been in support of the community and doesn't even meet the minimum requirements for the job women be selected by this commission. here are the minimum requirements posted for the job. not only mr. hilles does not possess what's required for this job, he doesn't have 12 years of city and regional planning. if we consider his one-day-a week at the planning commission, this doesn't amount to one year. how could that happen? the irony is that this is like a reverse affirmative action. the state of california has long abandoned affirmative action

practises in hiring but no one imagine a day would come that the city of san francisco would practise the reverse affirmative action to ensure a white man wouldn't meet the qualifications for the job, despite qualified candidates who were women of colour as reported by the media. this was something i wasn't privy to. 48 hills reported that. and now that you have facilitated the appointment of an unqualified candidate to receive, will you provide oversight to ensure the new director meets expectations for equity and affordable housing, not to mention having the uncontained development in the city with no ends. the speculators keep playing.

thank you very much. next speaker and just a heads up, you have five minutes left in the 15-minute period. >> i'm one of the dozens who spoke last september about the expectations about the new planning director, asking, among other things, the new director be an equity champion. that the new director would be committed to social justice, you futuristic and understand how to preserve it. i'm disappointed by not at all surprised the process that began with such transparency and community input deliver the result it did, a director that did not meeting attributes and does not meet the minimum requirements for the job.

44 h h >> thank you, next speaker, sleeze. please. >> i'm a 25-year resident of san

francisco. i want to echo the sentiment ses on the issue and the hiring of rich hilles who is not qualified for this job and by his record shown hostility for vulnerable communities in this city. with news coming out every few days about business as usual in sanfrancisco, cash-in envelopes handed over, i don't think this is a good time to be going along with the mayor's choices, thanks. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'. a darkening cloud is hanging over the conduct of city hall due to the exposure of political corruption described in a growing list of at-minimum, ethical practises and criminal violations of the law and sadly, the new director smacks of the

political favour that has riddled our local government for a long time. when a sitting commissioner resigns with a publically announced intention of seeking the director position within that same department, it's pretty clear that the fix was in from the very beginning and the application process was a charade but this is no joke. this is an embarrassment mr. hilles was hired in the fact he lacks two of the requirements. evidently our bureaucracy cannot be trusted, but this is a disservice to the people of san francisco. this city has become a monument to inequality and we need a leader who puts the people of san francisco first and who puts equity first ahead of the demands of speculators. mr. hilles' record shows he doesn't support lower residents

and community-based organizations who represent them and those people in san francisco who are resisting gentrification. i'm here to register my disappointment and protest this betrayal, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> this is my first time here and i would like to bring a personal note to the reason why we need better enforcement and this is a letter from my daughter. i came to san francisco as a business owner, as a young mother, and i raised my children in the tenderloin. my daughter was a preschool teacher before being displaced from an unlawful boarding house and so i'll just enter this into the record but i would like to say that i disagree with mayor

breed's division of a city overdeveloped with high priced, high-rises and mr. hilles green lights the same old pat on the back for scoff laws. we need radical change and planning, someone who understands the plight of the silenced survives. we were displaced by unscre un-scrupulous behaviour and i'll put this in the record. >> general comment from the public is now closed. >> this places us your regular calendar and for the benefit of the public, through the chair, items 14a-d will be pulled out

of order and be heard after items 12a and b. item 11 will get pushed to after items 14a and b, before 13. item 9, 2020, pca, planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm diego sanchez. i'll be presenting an ordinance to amend the planning code to do four moves, to expand the criteria on large lots and add flexibility on ocean ag avenue d the fourth is to allow art's activities along ocean avenue. before i provide staff recommendation, i would like to

provide time to present to you. merges the controls so larger mid-block parcel assembly is possible through the cu process and we're recommending minor clarifications for the eases and implementation and i did receive one letter of support from the merchant association after publication of the staff report and let me grab that for your review.

>> ocean avenue is one of our prize commercial corridors and we've been fortune i yacht fort. part of the reason we're introducing this legislation is to ensure with this hot land use real estate market, we're able to keep storefronts small so we can keep the rents low and to entice small business owners to come in and continue that vitality of the corridor. we're seeing a lot of development potential and a lot of new housing and with the reservoir not too far, we'll see

a lot for potential on this corridor is we're trying to be proactive to ensure any new developments that come forward aren't just opening up these spaces through lot mergers that will likely be retail or other large big boxed retailers versus smaller scale businesses fit for this character of the district and our community. so we hope we get your support today. we read the staff's recommendations and we agree with the proposals that they have. a couple things to note, too, in evaluating this legislation with the community members and merchants is we also want to consider the possibility of maybe clarifying in the table that flexible retail is something that is permitted on this corridor because some of the principally permitted uses -- i think you can mix and match already. we want to explore that. i think we're realizing that

it's so difficult to attract different businesses and maybe that might be a way that we can ensure that vacancies aren't held up and that we're able to bring different types of uses to spaces. that's one aspect. the other amendment that we are enteentertaining and would love feedback on. there is a possibility for lot merchants to occur on ocean avenue through a zoning administrator. and some of the concern is that although this would be a rare instance, we want to ensure that community members and stakeholders are able to know when that happens and sometimes by the time that decision is made and a project is proposed, it might be too late to do anything about it. and so the proposal that we're entertaining, is it possible to do some type of notification upon the request to the za for this type of lot merger so there's maybe a 311 notice period so people can provide feedback to the za before they

make their decision. we're not asking for a new appeal process. we know there's one in place, but this just provides people to be aware of what's happening on the corridor and able to give feedback before the decision is made. so those are the few things that we wanted to discuss and thank you so much, again, for hearing this item and we hope we can count on your support. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of livable city here to speak in support of this ordinance. we don't have an overall plan or set of principles to define how the city will grow and change but the one that resonates is the walker neighborhoods or 15-minute neighborhoods.

could everybody in the city meet your needs of daily of life in less than ten or 15 minute walk. that would give a lot of shape and help us make sense and understand what we should and shouldn't be doing. >> when developments get too big, you lose human scale and you begin to do things like concentrate land ownership. so there's opportunities for local ownership and development goes. so we like the provisions having to to with the lot mergers on

ocean avenue. we support the staff recommendation. the other thing is a mix of small and large retail spaces. there's a lot of data, actually from our own oewd but other places that says when you have small retail spaces, smaller than 1,000 square feet, that's an opportunity for businesses to get a foothold in the neighborhood. what you see where you have a lot more of the smaller spaces, you get a lot more of the locally owned businesses, more diverse retail space. the retail districts tend to be more resistant when you have a crisis, you don't empty every storefront and this says when you're doing the design review

for large projects in nc districts, even if you allow the merger or you have a large site, that you have a mix of small and large retail spaces in every development is so it's adding a cry tear-i tearcriterion to cree opportunities and the diversity testify services and shops for local businesses to grow and believe. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am speaking in support of this ordinance. there's tremendous opportunity for new development on ocean avenue. there's been a good deal at the western end of the -- i'm sorry, the eastern end of the street already but on the western end, it kind of tapers off and creates an environment that's difficult for businesses to

operate and they would benefit a lot more from more activity, more uses and more things for people to do and shop andenjoy themselves on ocean avenue. with that in mind, what we would love to see is to welcome the new housing the development would bring and then, also, new spaces that are small enough for businesses to operate in. because what we hear from the businesses on ocean avenue is not that it's competition with, say, online shopping or those kinds of bigger trends that you hear about a lot that are making it difficult to do retail on the street. the primary thing is that the rent is too high and so when you have a very large space, it makes it very difficult to get a foothold for a new business that wants to start out in sanfrancisco.

so the other item i wanted to mention is this question of whether the zoning administrator would allow for a lot merger. i think that what we would like to see is to have an opportunity for the neighborhood to review any lot merger that's done, you know, if it comes to the zoning administrator that there be some outreach to the community so there be an opportunity before the action is taken to have feedback since we're not having these big lots that would result in large retail spaces, which we already see are detrimental isn'tothe flow of the street, cg ba icomingabout that way. thank you for your consideration of this item and thank you for your support of the businesses of ocean avenue. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> we are fully in favour of this legislation as it stands and in the process. >> anyone else wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public item is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i am in full support of the legislation. we speak a lot on the commission about the need to right size

retail for specific corridors while also bringing them in line with the rest of the city, all in service of making sure that we have vibrant commercial and livable corridors for everyone in the city. i think one question that i do have is just the two kind of ideas that the supervisor's office is entertaining around the za and also about being able to have flexible retail. i'd love to just hear someone from staff comment on those two ideas. >> i just want to actually speak on the notification portion of that. it's not a subdivision application is not a planning application. we're a referral agency, so dpw sends a referral and says is this code complying and we sign

off? i don't know how we would notice something like that. it's not something to notice but we can't bring it to you as a dr, because it's not an application. so i'm not sure how that would work. or if we're the right agency to be doing something like that, since we're not the permitting agency for lot subdivisions. regarding flexible retail, yeah, we can make that use permitted if they want. >> commissioner moore? >> i'm in support of this. it's been many, many years they've been infront of the in e planning commission. the mean spoke today have been here for years and i'm happy to see the supervisor pick it up in

a more comprehensive way and make it a legislation. i'm in full support. >> commissioner imperial? >> like other commissioners, i'm in full support of this legislation and very familiar with this area and i know in that other side of ocean side avenue, there are, i believe, three vacant lots. and it's been vacant for a very long time. so a way to really revitalize the small business and support this neighborhood because there are transit around this area and make it walkable. i live in this district and one thing i like about the district is that it's very walkable in a lot of things and that is important for many people and yes, i'm in support of this legislation. >> commissioner fung. >> it's interesting that this is now the third neighborhood commercial district tweaking the

controls in those areas. although the other two had more tweaking in terms of the type of uses allowed versus this one, which is primarily process tweaking. and i guess to be consistent with my previous comments, it's important this commission start to deal with neighborhood commercial districts and what we can do to assist them to either reduce process or to create greater flexibility in allowable uses. the empty storefronts are not going to change. and it's time for us to deal with this and i would request we move it up in our agenda for efforts by both staff and this

commission. >> commissioner diamond. >> i, too, am in support of the legislation. i particularly like the language used by mr. radulavich about 15 minute neighborhoods. it's a wonderful idea and it's great to capture how our neighborhood should fashion themselves. i would move to approve with the modifications recommended by staff and i don't know whether or not miss lowe is asking for additional modifications on top of that? >> we would like for you to consider it in the event we do amend this at the board in terms of of the notification piece and possibly providing for flexible retail. we're working out the details with planning staff. >> i don't know how to add about possible retail in light of staff's comment. i don't know if there's a suggestion how to tale d actualo

that. >> just having discussed it allows them to add it or not add it. if you felt strongly, you could include it in your recommendation, but i wouldn't recommend it because i'm in the sure honotsure how that would w. >> i would include the recommendation about flexible retail and leave it at that, including staff's recommendation. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, there's a motion seconded to approve the proposed legislation or planning code amendment with staff modifications having considered the notification amendment presented by the dooreboardof supervisors. on that motion, commissioner diamond --

(role call). >> it places 6-0. >> so we go to 2000 84 and 85 for the bayview central triangle zoning up and amendments. these are two separate legislative amendments and they are both for the same geographic area, but they have two different issues. so they will be heard together. >> i would like to introduce you to a planner you have not met, rhianna tong, working, as you know, on the bayview industrial triangle zoning update on use engagement and planning projects. she's born and raised in sanfrancisco ansanfrancisco. she has a bachelors disagree in

architecture from berkley and master of city planning from the institute and we welcome her. >> thank you. good afternoon. the items before you are two pieces of legislation. they are related. one is a rezoning of the bay view industrial triangle redevelopment and the other for a cannabis restricted use district. the ordinances are proposed by supervisor walton and he and his staff are here today to speak on the ordinances. >> welcome, supervisor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm percy birch, a legislative aid. this is in resubpoenas t respone bayview development plan which was adopted july 1, 1980 and

will expire o1980.this is from m nc3 zone districts. the second ordinance would apply restricted use to the bayview industrial triangle, prohibiting cannabis retail establishment in the area including medical cannabis dispensaries. the purpose of this proposed zoning is to stabilize the existing businesses in the bayview industrial triangle as a result stabilizing the surrounding expect. we support the need to add housing, especially affordable housing for both bayview residents while striking a balance between housing, retail jobs and affordability. it encourages housing on third street which corresponds with housing on third street and bayview.

preserving spaces as pdr allows for flexibility in the industrial triangle ranging from movie theatres to grocery stores and recreational spaces. our office acknowledges projects and opposition to this project, particularfully those who own property and operate in the industrial area. we are asked to consider the benefits of housing, people immediately adjacent to the southeast facility treatment plant which cleans 80% of sanfrancisco's waste water. in zoning to accommodate house offices in the bayview industrial triangle. these implications of these suggestions, especially through a racial and environmental justice lense could be detrimental to residents, employees and visitors around the bayview industrial triangle.

the bayview has seen an increase in cannabis retail applications in the past year. although we ma may have the same number of applications in other neighborhoods, the residential density of the bayview is lower than that of those in other neighborhoods. thank you for supporting our legislation. >> thank you, mr. birch. >> since we seem to have a break here, those persons actually standing in the room will have to exit to the overflow room in room 416 where you'll be able to watch and listen to these proceedings. you'll have to leave unless you cap actuallcan actually find a . you can watch and listen to the proceedings and when your name is called or when we call public comment, you'll be allowed to reenter the room.

>> if i can get the screen. the bayview industry triangle redevelopment plan was adopted in july of 1980 and it is still in effect today. the bayview industrial triangle sits between the southeast treatment plant on south street and third street in the bayview. the plan was developed with the bayview community members with main objectives that include maintaining land for the preservation and expansion of industrial and commercial development while also providing

a buffer between industrial spaces and the commercial and residentials spaces on third street. the redevelopment plan specifies relocating existing residential structures within the industrial triangle to nearby residential areas. the redevelopment plan is expiring june into of this year and once the plan expires, the zoning will revert from the current redevelopment plan zoning to the underlining mostly m i1 zoning which is an ousted s zoning. if it reverts back that means offices and residential uses that were not allowed, except for third street will now be allowed. and this could lead to

consequences such as property speculation, rising rents, the displacement of existing businesses and gentrification? and around the industrial triangle. supervisor walton's office introduced these ordinances on january 28th this year to address the potential impacts of reverting back to m1, also known as manufacturing zoning. the rezoning proposal proposes to rezone the industrial districts from m1, m2 and nc3 districts to moderate scale neighborhood commercial transit, also known as nct3 and general production distribution and repair everywhere else. the goal of rezoning to 1g and nct are to stabilize the

existing community within the bayview triangle until the african-american arts and cultural districts can help to establish a neighborhood-wide vision. the nct3 zoning along third street encourages housing and retail, all along the corridor, which is the area of the triangle that we have identified as appropriate for housing. while the pdr1g preserves spaces for pdr uses to continue operating and growing. emergency of third street is already zoned as nc3 throughout the bayview. by rezoning to nc3t this provides us with a capacity of up to 400 housing units along third street in the triangle. this also ensures that projects that we know of in the pipeline, that they are able to conform to our proposed zoning.

maintaining pdr businesses and spaces are important for the diversity of san francisco's economy. pdr businesses and manufacturing in particular provide good and well-paying middle class jobs, especially to those who do not have the traditional four-year degree. data shows that entry level manufacturing jobs typically pay hire than retail and offer more opportunities for advancement. this sitting in a larger area that is zoned as pdr in san francisco just east of the southeast treatment plant. (please stand by).

you'll see that the bayview industrial triangle is located near these communities of concern and also overlapping partially. with this context, we developed some equity goals listed here that include decreasing the deplacement risk on vulnerable populations, decreasing the displacement risk of small businesses, increasing affordable housing options for low-income residents and communities of color and increasing job opportunities, especially for those with lower levels of educational attainment. if we look to the mission as an example, some community members feel the loss of pdr contributed to the acceleration of neighborhood change and loss of blue collar jobs and ars in their community. by preserving pdr land and

adding nc3 zoning, we are helping to stabilize and making progress toward equity goals. we have been collaborating with the office of workforce development on outreach meetings where their staff have come to provide additional information they have on value and demand of pdr in san francisco. since june of last year to january of this year, we have presented at multiple cac community and merchant group meetings. we have also hosted several focus groups and community workshops. in your packets you will find a letter of support and approximately 13 communications in opposition of the project, and these represent some of the feedback expressed during our rounds of outreach, some of the concerns relate to conditions of the building structures, occupancy of the lots,

homelessness and desire for residential and employment density. but we also heard from community members a request to consider the impacts of any zoning changes on the broader community, especially the impact on access to jobs for local youth and the stability of existing 1920dr -- pdr businesses. the second is a result of concerns expressed by community members during our initial rounds of outreach. the concerns are the high number of cannabis applications that have gone through bayview, and supervisor walton's office introduced this to restrict cannabis distribution in the triangle. to give you an overview of the larger project process, supervisor walton introduced the two ordinances on january 28 of this year, once the bayview

industrial triangle is stable unstablized with this proposed zoning, the planning department will continue to provide staffing to including to land use changes. as a reminder you have two items for review before you today. one is for the rezoning and the other is for the cannabis restricted use district. this concludes my presentation. and we are available to answer any questions. >> thank you. we now would like to open this up. mr. walton, please come up. >> first of all i i wanted to sy good afternoon to the commissioners here. thank you so much for hearing this today. you heard from mr. birch from our office. so we are excited about this legislation. the main goal here for us was to make sure that we preserve precious pdr space. as you know, we

disproportionately suffer from higher unemployment rates at bayview, so it's important for opportunity to exist for us to have opportunity for employment in our district. we have a bayview plan that talks about allowing for retail and housing along third street corridor. this is very consistent with that. so i just wanted to reemphasize some of those points and also say that the planning staff was great on this project and they met with several different groups and community, hosted several different meetings, with business owners, with residents, community groups and so they've gotten a lot of information about what the community wants to see there which is the major focus of why we are putting this legislation forward. i just wanted to let you all know that. the only opposition we have received is either from business owners that set to make profit from different type of zoning changes that are beneficial to their own needs or people outside of our community, don't

live there, don't even come over there and visit our restaurants, et cetera. i had a conversation interest r with someone outside who wanted to make me changes and they said the bayview could be a great place, not understanding how insulting that was to somebody from that community. we already have a great place, and we want to continue to make sure that it's a great place. so thank you for hearing this. >> thank you for your leadership, supervisor walton. i would like to open this up for public comment. whoever is ready first, come on up, and people in line, please stay on the side of the room. >> we have a few speaker cards. [calling speakers]

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am lily, a 12 year owner with my husband of a manufacturing business and property in the b. i. t.^ with my doggy, i have been walking the six square blocks of b. i.t. regularly for 12 years and am saddened by how san francisco's economic vibrancy has so completely bypassed the b. i.t. it sits on the third street transit corridor and is the gateway to the pay view area yet there is no foot traffic, the streets are garbage-strewn and 25 percent of the parcels are vacant. where else in the city are

25 percent of the lots unbuilt or unused? and all that is because of a 40-year policy forbidding development. this policy had good intentions but was poorly thought out. the redevelopment agency called the b. i.t. a substandard working and living environment and having a detrimental effect on the businesses and residents both within and surrounding the project. and yet recognizing it as substandard, the agency rezoned the b. i.t. to retain accessible and diverse jobs and industries in the community to promote social equity and address environment tallin jus -- environmental injustices. it is a substandard region but we would like to retain it to address injustices. how is restricting use to p.d.r. addressing social inequity and

injustice issues? it doesn't. and so in the 40 years, nothing happened. no funding, no programs, no projects, no rehabilitation money, no development, no follow through, justice restriction, and 40 years of substandard, finally this policy is expiring and we have a second chance. we can preserve industrial, but add density, add homes, take advantage of the great location, fill out the vacancy, add life, all throughout the b. i.t. but instead planning department showed up four months ago telling us that they decided to extend the b. i.t. restrictions forever. their process has been a bum's rush in this district. a few community meetings called on short notice. sometimes i found out the day after. and always with planning presenting what they think, what they want, what they will do.

limited or no public comment. we had to write letters. no compromises. honestly, i don't even get why. why are they trying to keep b. i.t. in its place? why insist to extend a failed policy for my blighted neighborhood. that is a real social injustice and environment tallin equity. what other san francisco -- environmental inequity. please consider our plea for new zoning. >> thank you. your time is up. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you. my name is kathrin. i'm the owner of 16 blocks which is 1520 innes avenue. i own a transportation bus company in the area for over ten

years. for the past 20 years with the zoning p.d.r., i don't see any updates here. with the new zoning plan, i would like to see mixed use zoning with residential density for safety community and employment density to support our merchants. every day i can't find -- we cannot find good restaurants by us. so we have to bring our overnight lunch, because can't just find good restaurants. and we want to have a safe neighborhood that fosters relations. i don't want to use the banks in

the plaza, because i went there a couple times and i'm very scared. i don't want to go because i'm very concerned. so i would like to see b. i.t. area provide much more housing, support our labors and our business. thank you. and we look forward to a new area full of energy. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is john. i have a business. we run our business out of a warehouse in the b. i.t. the problem is this, we cannot afford to expand space for industrial, because rents are so

low. there's industrial space in the city and it's so low. so if you do not expand usage beyond industrial, what you have now after 40 years is what you are going to have in the future, which is a bunch of single-story metal buildings, one in four lots are empty, changeling fences and generally delapidated environment. let me tell you a story. we wantedto expand, so we look at some ways to do it, we could move things around, you can't manufacture on second floor so we figured how we could plan for a two-story building. we ran the numbers and unfortunately after we quoted it out, there is no way we could afford to build. why? it's cheaper to rent. so we could easily just say we are going to go move our business to another facility, there's a glut of industrial space in the city, and it would be cheaper. well, we wanted to stay there. so we thought we'll have a clever plan. why don't we put a third floor

on that has some other use that come that we can rent out? we were thinking housing. there is a housing crisis. of course it was mixed. pdrg along with the existing b. i.t. zoning prohibits any kind of housing or mixed-use type activity. so where are we? it's unbelievable. we are in the middle of a housing crisis. our government and our government here in san francisco recommends a low-density industrial zoning in a largely residential area right on t1, right on the tram. and they want to do industrial, maintain industrial. single-story low-density stuff. we couldn't believe it. this is not crisis response. you know what crisis response looks like? the government built 2000-bed hospitals in wuhan in ten days. that is crisis response.

today commissioners, it is your turn. do we have a housing crisis? and do we have the moral fiber to respond forcefully, add an upper housing component to industrial zoning below so companies like mine can expand and we can afford to expand and have housing in the city. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ms. daniels and i'm here as a resident of district ten. i've been a resident of district ten for 40 plus years. i am speaking in support of both of these ordinances. i definitely am in support of keeping the zoning. i want to thank our supervisor walton for bringing the voice of the community and for also being a resident. we thank you, and i would appreciate if you take into consideration what the residents want for their community just like every other neighborhood. this is what we want. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> my name is jeff boyd. i'm a resident, and i'm a teacher and administrator at a small independent private school in the bayview, district 10. we are thankful for mr. walton as our supervisor and the work he does for us. we are asking for a small change in the zoning along the third street corridor to be more flexible for our potential use of a space in the old walgreen of the shopping center. just to include nt3 which is a little more flexible into an already-existing retail space and make no mistake about it it part of that triangle. currently it is pdr2 and we ask it be included in something more like the zoning on the third street corridor already. i'm asking this because we are sympathetic to the needs of industrial businesses in the community and want those jobs for our own students when they graduate, but we also want a

little bit more flexibility for services that also serve the community on third street. so following me are going to be folks from the school to speak. i'll let them say what they have to say. i want to ask if those who are supporting the school to stand up. would that be okay? so thank you all very much for hearing us. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm julia chen the head of rise prep practice tory. may i -- preparatory. may i ask if the students and parents of the school may stand so you can see for whom i am speaking? i'm proud to represent rising

school, an independent middle school in the bayview. proud that we are a beautiful neighborhood school where 80 percent of our scholars are bayview residents or first to college. our students are thriving academically and in their character except that each year as we grow, we struggle to find a suitable space for our students. and our students right now, we currently fit our 60 students in just 2400 square feet. and this is not adequate. and so we join with our neighbors along third street and the businesses and merchants to ask for more flexible zoning. and as jeff boyd spoke, we would ask that the nct3 be extending into the bayview plaza for our school is interested in leasing the old walgreen space. so we ask that instead of investing in more space for

canvas, that you would invest in our youth, the children of our neighborhood, that is what would revitalize our neighborhood. >> please. better education. >> thank you all. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jordan and i'm a seventh grade student at rise university school, an independent middle and high school next to bayview plaza and across from the bayview industrial triangle. i am here today with my school community to ask the planning department to consider extending the cannabis restriction zone to bayview plaza. bayview plaza is across the street from the bayview industrial triangle and our school at 1601galves. we are hoping to rent the space in bayview as our school grows.

we think for the safety of the students at rise and in our neighborhood restricting cannabis sales next to a school is extremely important. thank you for your time. >> thank you, ms. jordan, you did a really good job, and thank you to all you kids for showing up today. [applause] next specieser please. >> thank you, president koppel and thank you for this time. reverend dr. carolyn scott and commissioner. i'm here on behalf of rise prep and supervisor walton. and we also stand, i'm standing with rise prep, i'm asking, and even with a quote from our honorable late elijah cummings. we are better than this. we need space, we need a school

space for our children. and it would accommodate the walgreen building, rise prep university. we are asking that you would say yes and not no to this amendment. but also adding the amending of making it a school zone within that triangle, the bayview plaza included in that triangle so that we can say what will go there. i appreciate all of your thoughtfulness, your planning and everything that will include the future of our children. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners. i'm john tag, i represent wood stanley investments, we are a property management group, we are a builder and property manager. we manage the buildings for profit. we just don't see a big problem

with the plan as the blue area, the p.d.r. buildings, we don't see who will build them unless it's a charity work for the amount of square footage you get for p.d.r. it's the lowest amount of money, and the people that say you are giving a p.d.r., you are further restricting commercial is p.d.r., it's just p.d.r. zoning further restrictive zoning. so really the places are already p.d.r. or were in the past. so a big point in building the buildings, you are going to have a p.d.r. building 60-feet high, of course you are going to require a massive freight elevator, for example, with just the cost, building these buildings it's not feasible or economic to any builder so of course the residential part of the plan may get built but none of the blue p.d.r. someplace spaces, no one is going to build

these buildings. so we would like you to change the plan. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is mr. decosta. there are some of you there sitting on the dais who have known me for a long time. i have been coming here for over 40 years. you know what i see? i see that there is no meaningful deliberation in helping the community. we have some people -- did you see some of the characters that came here and spoke who say they know -- they live in the community, they do this and that? did you see them 35 years ago? did you see them 30 years ago?

did you see them 20 years ago? did you see them 15 years ago? did you see them ten years ago? no. you know what i don't like is that you bring our children who don't understand anything about land use, nothing. they understand about the carbon footprint. do we have empirical data about the carbon footprint in the area you are talking about? it's very contaminated. there are hot spots there. that's what should be addressed. there are planners, have to address quality of life issues. don't listen to bogus comments. don't listen to them. you've seen what has happened on hunters point. you know what's going to happen on treasure island, we know what's going to happen with projects that have gone off of empirical data that contribute to the quality of life issue. now, i represent the first people of this area. do these people have more power

than i do? this is the land of the first people. in less than 200 years, it was contaminated. we are talking about doing the right thing the right way, going back to the plan, some of these people haven't even read. now the demographics of the bayview has changed drastically. drastically changed. but there has been no meaningful outreach for them to tell you, and you can't do it in four months. i hope mr. green was here. i could go on. you know where i'm going with that. stop the b.s. stop the b.s. in the tracks. i know of people who are involved in dark money, and there's an investigation going

on right now at city hall. they all will be, there are roaches now hiding under the rug. as soon as the light is exposed, you will hear the names of the roaches. dealing in dark money. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commission. my name is andrew. i live in the bayview industrial triangle. and i also own a piece of land there. i live in one of the only two single-family homes in the b. i.t. it's in one of the exhibits. it's a purple zone on the south side, 1600 block of jerrold, which was labeled a community of concern. so i live there. i walk my dog in the neighborhood. i understand it very well. i see the blighted buildings and vacant lots and one of them i

own. i own a lot there that i'm trying to build, plans that i submitted to planning that have been rejected. i'm trying to construct a building that would have 3300 square feet of p.d.r. space on the ground floor with 1600 square feet of residential space above. this is a building that makes economic sense to be built. this is a building that i can build, and i'm not going to be allowed to do it under the proposed zoning changes. what i'm here to ask you for is more flexibility. i would like to echo a sentiment brought by many other people here. i think that the ncc3 zoning is more appropriate than the straight p.d.r. zoning, because the idea, i believe is an illusion that p.d.r. zoning is going to bring jobs and vitality to the neighborhood. i think what it's going to ensure is that the vacant lots and abandoned buildings that are there today are going to be there 20 years from now, because

i am not going to be able to build a p.d.r. building on my lot. it doesn't make sense. that's all i would like to say. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. generally speaking, we see three different kind of big picture solutions to our affordability and displacement crisis, areas that we need to see how we can improve, and one big one is money. we just need more money for subsidized affordable housing and understanding economic feasibility and projects. process. as much as i love to spend my thursdays with you, sometimes it takes two damn long to get housing built, and we need to figure out ways to make that go faster. the third is zoning. we need to have the ability and have it be legal to build

housing in order to build housing. so when we see conversations about rezoning, we always want to ask the question what can we do to provide homes at this site, in this area, for people. we absolutely understand the desire for p.d.r., and whether it's through an urban mixed-use zoning, putting in something that's got a known net loss p.d.r. and does allow for housing, we think there's a number of different potential solutions out there, but that given the state of our affordability and displacement crisis, to rezone land in san francisco and absolutely strike out housing is even a possibility is confusing to us. we -- we ask the commission to look although housing, look at what we recollect do and hopefully get some -- what we can do and hopefully get some homes built for people. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is chris. i'm eye business owner in the area -- i'm a business owner in the area and a property owner within the b. i.t. the first thing i would like to see is what the the b. i.t. now in the plan went into effect in 1980. the area was designated as blighted. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> things are getting less safe and more drug use and crime. ba we'rwe're looking for a zonio make the nake neighborhood a sar place, bringing in better jobs

and make it a safer place to live. another thing said earlier on is that all of the properties along third street will be zoned nz3t but that's not correct. not every property will be zoned nz3t. there's one property above the triangle within into feet of the t-line stop, which is our property, that's being converted to the p dr which currently allows for housing. they mentioned they wanted to add 400 units along third street. they could add 80 on our side but they haven't allowed that to happen. no one has given me a proper answer and it sounds like a strange situation for a city that's in dire need of housing that they're taking away potentially 80 units. i'm a pdr business and majority of the owners in the business are owner users.

they're not fearing any new zoning that would make a neighborhood a safer, more vibrant place. the ideas won't be protecting anybody. they'll only hold the neighborhood back and see much more of what it is and possibly worse. i'm hoping something more flexible and well thought out and, you know, some new ideas can be put forth on how to bring a more vibrant, safer and flexible zoning to the area. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i have five neighbors which all left and if you don't make changes and get me foot traffic

going in the triangle, i'll be forced to close my doors, too. i ask you guys to please consider this really good and make some changes and if you know the triangle, you'll see that i'm literally the only one left serving food. in order for me to stay afloat, issue have to go outside and do catering and i don't want do that. i want to depend on the foot traffic that this housing could bring to the neighborhood. so i'm in dire need of help, if you could really consider this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you, and good afternoon. i'm rya ryan patterson. the family for decades owned lot

5235 003 and if i could have the overhead, please. mr. fallon's property here and you can see the only third street lot being excluded from the third street zoning and being treated differently from some reason. it is for planning, the only lot losing the current ability to provide housing and this is an illegal spot zoning, a down zoning. as you heard in the presentation from staff earlier, titled why allow housing on third street. there are a lot of good reasons. there's not a good reasons to exclude this third street lot from housing. the department is using the wrong base line to evaluate this project. the existing temporary zoning is expiring shortly as a matter of

law and therefore, the comparison should be to the underlining zoning, not the temporary zoning about to expire legally. the project description is, therefore, inaccurate for sequa purposes and that's a pretty significant problem for this. sb330 is, likewise a problem. it allows a down problem where there's a corresponding upzoning to allow as much as equal housing to be created. the way that this project has been proposed is to use the petrillo station project as a bucket of housing units to eliminate other housing. it's not done concurrently to hold that project back until this one goes through. i think what sb330 had in mind was if you have a proposal to

down zone, you're also upzoning elsewhere and that's not what's happening here and under the language of sb330, which is education police italy ttobe ins not the right interpretation. i would encourage you to please take a lot at 5235-003, which is receiving strangely different treatment from the rest of the lots from third street didn' and should not lose the ability to provide housing. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners and thank you for your time. my name a vince woo. my family has and formally had a painting business located on 1665, hudson avenue. my dad always knew that it was a redevelopment area and that's why he was able to afford

property in the business that he's had for over 40 years. he was hopeful that with the introduction of the t-line and now the chase center further down the road. however, we just haven't seen much of anything happen, not in the past five, or ten or 20 years. the building that we're in and the buildings around us are the same, old dilapidated. the proposed pdr zoning, in my opinion, and my family's opinion is short-sighted and more restricted and we don't feel like it's a good idea. we need more foot traffic. the other day, you know, the other night, someone knocked over our recycle bins and a lady from down the block, she came out and gave me a hand to pick up all the garbage.

that's what we need. we need more people in the community and in just the securitcurrent state it's in. my dad had his business on 555 haze street. that block is booming, there's a coffee shop, stores and people and still not everything around it is great. there's still a lot of homeless people. i'll block m park my car a blocy and there's feces everywhere but there's improvement. me and my family would like to see the same thing and with the proposed pdr zoning, we just don't think we'll get that. i'm not against -- i know a lot of work has been put into this and i'm not saying it's a bad idea. i'm asking you all to reconsider and take a look. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm, i'm laura foot.

this hearing has been amazing! listening to community member after community member come up and ask for housing, i think it's the best meeting i've ever been to. they want a whole community. they want a community where their employees can live close to their jobs and where people will walk out of their front door and go to stores in the neighborhood and they see the potential for that. and it's amazing! it's amazing to listen to them advocate for a whole community and to say, we can do a lot of pdr and we can do places for the people who work in the pdr to live and we can have something amazing happen in the bayview. and to listen to them advocate for that direction for themselves is something that i hope this commission can really hear and say, when are we making these decisions? we're making them at the zoning

level. we're making a big plan for what a whole community is going to look like. we have a real opportunity here and i hope we don't miss it because we're on auto pilot, because the planning department said, let's go forward, we have this pdr plan. we had a directive a few years ago and we need more pdr. we can have the same amount of pdr and get all of these other benefits. or we can miss that opportunity. and i hope we don't. i hope that for the people who live there we don't miss this opportunity because they are asking you for it. and that's really exciting i hope that the planning staff is hearing how thrilling it is to have community members come and ask them for more housing in their community. don't miss this opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm joe garvey.

i do not live in bayview but i own two retail properties there and i'm there everyday and i have an affinity for the neighborhood. i oppose the proposed rezoning because it doesn't solve the neighborhood's challenges. i own retail properties across the street from the triangle didn't my windows get broken into every six months. the windows get smashed. bayview has a 30% vacancy and what addresses that is more people near the retail. bayview is very poorly zoned. you have a t-line light rail two miles from downtown, low density, 40-foot height limits and rh is o1 on the west side a1 on the east side. nothing will change the fact it is a blighted area. there was a recent study

conducted by the ssmta a couple of days ago, a 106-page report, very well done and talked about the challenges that bayview has in regards to bayview and states the bayview community members have persistently claimed bayview has been neglected. this high rate of vehicle ownerships reflects the geographic isolation of the community and the level of transit service and also states that bayview land zoned for pdr, industrial uses, acts as a barrier between bayview and the rest of san francisco. the proposed zoning is doing exactly that, acting as barrier between bayview and the rest of san francisco. in the study, it also says that

earning trust in bayview requires a documented, inclusive and accountable process. this is why we have the cac. the purpose of the cac is to provide policy advice to the planning department and planning commission on planning and land-use matters of bayview hunter's point. it's very rare from the cac to not endorse a project in planning and i don't believe that happened, at least not in a public meeting. i think that it behooves this commission to ask why they never endorsed this zoning. >> i'm theo gordon and i'm a renter in the city. i come here every now and then to speak on housing. i was here in december to talk

about a small five-unit project not related to this. but i ask you to consider in addition to the current respects to consider the people who could live in that housing. similarly tonight, i ask you to think about the hundreds of people in this triangle. but when i asked you that last time, you said you were more concerned with current residents than future residents. we have current residents who want this housing. they want a vibrant community and want to see families move in and raise their families in this area and commute to work and work next to the jobs in the industrial area. so we need to take that opportunity when people are asking for more housing. but if you won't build -- if you sit here and say that you won't build housing for future residents and then you say today that you won't build housing when current residents want it,

when will you build housing? we're in a housing crisis. you're planning commissioners. you oversee the planning department. plan. we have a crisis. plan for that crisis and get this housing built now. you know, it's boggling to me that in a time when people are living on the streets, that we're not doing everything in our power to get as many roofs built over people's heads. so please consider rezoning this area for housing in addition to other uses. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm shap shane o'connor. i'm, like, right on 101 and couldn't be closer to the bayview without living there. i have a business called gardenville station on gerald

avenue boarding kirkwood and it's 150-year-old building and probably the oldest building in the bit. it has had many, many lives. what we do with it now is we have it set up as office space for small design built businesses and, also, there's a good sized woodshop and we have outdoor work space and shipping containers that get used as studio space. we probably have more jobs per square foot than anywhere else ielsein the bit right now. i just feel like what the planning is proposing right now is going to stifle doing anything like that on any larger scale, might even stop me because i might not qualify regarding square footage of office space versus production space. i would like to see the proposed

plan changed to improved density, whether by housing or by a different description of pdr. i'm agnostic, whether it's housing or upper-floor offices, but there needs to be more density. by the way, i agree with the no cannabis distribution. however, what's going to happen and what is happening right now is that there will be cannabis grow houses, a building right next to me just sold for $700,000 below asking price and was immediately occupied by a grow house. do you want to see more of that? because if you don't want to see manner getting distributed, you're going to have it being grown because nobody can afford do anything that actually generates the revenue to develop these properties. there's one building about to get built on our block which has a caretaker unit as part of it. it's one of the last things approved by the oci in bit

exit's the last thing that will get built in the bit for the next to or 30 years the. there was a gentleman here, andrew, trying to get his project through and he wants to build the exact same thing and oci won't do it because planning will take over and their rules will take over and it has a ca caretaker unit. there are so many problems that it has to be considered more. i have nine fingertips and i cut wood ever day. i believe in protection. production. what is happening will stifle the bit and nothing interesting will happen. there will be no good jobs for anybody except maybe dog walking. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with livable city. over a decade ago, there was an

exhaustive planning process in the bayview that looked at land use and zoning and it's in your general plan. this idea that there would be a commercial district along third street from evans to carol and these activity notes. there was a health service's note at the southern end of the nc dict, the town center note in the middle, a northern gateway note at the north end and redevelopment was disbanded and none of the zoning changes got made. so what we have is a real disconnect between the zoning on the ground and the intention of that community plan and what has been done over the years is just to kind of pile on special use districts. so we have this zoning jenga, the base zoning which is a bad mix, with a desired use of mixes and you have redeveloped uses and a four or five districts in the corridor and this is a terrific mess and we've long thought it should be sorted out.

in 2011, there were emails saying you need to fix the mess on third street and we're happy that something is finally happening and it took the bit turning into a pumpkin, to be the impetus, but we're finally have a conversation about third street. we talked about bayview commercial district and the reason being -- just flack backk to when you were talking about creating the 12 new commercial districts. you can customize that in a corridor if it has a named nc district. we created an nc district a few months ago and everything south of the bit and all of the three is gone. what's curious is why the b it portion of the nc is proposed to be n ct3 and not bayview nc. most of the rest of nc is

market. this part of third street is upper market than it is like the other part of third street. that's going to be a mess if you want to do something that covers the whole area, you'll have to do special use districts and have to get into the overlay mess again. please consider making it all bayview. nt3 is great, permitting the same uses in the bayview nc and has other things as lower parking, more den density. you might want to consider permitting light manufacturing north of kirkwood, any pdr uses north of kirkwood that are currently existing will be nonconforming. look at a the shopping center site. it's zoned pdr. it's a terrible use for a shopping center and you might want to consider adding that to the nc district and that would allow housing which is now prohibited. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> good afternoon. i'm mark clayman, one of the owners and operators of pet camp. we're located at 525 phelp street and we opened in may of 1997 with no employees. we're a seasonal business and at our peak, we have 50 employees. we're an overnight care facility for dogs and cats and that's not what most people think of as a p dr business and that's the point. some tell you it means business, construction, a factory, but the pdr businesses is only limited by the creativity, the entrepreneurs who start and grow them. we came to the bit because when we were opening, we needed to be in an m1 or m2 zone and 200 feet from the nearest r2 zone. we came and invested in the bit is grew our business and revitalized a new business in the bit and it seems unfair to

negatively impact to those who supported that. i'm glad that housing will be allowed on third street. but in any balance, there needs to be protection of the balances. pdr businesses are essential to san francisco's economic diversity. we need to support the diversity of businesses, not because we want diverse businesses but we want the diverse jobs that it creates. not everyone in san francisco wants to work in tech, retail or human hospitality and not everyone wants four-year degree or even a two-year degree. we need to call this a diversion population and call it home. because many have decided not to revitalize their building, those who have, should in the b not be penalized. we have taken our commitment to the bayvie bayview seriously foe

last 25 years. we protect pdr jobs growing middle-class families in the triangle and in the bayview and beyond. we think of balance of housing and jobs as critical for economic growth and diversity in sanfrancisco. thank you is very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> this is described having a detrimental effect on businesses and residents both in and surrounding the project. this map, if i could have the overhead, shows parcels that were identified for mandatory

rehabilitation and new development. it sought to remedy existing conditions through rehab and development. today, huge however, with the sk at 60 years, this didn't happen. excluding a couple of buildings, nothing has been built in the last 50 years and the redevelopment plan failed. this city reports basis for recommendation to carry forward the intent of the plan is incorrect. it carries forward the existing conditions. plans are usually triggered by something, the central soma plan began with a proposed central subway and we asked how to maximize this through zoning. with the park, we saw the gradual evolution of the outward expansion and the need to recognise this area as not being on the periphery of the city but as one of the better neighborhoods. here, since 1980, we've seen significant public investment. the 1.$3 billion investment of

the treatment plant expected to be completed in 2024 and the light rail, completed in 2006, a $667 million that linked downtown to the bayview. community members are speaking to you today and have analyzed the area and set goals. they believe in residential development and residential unemployment density to support a safe and active neighborhood and commercial corridor. lastly, the case report describes the department's paramount concern regarding displacement of pdr, the intent of pdr, to protect the p dr from displacement. they reveal 73% of the unoccupied parcels are owned or occupied. i believe this to be an important fact because the threat is not displacement, but rather the gradual vacation of existing businesses and the enact to lease the pdr uses that won't be able to afford the necessary health and safety

improvements required of the older buildings. in short, we believe the long-term consequences will not lead to the growth of pdr but rather an inflectionabl inflect. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> the san francisco mark has been in bayview since 1963 and we bring fresh, healthy produce to the bay area every morning. evacuee beewe've continued to rn the market and have over 1,000 people who work everyday on the market and in the midst of our reinvestment plan which will continue to expand the market and improve the market. we're doing that because we've seen strong, strong demand for pdr space. we feel very strongly the future

is bright for our section of bayview and recent sales of pdr space reflects that, as well. we wanted to share that perspective. there's been views we are in an area without vibrancy and that's not the case at the market and all around the market and we just wanted to make sure you're aware there are areas directly near this space that is very vibrant. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm todd david. this one is a head scratcher for me. as i've been asking questions of people to why are we not looking at housing in this neighborhood, basically, the answer has been because we're not. and i was just, like, ok, that's really not an answer and finally said, yesterday, there's a waste water treatment pla plant on the back side and ok, there's a

reason. but then i also heard there's a $1.3 billion upgrade of that treatment plant to be completed in 2024, also. this seems like the perfect opportunity to have a win-win for everybody. we want to preserve, we want to grow blue collar work opportunities and we want those people working in those jobs to be able to have housing. i think that when heading into this meeting tonight, it was, like, this pitting of pdr or housing and we have to have one or the other and that's not right. we cap have both. and so that, it just strikes me -- i have been struck by the unwillingness for people to have conversations around this specific zoning and this specific neighborhood. it seems like there's a way to

preserve pdr and to add housing to a neighborhood, where it sounds like a lot of people want housing and pdr. and i would encourage you, as the planning commission, to encourage everyone to get into a room and have conversations that this seems like stakeholders, however you want to define them, have not had an opportunity to sit down and talk to each other and to work through some of the issues. i've spoken to members of cac who said they support housing in this, but they haven't been given an opportunity to speak on that behalf. it's just like this one is a head scratcher and i don't know what's going on and why we can't have a conversation and a broad sense about adding housing to pdr in this neighborhood fundamenta.thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissione commissioners. the housing crisis act was enacted last year and prohibits cities from taking zoning actions to reduce the zoning for housing that was allowable as of january 1, 2020, at the same time upzoning other areas to increase housing capacity. upon expiration of the redevelopment plan on june 30th, the property will be rezoned and when zoning allows housing and this property would permit about 500 units of housing if nothing happened and the zoning remained m1. you need to look closely at whether this is violating sb330 by removing the zoning capacity without increasing it anywhere else. the sequa exemption is also inadequate and that fails to analyze any indirect effects

associated with the housing capacity. this is two paragraphs and that's all you have in your package for environmental review. and we believe a far more robust sequa analysis is rivered. required. as the previous speakers noted, the staff recommendation is merely a continuation of the failed 1980 bit redevelopment plan prohibiting any residential development, except for a narrow strip along third street. it doubted the blighted condition in the area, including small lots, vacant lots and dilapidated buildings and called for the rehabilitation of the areas in orange, on the overhead, and voluntary rehabilitation of the remainder of the area. since 1980, last 40 years, there's been no mandatory or voluntary rehabilitation. as far as we can tell, a total

of only three buildings have been built in the area in the last four years. rather than continuing this failed policy, by rezoning the area to pdr, we believe a better public policy objective would be to have mixed use zoning, such as umu zoning enacted throughout the neighborhoods which allows a mix of pdr, traditional and mixed uses. we would recommend a modification to the zoning be enacted to require no net loss of pdr building space. so much of the restrictions imposed by prop x and south of market. we're not advocating for a continuation of m1 zoning, but rather, a more mixed use nuance of new type zoning with a no-net loss of pdr overlay. such a zoning would achieve the pdr retention policies but allow this area in the t this lin t-ld

include affordable housing. >> anyone else wishing to comment, come on up. >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners. i'm a contractor/developer in the city and about two years ago, i bought a lot on the lot of gerald street and i'm going to build a warehouse with an accessory unit on top. if i decide not to build that under this zoning, i have a 40-foot height limit, i can go 60 feet but it's no good to me. what will i do with the other 2. the problem with this rezoning is what you do above the 20 or 25 feet of the pdr at the street level. there has been no review, i think, done, of any place in the city where you have accessible

pdr from 30 feet to 50, 60 feet high and where it will be successful. a few years ago, there were two buildings done -- i think it's hooper that were approved and built. and if anybody recalls, they were a part of another huge development going on, so they're not really reliable comparisons for what you need do in this area. we were reading last week that construction costs have gone up 45% in the last five years here in the city. you have developers on major projects coming in here, complaining about construction costs and nobody will build 65 feet in that area. i am a developer and that's what i do. that's not what i'm doing on this lot. i need a warehouse aroun for aly construction equipment and that's how i ended up here. but i think you need to realize that that whole area, whatever

square footage it is, and if you look at the map, from 30 feet to 60 feet, we will be here in 20 year's time and that landscape will not have changed. there is no way anybody will build above 25, 30 feet. so i hope you reconsider the zoning. it is ideal for housing above that level. maybe it's not housing. maybe it's some type of office or something else, but that space will be totally wasted. and i don't think you should be taking it into consideration that people will build all of this square footage of pdr space when it's just not going to happen here. i know it. so that's all i have to say and thank you for your time. >> thank you. anyone else from the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed and director ram? >> thank you, commissioners and thank you everyone for coming out today. i just wanted to kind of review some of our recommendations and why we are supporting

supervisor's walton's recommendations in this case. number one, i have to remind everyone we're talking a few square blocks. we're not talking an area the size of eastern neighborhoods or the mission district or anything. we're talking a few square blocks and i have to be blunt and see this won't solve the city's housing crisis. but more importantly, this commission and this department has for a very long time, at least since i've been here for the last 12 years and longer, have been supportive of protecting pdr businesses. san francisco has the smallest percentage of pdr-zoned land of any major city in the united states at 6.9%. the vacancy rate of pdr businesses is less than 5% in the city right now and there is demand for pdr space and hasn't reached the industrial triangle yet but i suspect that it will. also, i think it's important to remember that this is a small sliver of land up against the susewage treatment plant.

this is not a small facility. and also, i think it's important to remember that what we are proposing essentially extends the existing types of progresses under a different name that are in place now and have been in place since 1980 until such time that the bayview community does a larger planning effort around the pdr zoning in the broader area and this has to be seen in context of the larger area you see on the map rhianna provided you looking at the larger pdr areas in the bayview. for all of those reasons, we do believe this zoning is appropriate to stay in place today. to continue the pdr protections until a larger planning effort is done. if we were here talking about changes zoning to residential, which many people have advocated for, there would be a much more important community discussion to be had. about where to allow residential zoning in the pdr

districts. that has not happened. this essentially recogniz extene same types of pdr with a different name and for this reason we support this legislation. >> thank you, director. commissioner moore? >> could the director or staff confirm that the upgrading of the southeast plant is not just simply upgrading the plant but is also significantly increasing the capacity? >> i actually don't know the answer to that. i suspect it might be, but i just don't know. >> i know there was an eir and i am sure there are basic requirements for buffer around the sewage treatment plant which for many, many years there has been an issue of great concern for the community who had different occasions to be in front of us, basically feeling victimized having to be surrounded or nearby, shift be winds often bringing smells and other nuisances into the

community. since we're at the apex of the triangle here, i have to believe that the department's recommendation for pdr ha is a direct way of dealing with this land. we're maintaining about revival corridor with housing along third street to let third street become a continuum of different activity notes, but personally, i am in full support of what is in front of me. >> commissioner fung? >> my congratulations to miss tong for completing her studies and for leaving the poor-paying profession of architecture. [ laughter ] >> it's interesting that a lot of the discussion popped out of

nowhere since yesterday and so, normally, i try to -- in recent times, anyway, ask questions of staff for nasda information thay require in my deliberations and didn't get that opportunity because everything came in at the last second. i mean, a lot of this stuff came in and i haven't had a chance to open my email. i did have a couple of questions, though, that came out from the conversation. one is, is there a -- for staff, is there a small window, then, where people can apply, based upon the underlying zoning of m1 and the closure of the

redevelopment prohibition and the adoption of any revisions in terms of our current planning? if that were to happen, then there would be no gap, window that would be possible at present and the areas is not under planning jurisdiction but under ocii and that wouldn't take any applications and because it's not our jurisdiction, we're not accepting any applications at this time. >> i do just want to add some of the people you've heard from today have had several years'

worth of opportunity to do something different. so i do want to make sure the commission understands that there's been ample time for some of the folks to actually apply to do something different with their property and that has not happened. >> my last point would be, one of the issues of an area plan, even though this is not a very large area plan, is what happened at the edges. and admittedly, the redevelopment plan shows straight lines around an area, but it doesn't discuss what happens at the edges. one person brought up that they're currently zoned for potential similar uses as an nct. this is at the tip of the space

and somebody brought up that the plaza building zoned pdr but it's actually a commercial use. is there further tweaking of this to deal with some of the issues around the edges of the area? >> team effort here. i'm with planning staff. so the plaza is not part -- just to clarify the boundaries. but we participate with the african-american district to work on it next, but there will be a broader planning process to look at the bayview and to look at those kind of what happens in the future and what happens next. and i think that, you know, this should be seen.

i think john mentioned this, but to reiterate, this triangle should be looked at, as well, that context. so there's a lot of concern that this is forever and this is definitely not a forever zoning and can be looked at and zoom in and look at this tiny area and look at it in th in the contexte entire bayview area. >> the one parcel at the northern tip stood out and i'm looking at a lot of the other comments and, perhaps, it's an imagined value increase to the real estate holdings in terms of being able to do residential. but that particular parcel, it didn't look like it made sense since it's on the third street. >> one of the reasons we chose to apply p dr zoning to that

is -- two reasons. one is that, and i'll pull up a map of the area again. it's at the tip of the triangle and it does abut the sewage treatment facility and on the north side, it's pdr zoning and it's a really big block and it's a really good building that's in good shape. there was a lot of mention that buildings that were struggling and this is a really good building. so we could imagine a future this does become a different use if they decide not to do their moving and this could be another pdr use. >> commissioner diamond. >> i appreciate all of the time that's gone into develop the staff report and all of the time

the community has taken to come out with their comments. i think we heard a lot of really good issues raised today. and i'm in favour of preserving pdr and adding to pdr and i'm definitely in favour of adding more housing. and i'm in intrigued by the notion of, can the two live together and can there be no net loss on top of it. but i will say, based on 40 years of land-use experience, i have dealt with nonstop adjacency issues between pdr and housing and i believe it takes an incredible amount of time and attention to figure out how they can live together in a compatible way without having nonstop nuisance suits. in this particular triangle area, it's very much complicated by the adjacency of the sewage treatment plant.

and so, i am in favour of preserving the status quo which is the way director ram has described it, with the understanding that this is an interim solution. while we think about a longer solution in the context of the cultural plan. that being said, there were a couple of cultural issues raised. all of the issues aren't school. around the school. could staff address the concerns raised by the school and what a solution might be? >> the school is across the street from the area we're talking about. back to the map, on the upper side, on the right side.

so out of these boundaries. so it's not part of the redevelopment plan and not part of the area, so it wouldn't be a part of this process. >> if i might, commissioner. for the commission, you couldn't take action on that parcel because it's not technically in front of you. however, you could urge -- put on the record urging the department and supervisor to look at that record for future rezoning and to potentially accommodate the school or other uses that area. i know the walgreens leaving that site has created a hole in that shopping center and i know there's a lot of interest in looking differently at that site. so you couldn't take an action related to that site but you could urge we take the next step and bring something back to you. >> it was raised in a vac assumm that membered of the community were here and spoke eloquently and passionately about the need of that space. i don'it does seem like that

particular concern needs to be addressed. so a second concern i had, and this maybe a question for the city attorney's office, is two of the lawyers that spoke were concerned about whether or not we could reduce amount of housing under sb330 without picking another site and didn't think we should be relying on the increase in housing and the area that we recently approved. and you could speak to sb330 and whether or not this kind of matching that they're discussing is necessary or whether or not the petraro housing is sufficient here. >> cityou can add on to what i y or correct me if i misspeak, but we talked extensively with the city attorneys with this issue and thought a lot about it and believe the city is on solid

ground with the approach and sb330 talks about concurrently and this legislation is definitely proceeding concurrently with other legislation such as the power station that is much more substantially increasing housing potential in this neck of the woods in the city and that's sufficient. >> president koppel and the city attorney's office, i would just add to what was just said, in that the legislation itself, section 4b, this legislation will not become effective unless the upzoning contemplated at the power station special use district goes into effect. josh is right that sb330 is not clear about what concurrently means. the normal definition of that is at the same time and this legislation won't go into effect unless this other upzoning goes into effect and sb330 does not

allow the city to down zone, so as to disallow housing, so as it zones to allow housing concurrently, so there's no net loss of zoning for housing sites. >> thank you. >> if i could also add that the zoning controls currently this place effective january 1, 2020 is the redevelopment plant. so that is the zoning that is in effect. so there's only one parcel of change that this is changing as of january 1st, 2020. >> and then my last question had to do with the comment that was raised regarding why this part of third street is nothing proposed to be a part of the bayview nc district. can staff address that? >> so we propose the n ct3 to allow some of the pipeline projects proposed that were mentioned and at a greater

density under the bayview nc zoning. >> thank you very much. >> commission johnson. >> thank you. >> thank you so much to everybody who came out to speak and share your perspective on this. we have been spending a long time kind of weighing and thinking through the issues. and thank you to commissioner diamond who literally asked so many of the questions on my list. so i'll just affirm a couple of things and then ask a couple of additional questions. one, i would say that i think as has been mentioned, it's a long-standing policy of this commission to try to protect pdr space. and i think in this moment in time, specializing the businesses and the spaces that are already there, especially at this moment in time where the demand, for example, for office and others is exceeding the pace of housing, making sure that we

are intentional about what does happen in this corridor, first by stabilizing, as the controls change. i'm supportive of that notion. i think what has. helpful in the discourse of this project is to name that is not a forever change and that this is part of a larger process to really look at the district as a whole and make sure that we're knitting pieces of the district together instead of making kind of spot decisions. i do think that ultimately, i do think that the nature of pdr space is changing. and while some historical pdr uses have had traditional uses, there are some that have pdr uses. as we look at a perspective, thinking about what could go in

there is something that i think would really be important to do. and you think that there a lot of issues that have. raised here, obeen raisedhere. of courseofi think something wet talked about is the commission, the other item, which is cannabis, and the ban of cannabis on this parcel. and my comments will be general about deliberations on cannabis in neighborhoods, which is, we had a wonderful presentation by the office of cannabis, walking us through their work. but i still, i continue to sit with questions about how many retail cannabis spaces should be in any given community? how many, not only are in the works but have applied and are in the pipeline? what is our overarching policy

in making sure sha w that we hae healthy neighborhoods with the right mixes including a clear objective of how many cannabis retail spaces there are? certainly, and importantly with a lense towards equity. so i am super sensitive to the issues of equity and the concentration of cannabis in this particular district and not recreating the same equalities of the past and, unfortunately, the present. but it begs for me the larger policy questions of how can we as one city family be clear on what the position is on the right level of density on cannabis? >> commissioner imperial? >> just i would like to echo, as well, as what other commissioners have said, i think this plan is well-balanced.

(please stand by).

>> i want to thank you. there is definitely going to be a larger conversation about zoning down the corridor. we are waiting on the cultural district to be fully flushed out so we can have detailed conversations about that.

same with cannabis. we just introduced legislation to stop the permitting process for retail cannabis so we can have a more full conversation what we can do to share the balance of cannabis across the city. we are extremely aware 70% of the voters in san francisco did pass regulation of cannabis. we want to do things equitably. we have over 17,000 homes being built in district 10. this very small sliver of land is not going to address the homeless crisis in san francisco nor is it going to make it worse for the homeless crisis in the city. last thing, items 12a and b before you now, my office is not in support of these modifications. there has not been a community process at all about these modifications. i had conversations to get them

to have these conversations with residents and talk about these modifications. they have touched the iceberg on that. they had no plans until we sat down with a meeting. i want to be clear today. our office, the residents are not in support of these modifications. i want to let you know that personally. >> thank you, supervisor walton. >> good afternoon, i am department staff. before you this afternoon is the hunters view hope sf development project, modifications to the project original approvals. it is to completely rehabilitate

foufour housing sites to mixed income communities better connected to surrounding neighbors. construction up to 800 dwelling units, that is new affordable and market rates along with the community services, potential retail and new street grid. i should emphasized the mixed income portion of the vision is key in terms of policy but also the objective of having the market rate parcels cross the afternoocrossaffordable and inf. in 2008 it received original approval. three times informational items for design of subsequent blocks. project sponsor john steward

company is ready to move forward on five more blocks and needs to re-up original approval. i will give you an overview of the original approval. the project manager will update you on the project. i will come back to run through what is before you in terms of approval then hand it to the project sponsor from jon stewart. david baker, one of the designers and samantha houser to talk about three blocks before you. as a quick orientation, hunters view is located in bayview on the north end of hunters point hill south of the previous hunters point power plant station and west of india basin. this area provides hunters view around 2005 prior to commencement of the hope sf efforts.

it is configured in roughly five superblocks, roughly 50 dilapidated buildings. this is the project site today. as you can see half of the project has been rebuilt with six blocks of affordable housing. that is completely replaced the previously dilapidated units. it is reconstructed two-thirds of the street grid and two open spaces. to give you context how we structured original approvals. it was a planned unit development. that is like a large scale conditional use authorization that looks at providing some modifications to the planning code requirements with the provision of strong design. here this planned unit development we structured

differently. the one thing we did is gave it long-term performance period. usually you have three years. we provided 10 years here. planned unit developments are usually half acre and more. this is 22-acres. it had a longer term, more complex buildout. instead of providing designs connected to the original approval we created design for development that acts as the blue print for the build out and acts as planning code. we provided modifications and the design for development takes over and provides the qualitative and quantitative design controls for individual buildings. we also envisioned this approval with the design for development we were able to review subsequent designs for believes and just review to make sure complied. the conditions of approval require we bring them before you

for informational items as they become available. we have something to say about that. i want to -- the other thing for the original approvals special use district. we re-zoned from 40 feet to 40-65x. then provisions in the planning code say more fine grained look at the de stein for development. we will talk about that today. i will hand it over to cindy heavens for a progress report so far. >> hello, commissioners. i am cindy heavens, project manager for hunters view for the mayor's office of housing and community development. for progress, we have made a lot of progress in the 10 years that it takes to build out this development and to be

revitalized. so before you that is a picture of the overall phase one. we have completed phase one. it was blocks four, five and six. it is 107 units, 80 are public housing replacement, 26 additional affordable housing, one manager's unit, there is a park as well as all of the infrastructure, new streets, curbs, gutters and utilities. that was financed with the mayor's office of housing money as well as office of community infrastructure and improvement. we completed phase two and phase two was -- these are more pictures of phase one. we completed phase two in two different phases. phase one and two. we had the grand opening in 2019, but that wasn't because the project wasn't completed.

we have in block 10 a wellness center. that is operated by the department of public health and we wanted the department of public health up and running before the grand opening. for phase two we did complete 179 affordable housing units. we have a community room, wellness center which i mentioned, child care center and of the 179 units, 134 of those are public housing replacement units, 43 additional, affordable housing units and in phase one block seven and 11 one manager unit and in block 10 a manager unit. two manager's units. we completed iron wood park. with the compile with the completion of phase 2a.

this is a picture of the progress we have been making. the jon stewart company with the loan from the mayor's of the of community and development demolished the 18 housing units on phase three in response to community input because the dellap dated unhoused buildings create blight and squatting. residents asked they be demolished prior to a bigger government. john steward company with help of san francisco housing authority demolished 18 buildings to their foundation with predevelopment money. so today we are here to discuss phase three, which when completed will be 18 affordable

housing units, 100% affordable, 53 are public housing replacement units of those public housing replacement units, 50 are three bedrooms or more, and that is because of the 53 that is in compliance with a requirement to replace exact unit for unit on hunters view. of the 53, 34 are four bedrooms. we are adding 65 additional units that are tax credit supported, however, we hope to if you approve it today apply well the jon stewart company will apply to the state of california housing and community development. there is an application due on march 2nd. we are committed in order to have a competitive application to make 20 units affordable to

homeless families. in that development there will be one manager's unit. the 118 units are contained on blocks 14 and 17. block 14 will hav have parking. in phase one and two there is parking in each development. there is a parking garage. additionally, on this affordable development we are looking to also have a learning and literacy space in response to a goal of hope sf for an integrated community and third spaces that encourage people of all incomes to mingle in a like shared activity. we are also looking at a cafe as well as a cafe/commercial kitchen to meetings in response to early days of meeting with residents things they would like to do to increase economic ability and have a vibrant

community. i would like to talk about with this action today if approved, it will also move forward the market rate development and if that is something that occurs, hunters view, also the first affordable housing development to have started affordable -- to complete a phase within hope sf idea initiative. if approved today the market rate component that was a key piece to the hope sf will be also able to move forward. also, with this request because there is a request to increase the height of the building from 40 feet to 65 feet, that request is needed in order to build the 118 unit affordable development. originally at 40 feet we would have looked at 54 required public housing replacement units. when we started looking at this

phase, that was not a feasible project, and given we are also in a housing crisis, the need to add as much affordable housing and take advantage of any housing opportunities we have is another reason to add more units and request the height. finally, in phase three this will be the first hope sf affordable housing development to implement the right to return legislation that was approved by the board in january. since all of the residents at hunters view who exercised the right to return have moved to phase one or two. this is the first time people who moved away from hunters view have the opportunity to come back to the public housing replacement units. that is the end of my presentation. now, i return it back to matt.

>> thank you, cindy. as you just heard, the project sponsor is ready to move forward on the next phase. hunters view is before you for two actions. modifications to the conditions of approval and required shadow findings. the driver of the modifications are really around the extended performance period. as i mentioned it was a 10 year period. this is a very complex and large project. that has expired so that is more or less the driver of being before you. while we were doing this modification we were looking to maybe make some other refinements to your conditions of approval. this was actually the first time we did this kind of master approval. we have had a lot of them since then but this one was the first since that time usually done

under development agreements, some of the characteristics of those projects are this mechanism to allow staff or the project sponsor to seek modifications for these other projects that has been at 10%. if you modify within 10% it can be done at staff level. above that it comes back to the planning commission. these approval goes first was 5%. we think it would be fen transcripbenefit toalign with t. similarly with the other development approvals we have let subsequent designs be review at the staff level. we come before you for an informational presentation. our recommendation here and it is up to you is that instead every choiring automatic informational presentations we would certainly alert you to it and you could ask for

informational presentations but they would not be automatic. for the design for development and the design for development here kind of worked as an extension of conditions of approval. we are looking at five modifications. the major one, as you heard, was the increase in the height for the two affordable housing buildings blocks 14 and 17. this would enable a lot more affordable housing on those lots. however, just because we are jumping from 40 feet to above 4w analysis which we did not do before. that did create a shadow on parks. that is the action i will get back to later. we think there are smaller modifications that aren't as controversial. reconfiguring a park. there is a two-thirds acre park between blocks 14 and 17. that is not how we originally

envisioned it. we are looking to enable usable open space on block 14 to be on that. this is consistent with other projects where you can meet the usable space. the market development is looking to have parking access off private alleys. we want to clarify those parking alleys which essentially allows all of the garages hidden from view. we want to make sure the dimension requirements for garages don't apply to this. the controversy that supervisor walton referred to is regarding parking. let me explain why we are coming to the recommendation that we are. when we approve this in 2008, underlying zoning required parking at one-to-one. they were looking for a exception of that requirement which we thought was reasonable.

then identified sort of the intension of 650 some parking spaces to the 800 units they were proposing. since that time we have done a lot of other master approvals. in every case as far as i know we eliminated the parking requirement. that is what we have done throughout the city. since that time all zoning across the city has removed the parking requirement. if you take a step outside the boundaries of hunters view you are in a parcel that no longer requires parking. we thought it was reasonable to allow the underlying parking to derm what those ratios are. this is not to say we are restricting parking or don't think there needs to be a commitment to mobility for the folks at hunters view. i will let the sponsor speak to it. it allows flexibilities that they can meet the mobility needs

case-by-case basis. that is our reasoning for the parking ratio being determined by the underlying zoning. the action before you today are shadow findings required under planning code section 295. as you know, that requires a shadow analysis for buildings over 40 feet. we have done that. buildings on blocks 14 and 17 are above 40 feet create shadows on the shoreline park which is on the lower picture and 800innis, the site of a future park not yet improved. shadows these are parks that under your policy does enable some shadow to fall on it. they are large parks that have a

shadow budget. shadows are within that qualitative and quantitative limitations to how the shadow can be. as required by 295 this was before the recreation and parks commission this morning. they approved and attached to the packets that i just passed up to usa letter from recreation and parks staff confirming the recreation and park commission has found findings of no significant adverse impact on the two parks, particularly when you look at the public benefit of the affordable housing that this is essentially is comdating. i do have slides, technical slides of what that is, and i will be happy to go through them with you. the recreation and park commission recommends similar findings. that is the staff recommendation as well.

this concludes my presentation. again, our recommendation to you is to make the modifications. the eight modifications we are recommending and that you make findings of no significant impact to the shadow on those two parks. now over to catherine with jon stewart. she will turn it over to the designers and market rate developer. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am with the jon stewart company. tector of development. working on the hunter's view for seven years. you saw the photographs. you have seen the progress to date we have been able to do at hunters view. we build out 286 units of affordable housing and tax credit. we built new streets in phase one and two.

brand new infrastuck the. first hope sf project to do so. two new parks and child care center and many other amenities including recording studio built out of numerous conversations with residents over the years in meetings that i led. matt outlined the approvals we are seeking. to extend our performance period for 10 years to allow us to complete the final affordable fazan market rate component. we arwe arewwe arewe are the ope the first project to do to. you will hear about the designs for those parcels today. the re-up will allow us to apply for 20 understand million dollars -- $20 million in state

funding. this is what mocd invested to date. this is a dwindling resource. we are very competitive for this funding. you know, this is something that would help propel the project forward. hunters view is a challenging site. when we began over 10 years ago in about 2005-2006. we didn't know about the site. it is steep. it is the rock that covers the entire site. it is expensive to dig into the rock and build structured parking which i will get to in a little bit. it is challenging to build on. we have done a pretty good job of working through and balancing the competing demands of the site. we learned a lot of lessons from the prior phases and we are applying those to the final

phases. good news we have been able to build more affordable housing than we originally anticipated in our original entitlement. we called out we built 350 units. we are telling i having 404 when phase three is complete. we are building more park space in a neighborhood where you can't walk to a park easily from hunters view. we have created two parks and new bayview park between two blocks of affordable housing. residents will have a brand new park space in their backyard. we have faced challenges. parking is one challenge. we realized that early on. one of the tenants of hope sf is to rebuild on the original site. this is a challenging site. it became very clear to us that building structure parking was a challenge. we would not be able to build as much as we had anticipated when we started the project.

in addition to that, our density decreased. we are not deliverin deliver des much market rate structures. i want to clarify and matt touched on this. entitlement modification does not mean we are not going to build future parking. in fact, the opposite. we added 13 more spaces to phase three. we are committed to building parking hunters view. it is competing against other uses and it is hard to build as much structured parking as we originally anticipated. in addition to adding more structure parking and this is grown out of meetings the last couple years. parking is a challenge in this neighborhood as all over san francisco.

we will commission a transit parking survey to understand where do they work, do they use public transit to get to where they work, would a huddle serve -- shuttle, a car sharing mechanism be helpful to address their needs. we are committed to ongoing resident meetings to discuss these concepts. it is a misconception with the modification and entitlements. i am happy to take questions. i will turn it over to the architect, david baker to give the informational update to blocks 14 and 17. >> this is david baker. i am david baker, actually. a short presentation what we have been doing at hunters view. this is with our co-and designer. this looking up to the park.

it is going to make this avenue that will have a great view of the bay. so you can see the two blue buildings phase 3. 833 and 855 hunters view drive. you have a fantastic view across the bay. this is the current status with the various buildings. we got to participate in some of these, a lot of these are really nice. it is a wonderful place. this shows the phase three there and that park which makes this great view. this this shows the plan. we are happy we got active uses in here. some commercial retail space and san francisco potential library out post which means unstaffed but a great asset.

the pink is community uses which are, i think, it is a good thing to get some in. the other thing that was challenging we got to work on three blocks previously. we kept kicking 4 and 5 bedrooms down the road trying to stick another architect with those. unfortunately, we got to do it ourselves. it is really fun. this has an incredible number of bedrooms. it is 286 bedrooms. this is a much larger project than the unit number would indicate. it is fun doing five bedrooms, i will tell you. this is the library out post. it is fantastic views of san francisco, unobstructedded and amazing. this shows behind the lettering there is the entry to that park which is a substantial park. that library out post on this side and on the right would be

the commercial space. this shows the entry to the library out post. we have stoops coming down to the park activating it. we are embarking on a community informed design with the david fletcher studios. fantastic landscape architect which keeps wanting to bring his dj rig to the community meetings. this is looking up hunters view drive. those are five bedrooms. good things to have those. probably the only units of this size being built in san francisco. thank you very much. >> we are now going to -- go ahead. >> hello, commissioners. i am the market rate developer for parcels 2, 3, 9.

i have a short presentation about our designs i will go through. sustainable developer super-excited to be working with the housing authority. >> we may call you back up for questions. >> i am here to answer any questions. justin true of the mayor's office is here and may want to hear your questions and respond to anything you might have. >> great. the presentation is done. open this up for public comment. >> i have several speaker cards. daniels, davis and jack gardner. >> hello. i am chanel davis, one of the

residents. >> speak in the mic tone. >> i am chanel davis a resident at hunters view. i represent all of the residen residents. the parking we need more parking. i believe that this area on fairfax between catalina is open space. i believe that they should have a mini parking lot right there so that it would be more parking because everybody takes up the whole street. i love my apartment. 901 fairfax. nice view. i believe that for the seniors when we do have fire alarms, i

think they should be able to get access down stairs. i don't think they have any access really. that is the problem right there. the parking area, they should have a mini rec center on phase three for the kids. i have kids. i have an 11-year-old and 5-year-old. talking for the teenagers and up so they have a little rec center so they can keep out of trouble. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on san francisco action coalition. this is one where i think you

listen to one side arguing for more parking and the other not. it is not black and white. we get it from both sides. quite frankly, the core problem that we think that we really have here is a lack of quality public transit. if the public transit were running every two minutes and able to get folks downtown quickly on the t, then the need for parking wouldn't be there. we understand that the lots there are full. like many san francisco neighborhoods to get a parking spot in this area you need to drive around. i have that situation. i had a car until three years ago when i said it is a pain in the butt. finding parking is hard. i was fortunate to be in a situation to get rid of the car. a lot of folks don't have that. we are also looking at a situation that goes what do we

want to prioritize? parking spots are homes for people. at the end of the day it does frankly suck that is a trade-off we have to figure out because parking does take up space. when trying to figure out these crazy priorities in the city, there is a lot of give and take. we absolutely understand that the desire for more parking at the site, but when looking at everything and looking at the big picture, we would argue building more homes should take priority over those requests. we ask that you do continue to move this forward with the parking proposed by the project that is being recommended by staff because at the end of the day people having a place to live is the number one policy priority for residents of the city, for the mayor of the city.

we need to make sure we are moving all homes forward as quickly as we can. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak on behalf of the san francisco umb. i am here to ask you to approve. this is an opportunity to put people into homes. there are people living on the streets who need homes. people in shelters need homes. people lieu are one paycheck away from having to leave san francisco. they need homes. people who want to start a family in san francisco need homes. as the previous speaker said, yes, a tradeoff with parking. this area is not women served by -- not well served by transit. it is going to take time to get this built. we are planning for the future. we need transit and housing.

you have the opportunity to plan for the housing piece of that. i am sure that with all of the attention that the supervisor of the district is paying to transit issues with the work going on at m.t.a., the transit system can be improved in time for this housing to come on line. it is a question of priority and getting it done. it takes political will to get the housing built and transit built. i ask you in your roles answer planners to have the political will to get the housing side of it built and will also take care of the transit as well. please approve the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, jack gardner. president of the jon stewart company. coming up to let you know that i am here supporting the staff recommendation. i also want to as the one person who has been involved in this project since the inception

which now spans four mayors, three supervisors, over the last 15 years we have had hundreds of community meetings, whether sponsored by us to work directly with the residents around planning, zoning, parking, everything relating to the projector numerous meetings with the old pac when the development association existed. hundreds of very robust community process and we are committed to continuing that. the development of this challenging site which is mentioned with the complex topography and asbestos bedrock has required balancing and trade-offs especially giving the goals of the hope sf program. rebuilding this affordable community on site which we achieved with no involuntary

relocation and displacement of residents. generating employment opportunities for the residents which we are acceding our goals on. creating a new mixed income neighborhood involving affordable rental and public rental units. including serving as one of the first lead neighborhood development projects in the united states. we are really excited about having gotten this far. 286 units affordable housing we built. 118 units in blocks 14 and 17 before you today. first market rate component, which is key to the mixed income san francisco neighborhood we are trying to engineer instead of the old public housing complex. the key piece that started this was $30 million grant from the state of california through the

infrastructure grant program. we got that because the planning commission had the vision to approve our entitlement to go to the state and bring home $30 million to pay for the roads, curbses, underground utilities. now we have an opportunity to go to the state next month for a $20 million loan through the state's multifamily housing program to allow blocks 14 and 17 to go forward. 118 units. we ask for the same confidence from this planning commission that planning commission had. to finish, the community process doesn't end at this point. point. we committed to the parking study. we will work with him and residents to make sure we get the best possible balance of parking, transit improvements, clipper cards, we are putting

all things on the table. that is what hope sf is about. thank you very much. >> any other public comment? public comment is closed. before i go to commissioners i want to call up mr. judson true to paint color on this situation for us. >> thank you. good afternoon. it is good to see you. with me before you is judson true, mayor breed's director of housing delivery. of all of the projects i am working on none are more important than the three hope sf projects. hunters view is the only one without a development agreement. it is first one with a market rate component moving forward soon. the real issue is the 118 units affordable housing that there is no could about it.

it will be delayed by at least six months and potentially a year if the commission does not move forward today to allow the entitledments as part of the state level. that is the urgency. as you know and i am happy to talk to you. my job is to get affordable housing built faster to reduce delays. you have my personal commitment to work with the supervisor, hope sf and with the community. i spoke to ms. davis who spoke earlier to deal with and address the parking and other transportation issues. i would be happy to answer any questions. i want to let you know how important it is to get the 118 affordable units moving. thank you very much. >> thank you.

commissioner moore. >> a question. mr. snider. could you please talk to us about sites 2 and 3? >> sure. >> it is basically not having heard the architect if she could explain the great difference against the care for blending of the site plan of which the affordable portion today was delivered. there is sites two and three which fall out a little bit. >> i may have not mentioned this. part of what we want is to give you the informational forces on five blocks. you did get the informational on blocks 14 and 17. we ran out of time for nine, two and three. blocks nine, two and three are market rate. they are doing a product to townhome product on both sites. we think it workings well on

block nine. the design on blocks two and three also meet the letter of the d for d. we think there are challenges that we look forward to working with the developer on that project. let me see if i can find the site plan for that. so sites two and three at the intersection on fairfax, this is the source of an awkwardly shaped lot for development. you are not able to see it through the plan. it is an extremely steeply sloping slot, steeping downwards on fairfax, and steeping down on aonacasia. it is serpentine rock which is difficult to grade. the solution that the city

vision is proposing is working with the grade to configure the lots on the parking alleys and then the challenge is that you have these townhomes along the streets at perpendicular. we generally like to see consistent street wall so the challenge we would like to continue with the developer is how to make those site ends of the design work such they read more consistent street wall. >> could i ask you a question. if i look at the d for d site plan. there is a certain kind of informality in the overall, which i think is consistently met by the buildings built and the portion we are looking for which is being built. i see in this market rate site more units than were originally shown in the d for d. that creates 34 units here. we go back to 30 in the d for d.

>> actually there was a design before you when we were here in 2008 for the site: actually featured or corridor building to take advantage of the entire site. we heard back from the project sponsor it was because of the nature of the site it was infeasible to do market rate. i think they are trying to do the lighter approach to work with the sitar. again there is urban design challenges. it meets the letter of the d for d. there are design tweaks we would like to work with. >> we are not approving that particular site as presented here? >> today it is informational item. we feel that we can move forward on the affordable blocks in block nine. i think we can get this to something we feel comfortable to meet the spirits of d for d.

>> again, if you are insinuating you will continue to work with them to achieve the objectives that you are describing, i am fine. i am comfortable with the affordable housing portion. i think it is well designed and meetse d for d so strongly here as an idea. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff or developer. what kind of timeframes have we looked at from start to finish with phase one and two and projected for phase three? >> i can tell you from where we were in 2008. this is one of the first master approvals. i think we got a more accurate time how long this takes the way we structured the first phase to be approved within i think two and a half or three years from the original approvals.

the rest within 10 years. they did meet the first requirement to have the first phase done within that timeframe. again, the 10 years as it's turns out was not long enough for a complex and long project. i should say all of the other development agreement projects have much longer performance periods. it is reasonable to extend for another 10 years. >> commissioner diamond. >> i think it is great you are adding additional affordable housing, and very happy the park and rec commission found no significant impact. that is a vital piece of information for us. i want to talk about the parking. i have questions for the mayor's office. i get that it is expensive to build structured parking with this kind of rock, but in light

of the report that was referenced earlier today in conjunction with another item in the newspaper report over the weekend about the lack of transit to this area, i am concerned about what the commitments are to try to find alternatives to the parking. what is the timing in terms of the studies that you are doing? who is paying for the studies. beyond the commitment to do the studies who is funding the solutions and what is the timing for the solutions. is that met up with when the new residents move in? that is a lot of questions. >> we have talked to the supervisor we have to come back to the full board to get a loan. if we stay with our construction schedule, definitely before we come back to the full board we have to at least have the study done. also committed to meeting with johjon stewart to continue to lk

at solutions. those will be considered with the overall development that we have already going with the residents and looking at the way to sustain those initiatives. we don't have anything particularly right now because we are not sure if we offer clipper cards will they get used? if we do, if that is something residents want, who pays for it is the operating budget from the property or some other aspect within that. we have line item in the operating budget that could be used for that, however, that is also a conversation with hope sf. because of the way the loans are structured we are the developers that have to pay us. there are permanent loans on both phase one and two. they have to pay that. it is a conversation about continue to pay your must pay debt as well as what do we have extra to provide to something

else? i don't suspect, and in my working with john steward they wouldn't look for grants as well. we are looking at s.f.m.t.a. to see what we can do together. it is in process. we are not abandoning that process. >> what is the timing? >> timing, i think we are looking at going to the board for the gap loan request probably in september, is that right? around september. we have been working on that. that would be for the gap loan request. weeps would have the study done. it will take about 18 to 2020 months to complete phase three. phase one and two are complete. we will continually be in that discussion to come up with things for existing residents having difficulty. >> do you anticipate when you go to the board in september for funding approval you will come to them with a plan for the

particular actions you want for how they are funded? >> yes, that is what we hear from supervisor walton that we have to have that or the approval of the loan could be -- i guess denied. >> i just want to make sure there are dates set? >> yes there will be and there are. it will be more flushed out. for sure the deadline is when we come back to the board for the bigger gap loan. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i was a little awkward after the supervisor chimed in. i am confident with the findings and information today everything will be addressed. i am in full support of the planned unit development and adoption of the findings. >> commissioner johnson. >> i echo that.

we have heard over and over that transportation is a serious equity issue, and making sure that either there is transportation or we are building the infrastructure around transit to make sure people can get to the places that they live, work and play. i know that is important to the city and the mayor's office and everybody working on this project. i am glad to know there is eye timeline. i have confidence the supervisor and the project sponsor and city will work together so that when that deadline comes up there is a plan to address the needs of the residents. with that i would move to approve with conditions item 12a and adopt findings of 12b. >> one thing. part of your packets we reworded some of the findings on the

front page to match the addendum. to incorporate that rewording into your motion as well. >> second. >> nothing further. there is a motion seconded to adopt findings and approve planned unit be development with conditions as have been amended on that motion. (roll call). >> so moved that passes. >> we will take a 10 >> i would like to remind members of the public to please sign lens mobile devices. commissioners we left off under the regular calendar. as mentioned previously we will take items 14a through d out of order.

2012.1384enx and the zoning administrator will consider the variance for a large project authorization office development authorization and conditional use authorization respectively. >> good afternoon, commissioners. zoning administrator. planning department staff. the item before the planning commission is large project authorization to allow new construction of 27 story, 350-foot tall office building and 35 story 350-foot tall residential building and allow a vertical addition 200-foot tall hotel building and grant exceptions for building set backs and tower setting and transparency. ground floor commercial on second street narrow and mid block alley, central soma controls. horizontal mass reduction.

child care lot cover age and wind. commission must also authorize an office development authorization of approximately 430,000 square feet of new office. in addition a hotel use at 645 harrison building two within the central soma mixed use office zoning district. the items are variance requests from the planning code requirements for street frontage including ground floor and floor to floor ceiling. off-street parking required enclosing of private driveway. the project sponsor must obtain administrative waiver and mod affection for the location of the required bicycle parking and off street loading and shower and lockers.

commonly referred to as one vassar in the central soma. it will create 1.5 million square feet mixed use development located to the fourth street central corridor, transbay terminal and the center. the proposed project includes 42000 square feet of production distribution and repair 489 residential units, hotel with 468 guest rooms, approximately 493,000 square feet of office consisting of approximately 430,000 new square feet at 402nd. 63,000 square feet of existing legal office at 645 harrison street. the project will provide an approximately 14,000 square foot

on site child care facility exclusive of 4200 square foot outdoor open participate. indoor and outdoor public open spaces provided approximately 30,551 square feet of neighborhood serving retail spaces including hotel restaurants and bars. they propose a variety of improvements. mid block pedestrian alley and the hawthorne street plaza and extension of perry to second street. projecting art screen to screen pedestrian views of interstate 80 from the project site. off-street parking for the project located below grade in a shared garage at 400 second street in an under grand garage apartment 657 harrison street. including 309 off-street parking spaces with 13 additional car

share spaces. project accommodates three dropoff parking spaces in the child care use at street level. in detail project including 400 second street the office building. new construction of 300-foot tall office building. consisting of approximately 430 square feet of office, 1,000 square feet micro retail, indoor and outdoor, 33,335 subterranean parking. 181 accessory off-street parking spaces. 104 class one parking space and two loading spaces at grade with three sub per rainian surface loading spaces. this is building two the hotel building would retain the existing history building and

construct a addition for 200-foot containing approximately 468 guest rooms. this will include 221,965 square feet of hotel, retain existing office provide 42000 square feet pdr31000 square feet of retail, two loading spaces at grade and three service vehicles at grade as well. 657 harrison will include a residential building contains 48 the dwelling units, residential, 14,000 square foot child care facility, 1450 gross scare feet retail, 8360 square feet outdoor

via hawthorne street plaza. 11,970,000 square feet of open space. 61,512 square feet subterranean spaces. 204 class one and 33 class two bicycle spaces. 25 cargo bicycle parking spaces for long oner bikes which incorporate storage space. one loading space at grade and two service vehicle spaces at grade. the commission must grant the project authorization pursuant be to planning code 329 to allow construction of new building greater than 85 feet in height or for new construction of more than 50,000 square feet in the central soma special use district. the commission may grant exemptions from the planning

code requirements for projects that exhibit a unique architectural design and amenities in excess of what is in the code and key site. as listed above they are seeking exceptions which are supported by the department staff and given the qualified amenities andy sign of the project. the project will provide amenities including not limited to streetscape and pedestrian improvements, plaza anally also, hawthorne street acceding the minimum dimensions, child care facilities acceding gross square feet and 110 square feet for affordable housing under 415. the central soma area plans objective 3.5 states support development of hotels, policy 3.51 further instructs to allow

hotels throughout the gross plan areas. hoses are conditionally permitted in sentrasoma zoning district with no cap on room count as envisioned in the area plan. the project would construct a total of approximately 430,000 gross square feet of offers space within the cmo district. office use is permitted pursuant to 848. as of february 6, 2020 when the planning commission package was published there were 454,949 square feet of large office development under section 321 much the office allocation programming. the department recommends that the commission grant an office development authorization for the project which would amount to 430,000 square feet of office use. the projects that will be subject to the development impact fees including central

soma infrastructure and impact fee, eastern neighborhoods impact fees affordable housing fee transportation sustainability fee and jobs housing linkage fee. project does not cast new shadow upon now property owned or operated by the recreation and parks department. the project sponsor must obtain affordable housing at 33% because it is a rental project providing 110% of the otherwise required amount of 30% pursuant to planning code section 263.33. since the publication of the packet several letters of support have been digitally submitted to the planning commission. planning staff is also submitting or has submitted revised executive summary, revised large project authorization motion and revised land use table to ensure consistency throughout the planning commission packet. the sponsor has submitted

updated outreach summary, all of which have been put before the planning commission. this is on balance consistent with the central soma plan and relevant findings. the project produces residential with 489 units, hotel with 468 guest rooms, office ground floor child care retail, pdr and significant site updates including landscaping and open space. per the plan these elements will substantially improve the neighborhood. this willen life venthe streetscape 1110% of what would be required. it will provide new hotel that was in the central soma plan to comment the center expansion. it is desirable for and compatible with division for the

neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. with us today is lydia from the mayor's office of housing community and development. she can share the process should you pursue that option in the future. >> thank you, staff. i am sharon lye. i want to appreciate and thank staff planning department as well as community for working very diligently in getting us to this point today. joining me today we center our three primary building architects. different architect for every building with the knowledge number one the office building, mark is the lead and designer. leo chow is the lead architect for the 645, the historic knowledgbuilding.

also with seb architects lead designer for the residential building and scott is here, our public designner. i am going to start the presentation by just doing a quick recap on the central soma plan aspects pertaining to our key sites. in a lot of detail she explained through th the central soma plan there were opportunity sites for additional development. in exchange for that there were specific goals set for these key sites in hopes of deriving a lot more community benefits. for our particular key site a couple of the key benefits we incorporated to the project include significant child care, public improvement, large hotel as well as housing. as a reminder of our site, we

are located within the eastern boundary of the central soma plan. we are also north of south park and south beach maybe understoods as well as immediately across the street from rincon hill. we have worked in the past eight years since the first application in working with the community. we have had over 20 meetings with just our neighbors in the block of the project. over 25 direct presentations with community groups and engaging over 30 community groups stakeholders closer to 40 at this time. then just briefly to go over the summary of the core community benefits. as i mentioned we built in the community benefits into the

structure of the project. one that is the 110% including the city-wide requirements. we are intending and committed to pursuing the land dedication and fee. through our years of community engagement heard that land and dollars is the pinch point for affordable housing at that time. we have identified land and we are prepared to move forward through the official vetting process. the other community benefit is our two main public open spaces. one is the hawthorne street plaza which is purposely designed to be activated with a lot of retail. hopefully it will draw both our occupants and greater neighborhood. the other indoor community space is located at second and

harrison. we dedicated that to community use andy signed it to be programmed for all age groups. another community benefit is as mentioned we are removing dead anally conditions. there are two of those in the site. that is to enliven the block and increase safety around the neighborhood. part of the project is the rehabilitation of 645 harrison. what we are doing there is trying to open up the ground floor, which has interior historic features that currently is not publicly accessible. by converting it to market hall that would be accessible by the public to truly turn the historic piece of the neighborhood back to the community. a couple other community benefits that we are providing include the child care which has dedicatessed outdoor space and

we expect that to run for the lifetime of the project. through the hotel development which is a core unique think about the mixed-use project is the affiliated transient occupancy tax that is year-over-year. 1.5% will go towards arts contribution. with hotel and all of the f and spaces there will be service jobs. i will hand it over to leo chow to represent the design teams for the presentation. >> good afternoon, design partner. i get to speak on behalf of my colleagues representing three architecture teams and landscape team. we have a broad and diverse team. from the beginning the foundational concept of the

project was to get the project to embrace the diverse character of the fabric around us and try to integrate this back to the city. so we really focused on creating a highly connected public realm. you have heard the diverse uses we have had which we believe are going to bring a 24/7 life to the site. to utilize a diverse array of architectural express so it dent feel like one project but a series of buildings contributing to the neighborhood. it occupies two-thirds of the block bounded by i-80, elevated to the south so we are looking from the north. then surface streets between second and third with harrison street to the north.

importantly as mentioned perry street and vassar are existing dead end alleys to remain the old industrial character. one is at the foot of the elevated freeway. the other is unimproved street. the proposal is to extend perry to connect to vassar and on through to second street for pedestrians and bicycles. the hawthorne plaza will provide additional point to create a finer grain pedestrian environment. it is at the foot of hawthorne lane to terminate the alley. at the center of the project will be 645 harrison rehabilitated. it will retain the current uses of pdr and office and then will be augmented with retail as mentioned. very importantly to us, one of the things this project needed to achieve was to take what is

currently internally looking industrial spaces and transforming the site outward looking and inviting to the public. ground floor occupied with active outward facing uses. child care. it will be the chargest child care in the market. large market hall with diverse shops and public open spaces. in terms of form. the idea is to respect the prevailing scale and character of the neighborhood with the podium building, including historic 645. above that to the east we have the office space along the active portion of second street corridor, quiet portion of the block has residential building in yellow and hotel is between the two. the building height conforms with the central soma plan.

what we think is going to do is create this open skyline that rises up toward rincon hill and transbay district. when viewed from the south, it will create what we think is a natural addition to the city. it feels like a apart of the ci. this is the diverse use. this area is one of the most diverse. residential and pdr. we think this building will reflect that. ultimately we all experience these projects from the ground. you can see in the plan the idea to create a permeable ground level with many entries and exits for a strong indoor and outdoor relationship. i want to skip through this. widen the sidewalks, street bulb

outs. major open space at the corner of second and harrison. 17,000 square feet, 17% of the site dedicated over to public improvements. public open space will be welcoming designed to support diverse uses. special events as well. improved 645 vassar, hawthorne and the elevated plaza. >> thank you. i look forward to answering any questions. >> we are going to open this up for public comment. any members of the public please line up on the screen side of the room. i have several speaker cards. everyone is in support. the chair will limit public comment to two minutes. >> members of the public. i jumped the gun. we have one more presentation.

>> sorry to jump the gun. i will be brief. i am lydia director of public housing with the mayor's office. since it was alluded to the land dedication option for the property. as you all know we have closed and the city has taken title to three parcels under the land dedication program. we have built on one of the parcels. we have one parcel about to start construction later this year and another one is in predevelopment. we have three parcels that have been approved. planning does a math to figure out how many units accommodated by a particular parcel. then they take over for a qualitative perspective to look at environmental, financial

feasibility and softer issues. is there a desirable location, adjacent uses appropriate for housing. then we say yes or no. we move forward toward acquisition with the department of real estate. some of the pluses to us taking planned rather than taking units from a project are that we can really program what happens at a space and we can achieve other social goals, for example, including homeless units, child care, including arts or pdr space. once we have jurisdiction over the parcel. the disadvantage is that it takes awhile to get going. we have to have the funds available to pay for the development because, obviously, we fund pretty much all of the developments with very few exceptions.

we also have to program the parcels with uses which can be challenges. now we have a number of parcels we are juggles. there are pluses and mine suss. we can't commit if that is of interest to our office. i want to let you know how we see the process. >> thanks very much. >> again, to the chair. public comment will be limited to two minutes per person. maggie campbell, diego, johnson, leonard, cynthia gomez, carla, chris, rudy corpus, jane, genevieve, david, sam, marcus, henry, bev, live see,

connieford, david baker and emily abraham. >> hi. this project is great. project by project advocacy is painful. this project has been vetted and we are talking about it again. i have dinner obligations and everyone wants out of here i hope you speak quickly what a great project it is. thank you. >> everybody sam executive director and co-owner of sro building on the block. we are definitely in favor of the project. i echo the last speaker. i melt her. i have no idea where she is from but i want to say for the love of god support this project and move on. thank you. >> good evening.

i am cliff leventhal, resident of the blue. that is a 21 story condo building between second and third on folsom. approximately the same place on follow somewhere the vassar project will be. i would like to speak in favor of the project. a little bit about where i live. i am in a unique corner of the building. part of it faces directly to folsom street. when i moved there in 2013, there were a few amenities on folsom street. some good restaurants, two gyms, not much else. i figured with all of the high towers going up around there a lot of more amenities would be

coming from. i was right. it wasn't long before we had the ping-pong parlor, the branch of alex's steakhouse, we had a barbershop, my barber. doesn't get much business. and i can see the neighborhood grow. it is pretty pleasant to look out on folsom street, close to the san francisco museum of modern art and it is really like 100% walkable. but i look out the other window towards harrison street, that is a different story. i had to get to the whole foods which i go to right there on harrison and fourth. i would have to go down hawthorn to get to harrison.

that is not something you look nor ward to. you are dodging glass leftover from the car break-ins the night before. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> when you get down to harrison, you wouldn't be surprised to see the homeless. >> sir, we have to give everyone the same amount of time. your time is up. >> anyhow. >> your time is up, sir. >> it is up? okay. >> next speaker. >> thank you. i am glad to see the vassar project upgrading the neighborhood. >> thank you, sir. >> good afternoon, good evening.

alex landburg the mechanical and life safety crafts and industries. it is not entirely rare but notable when you see this many people lining up for a project of this scale with no opposition. it indicates the work that happened during the central soma planning process and the development team's work subsequent to that. they made a commitment to put a lot of construction workers to work, putting this up and maintaining it down the line. we have a full house. no need for me to sing praises. have a good night. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. henry. board member of the business association. this exemplifies the objectives to create employment, offer

housing, development the soma community and provide a market hall, community friendly open spaces, large child care facility and significant improvements. the project's mixed use approach will help activate the area in the day and evening increasing the safety of the neighborhood. further, the project is making $120 million impact investment in central soma. community to support the much needed infrastructure demands. the proposal promoting south of market as a vital place to work, live, visit and do business. we strongly urge the planning commission to approve the project. we look forward to welcoming the future business occupants in to our community. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to echo what everyone else is saying support of one vassar. i am the director of west bay. as you know i have been serving the community for 50 years. the recent filipino population are some of the most underserved community residents of soma. we support the project for the benefits it has, especially the land dedication for affordable housing in close proximity to two schools. our only school that serves the students belt see carmichael and the child care center and the willingness to make sure it is affordable for our families and just the project sponsor and developer's willingness to understand the needs of the community and provide ongoing support. i want to especially shout out sharon and louise and jordan for volunteering and getting to know

what the community is and also the project developer lawrence for coming out and actually seeing what our community does, engaging and understanding our programs and wanting to build a long term relationship. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> how are you doing? congratulations, good to see. i am rudy violence prevention organization. i am a native south of market. this is my son. we stay there. i want to say that these are the type of projects and relationships that are important to building bridges and not walls with authentic real developers who really see us in the community. sharon is so center mental in building -- so instrumental and

to lawrence louie who came out to see what we do. that means a lot to me. i am not going to support nothing if it don't include the integrity of our people. i am a ground zero soldier. they had me three and a hoff hours. i don't like to stay here three and a half hours. this is important to for the community. i am here to support it 110%. it is important that when we build our relationships that we have people like sharon who care, people like lawrence who leave and want to help out. from eve everybody. he has seen and talked about drug policies, we talked about gang violence, we talked about prisons, we talked about all of this. it is something most developers don't care about. he is here to support us. they are willing to put their

money where their mouth is. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. welcome to the newest member of the commission. good to see you here. cynthia gomez. i will read to you the letter that we submitted individually by e-mail. our union represents 13,000 hospitality workers in hotels, a critical industry in the city. we support the mixed use project at one vassar. local two and the project sponsor signed an agreement regarding the hotel jobs guarantee for fair and neutral process for workers at the hotel if they wish to be represented by a union. these agreements continue to create a path for the hard working people in the hospitality industry to fight for respect and dignity,

affordable healthcare and living wage. they represent true commitment. we in support of the project and ask you to grant the long list of approvals. thank you. >> i am ethan. i live on howard street. the pipes are failing, there are break ins, the elevator is out and they raise the rent. it will be great to say i can move over there. i found out about the child care. that sounds nice. please approve the project. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners, david wu. we support this project based on the developer commitment to

support and anti displacements and increase the public awareness of filipino culture and create advocacy for open space for multigenerational community members. thanks. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. san francisco umb. i talk about chose. this is another take on that. this building has 500 units of housing. i don't know if you saw, but new work, california is building 500 homes in the wetlands filling in marsh land with two thousand parks spots. when we talk about housing, how to solve the crisis we have a choice 500 units on one parcel

of land. in the city transit rich, jobs, i could go on. you heard the community benefits or we could bulldoze overnight tur, build stuff to get flooded in 10 years, and do that the easy way. there is no neighborhood opposition. i am excited to see so many people in support. i ask you to approve and think about more projects like this faster. it is great to have great plans for 2000 units of housing in 10 years. we need more now. get this approved and get everything else on the docket approved. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i am beverly, executive director of c5 children's school serving 150 children in the state of california building and the sfpuc across the street. i am