the project competitive and keeps it competitive for financing. i'm going to hand it over to our architect for the design portion of the presentation. thank you. >> we work together on the completed certified phase 1, which we wanted to show is comparable ini density and quality. if we go to slide 4, the slight plan. we can see the proposed block b which consist of two l-shaped buildings. there is the mini park along connecticut street open to the entire community. it's interesting to note there is 80-foot grade difference which is a major challenge.

slide 5 shows the area that is proposed to exceed the 50-foot height limit. limited to the courtyard edges in the north l and the south corner of the site. this lower corner is 80 feet downhill from the upper hill in the site. slide 6 shows the entry to the north building. 25th street to the right. connecticut to the left. showing how the building uses the steep hillside site. i should note that the color you're seeing is representational. we're still developing color pallets as we continue to develop the design. slide 7, reflects the 40-foot drop along 25th street. only three stories at the highest elevation and down to the left with the existing

grade. slide 8 shows the same elevation looking east toward phase 1 at the bottom of the hill. and here you can see the attention to the -- attention to landscaping, articulation, trying to create a rich neighborhood experience. [bell ringing] >> go to slide 9. similar story, building stepping down the hill with the areas above the 50 feet limited to the courtyard space. the building also incorporates 50 child care daycare centers at the center of the slide where the white van is shown in the drop-off area. slide 10 showing articulations and landscapes that create a warm and inviting experience for the residents. slide 11, the south most elevation. this is really only seen from 101 and 280 -- [bell ringing] -- bay shore. just two more slides. slide 12 is looking up connecticut at the entry to the

lower building. again, streets lining both sides of the hill and articulation and highlights the lower level. slide 13 is connecticut street with the single garage entry. we're providing.49 to parking ratio with the mini park just above the entry. and that concludes the presentation. and hopefully you'll agree we created a dynamic -- active programming, landscaping while mitigating the challenges of a very steep site. all with the benefit of affordable housing, 57 families surrounded by community benefits, programming and activities. we're available for questions. >> jonas: does that conclude the

presentation? >> i would like just to mention you one thing. even though we're showing block b, its approval is not actually before you. planning staff is still analyzing the design of block b. and it will be approved separately under different process. that is described in the da. of course, this height increase is necessary for that approval and that is what is before you. thank you. >> jonas: so does that conclude the presentation? >> yes, that concludes the presentation and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> jonas: very good. commissioners, we should take public comment. if we can go to the q&a portion. >> announcer: your conference is now in question and answer mode. >> jonas: members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter 1, then 0 to enter the

queue. why don't we go ahead and take the first caller? >> you have one question remaining. >> jonas: caller, are you prepared to submit your comments? hello, caller? >> hello? >> jonas: yes. >> yes, my name is edward hatter, executive director of the potrero neighborhood house. i've been online since 1:00 this afternoon and i really want to commend you on your recent legislation -- or on racism, but this is one of the prime examples we've been talking about cultural racism. this city has not been explained

to the community who will be living there. all right? not even the ones that live around there but the people who are living there. i've been to two community meetings with this new proposal for the height increase. a total of 26 people. that's not even the amount of people they want to increase units by. i really look at this project as segregation of poverty, racism. they've taken the footprint of 100 units and now trying to put 157 units in half that distance. that is insane. especially going through this covid virus now where everybody has been sheltered in place. think about the lack of outdoor space this project is going to create. we already have 72 units across the street where they're at each other's throats because they

cannot understand the need of living on general floors. these people are moving out of walkup apartments into general floor living and trying to get along with no outdoor space. kids rolling by in bikes in the streets and up in hallways and things like that. we cannot afford to keep doing this. this will add another 75 years of the same racism we've been enduring for the past 200. i look at just the demolition work. they thought it was so important to demolish the old buildings that they did it while the people were confined to their homes, having all these heightened exposures with asbestos raining down on them. what kind of gesture? please do not consider the height increase? let them stick with the 120 units of low-income housing. and if they really want to do

justice for the poor people, let some of the market-rate housing absorb the low-income housing units. >> announcer: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> commissioner fung: i'm supportive of the project an do not see the height increase impacting the overall development. would so move to i approve this

amendment. >> second. >> commissioner moore: based on the resolution this morning, i would like to ask the commission to discuss this matter for a moment. in principle, i believe that the height increase is not noticeable, except for those who have never lived in higher density housing before. we all live in -- i live in a building with actually 60 units. i have always lived in apartment buildings and i'm used to it. however, for people who lived in townhouse-type, this may be a step up that may cause tension and i think we need to be at least discussing this before i support it. i like the project. i think it's well designed.

it's a wonderful challenge. it makes the project better, the 80-foot height difference is helping the problem. >> commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: so in principle i agree with the goals that were stated for this redesign and i really don't have a problem with the height increase, but i am concerned about two very large l-shaped buildings and what they're going to do to make them feel like home for the people that live there. you mentioned modulation and stoops, beyond the architecture, what is it that will make it feel like non-institutional buildings? and what are you doing inside the building that will make this feel like a welcoming place for people and one they call home?

if staff could address that, i would appreciate it. especially with an eye toward this morning's discussion. >> department staff. i may ask the architect to help me or bring up the plans again. you know, assuring that the buildings feels comfortable and are part of the community are certainly a huge part of what we want to make sure the project is designed. in our view, the courtyard, the ability, the different programming, they're still working with the community to fully program the open space in the courtyard so they have amenities that they would like. you know, i think that the other thing about this project, it's one of the first blocks i think the totality of the site and some of the amenities that are

going to come in later phases need to be considered. hope sf includes a park, 30,000 community center. those aren't delivered now, but we think that this portion, even though it's being delivered early, is going to contribute to the totality of the hope sf project. again, we think that the heights -- we don't see the height as an issue. we see the delivery of those affordable units at an earlier stage is really important. it means that more people, more residents have the ability to move into the new units at an earlier stage. and if the architect wants to contribute to the comments, that would be great. >> i'll just simply remind you need to share any slides that the architect needs to speak to. >> this is marie.

i'm happy to answer questions if you can hear me. great. yeah, i'll be happy to address the question about how we're adjusting this. the residents that moved into the 1101 connecticut building, the first phase that was completed, have received assistance from service providers that we're engaging with and hope sf to make sure that the transition is smooth. and even after residents move into the apartment building, we are working with them, working with adjusting to apartment life versus living in a townhouse-style home. and that work has been going on for quite a while. it's proceeding as well -- right now even though residents moved in a year ago. and we're a planning the same type of outreach work for the b

building. i just wanted to also say, matt, you mentioned that we're programming a lot of open space for -- we learned from block x, we're going from 5,000 square foot open space, outdoor open space as an interior courtyard on block x to almost 24,000 of private open space, interior courtyard that is designed for the residents. and so we are trying both with the design and the layout of the interior court open space to address that. and hope that it makes -- it make the future residents feel like this is their home. >> commissioner diamond: can you address my questions about how these two very large buildings will fit in with blocks a and c so it all feels coherent and

these don't stand out? >> sure. i'm happy to do that. so the block b building, there are two of them, will in scale be similar to the block x building that is already completed. as you saw from the master plan, they're located adjacent to each other. block x and block b. block x was about 72 units. and in scale and height is very similar to each of the block c buildings and they each contain about 70+ -- 75+ units. so they're very similar in scale, height and total number of units. and the block a building which will be a marketed building located immediately to the west of block c will also be a similar height and scale as the block b building.

>> and what about block c across the street? >> block c will be across the street from 25th street. that is part -- one of later phases but that has a 50-foot height restriction to begin with and also expected to be of similar scale than block b. >> commissioner diamond: one other question. inside the building, are there community rooms? homework rooms? what physical space have you included inside the buildings that allow people to feel like, you know, they have access to more than just their unit? and they encourages development of neighbors, neighborhood relationships, et cetera? >> yes, that's a good question. inside the block c building, we have a large community room that opens up to the interior courtyard for programming of

residents. we also added a team room at one of the buildings. and we have a community garden that we're bringing up to block b which is going to be part of the later phase. it will be acceptable to the public, but will be programmed into the space. and, yes, services that we are planning on bringing into the building will help people get settled there, but also the program will be, you know, for kids, for all residents that live there to get them situated in the new building. >> thank you. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have a question. i don't know if matt can answer this or bridge, the sponsor.

when the height increase was proposed, was there a community support or consensus on the height increase? >> so we conducted several community outreach meetings in smaller settings and then a final larger community meeting. and we initially met with supervisor walton to get his take and input. and got some really good feedback in terms of making sure that we keep the same parking ratio that we had in the previous scheme. and also make sure that we have more larger sized unit for the families. we made those adjustments. they were well received by all groups that we presented to, including some neighbors. and we heard some comments

about -- about various things. nobody really commented too much on the height. there was comments just like edward who called into the line here. and a couple of other people who voiced concerns about the density. but i have not heard comments on the height. i hope that answers your question. >> and what were the comments on the density? >> the comments were that we went from 120 to 157 units and just like the caller earlier described, that people are moving into apartment-style buildings which is an adjustment already. and that it will be difficult to adjust to that. and then densifying the building will make that even more difficult. >>

>> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'm generally supportive of this height increase. but looks like there will be more community dialogue in terms of the community design. and in terms of the -- or the design guidelines that will probably come back to us as well. that's where i'm at. >> i would like to add, as part of the outreach we've done, we noticed that tenants have voiced a desire to participate more in the design. so we have announced at the last community meeting that we will hold a design workshop with our residents. we'll probably do that in early july to get some input from them as well. that was the desire -- definitely a desire around the

open space programming. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung: i think it would be also important to reflect on what was there before. to the south and west were a whole series of these two-story buildings, almost like a cookie-cutter comprised predominantly of apartments that had two small bedrooms, a living room space and an open kitchen off the living room. and that was what was the nature of this -- of the housing that

was there before. cut very uncreatively into hillside, no landscaping, no community facilities. so i think this is vast improvement in terms of the -- versus the units that were there before. >> commissioner moore: listening to the public comment that was made, i have to listen to the fact that somebody considers this type of shift from townhouse to apartment building as being a sign of inequity. i would agree with the observations made by commissioner fung except for the fact if you call a townhouse, no matter what design it is, as

your home, you are used to a certain amount of identity within your own four walls, but it's different from living -- going to your home along similar looking doors on an extended corridor. you're walking by 10, 12, 20 units before you get to our own door. i think within that shift from lower density to higher density is potentially an adjustment factor that is hard to explain even with the amenities and design by our standards as better. i'm here to listen to what the comment was and try to figure out a way to bridge between the perception of what we think is better and what the community that has to move into this has to see as better. better amenities, but that is not the discussion. it's a question of where you

move from one home into another home but you didn't have participation in the design or the discussion about the density. >> go ahead, mr. snyder. >> i hear that concern. i was thinking the same thing as the caller called in. you know, i just think -- i think the thing that come back to is considering the development of the potrero hope sf in its totality and understanding that this is one component and the reason why it's going taller and perhaps more dense is to enable more people to live in those new units. and i understand the concern, this is a different type of

living environment than what they might be -- what those residents might be used to, but i think the intent of the hope sf project is to improve their lives in a much stronger way. i think the build-out of the potrero hope sf project will see that happen. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: thank you for summarizing that mr. snyder. i agree with what you said. perhaps there is a transitional time of introducing people how indeed that is not a reduction but an added quality of life. we have quite a few well designed affordable housing projects in the city. and perhaps one should invite future residents to take a tour and talk to residents in those units of how they feel about it. i think that would be the best way, because i believe that this project is well designed. offers a lot more than what is, but that is for those people who

moving in to discover by themselves and ultimately embrace that project as their home. there is indeed a learning curve and anybody could assist in helping in that learning curve, i think that would be good planning. >> thank you, commissioner moore. this is bridge housing, the developer. i'd like to just add that we, as part of the completion of block x and before residents moved in, we had an open house that allowed all residents of potrero hill to look at the units and walk through them and we encouraged communication between the residents that have already moved to the new units and the residents that are expecting to move to the new units to make sure that residents are adequately prepared.

we also, i wanted to mention, had the ceremony that was planned with the community members for the first phase that we did to mourn their loss of the existing housing. and celebrate the new beginning. and we will do that for each phase going forward as well. >> commissioner moore: i appreciate those comments. thank you. >> commissioner imperial: i am no architect, but -- and i believe i have good taste, but in terms of -- and i agree with commissioner moore in terms of the having the community members look in the future building, however, i always think as we are trying to close -- for the increase of height and this will come back to us in terms of the

design, that we're -- connection of height and density. it seems like the comment earlier was the concern of density. and so if the design will be rethink in a way that it will not be cramped, i think that is something that the residents and, of course, this is something that used to happen with the residents, and with the community, so i that is something i would like to request to the sponsor in how we think of the design in density. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: perhaps i should have qualified my statement by saying that, that was based upon my own experience. you know, since i grew up in

those projects. i think my opinion is that the new housing looks substantially better, but purely my opinion. >> commissioner chan: i wanted to also just acknowledge commissioner fung's comment just now. you know, someone who grew up in public housing in new york city, modernist complex, those 30-story buildings, i don't see that reflected here. i think moving forward it would be important to really consider the totality of the neighborhood. and you know the dwelling unit in relationship to the open space, in relationship to the transportation options available for the residents, to the job

opportunities that are available. and it's really not be fixated on the physical capital improvements, but really what it means to design an entire neighborhood. and the social connections. i recommend anyone who has not seen the documentary to check out i will miss, it's to learn about the history of public housing in the u.s. i think a big part of that lesson, it's not just about capital improvement, it's about thinking about the long-term improvement of maintenance and that residents are continually engaged in creating a home for themselves. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, we do have a motion that has been seconded. shall i call the question? >> yes, please. >> very good then.

there is a motion that has been seconded to approve these amendments on that motion, commissioner chan? aye. diamond aye. fung aye. imperial aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. so moved, that motion passes unanimously. before we move on to the next item, i wanted to advise members of the public that items 13a and b for hill street were continued to july 9. item 15 for 37th avenue was continued to july 23. and the discretionary review has been withdrawn. that will place you on item 12 for case number 200 please 0604x, 1145 mission street. this is large project

authorization. is staff prepared to present? >> yes, staff is ready. good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. before you is a large project authorization to allow the construction of a new 25,000 square foot building within the mixed use office zoning district located at 1145 mission street. the project includes new construction of a six-story, 65-foot tall building with 25 residential dwelling units, 4500 square feet of commercial, one car share parking space, 31 bicycle paces and 30 class 2 biking spaces. on currently what is a vacant lot. there are 15 one bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units.

the commission cannot make any reductions to the floor area or number of units. however, the commission can condition some design shift. additionally, there is a limit of five hearings total for this project. to date, the department has received two e-mails in support of the project. opposition from several property owners at the building located at 638 menna street, directly behind the building -- or behind the project site, pardon me. have also been received expressing concerns in regard to light, air, privacy, loss of property line windows and construction-related impacts. on may 19, 2020, the project sponsor reached out to go over the project and answer any questions. on june 10, 2020, they sent a letter of opposition to the

commission. staff recommends this project in that it will provide 25 new dwelling units to the city's housing stock. including 15 one-bedroom and 10 two-bedroom units and 5bmr units. currently the project site is vacant, therefore, no tenants will be displaced. i would now like to introduce darren lee from the project sponsor team who will start off the sponsor presentation. this concludes staff's presentation and i will be available for any questions. >> project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? project sponsor? you may need to hit star 6 to unmute your telephone. your slides are up.

you will have five minutes. project sponsor? are you on the call? is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? maybe we should go to public comment until the project sponsor joins us, if they ever do. commissioner chair, what say you? >> president koppel: yeah, let's go ahead with that, jonas, thanks for the suggestion. >> jonas: why don't we go to public comment. >> your coverage is now --

conference is now in question and answer mode. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public comment. press 1 and then 0 to enter the queue. >> announcer: you have three questions remaining. >> hello, this is -- i'm with the project sponsor. >> okay, we can hear you, but you called in on the wrong number. this is the public comment line. so why don't you go ahead and get started and i'll give you five minutes. sir, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> yes. your time is running. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is darren, project sponsor. i was born in san francisco, chinatown. my wife susan is an immigrant

and i purchased 1145 mission street back in 1997. and used the building for our office. since then we've moved to 1153 mission street and landlord built the building and we moved to the current location of 1167 mission street. we've been part of the community and the block for the past 23 years. and we'll continue to be there for many years to come. firstly, i would like to thank them for voicing their thoughts and being an integral part of the neighborhood and asian community. we share their vision. let me address the following concerns. back in 1997, our plan was to renovate the existing building to live -- we hired a contractor to preserve the existing structure, but because the building was un reinforreinforc

structure, the wall collapsed and we had to redesign our plans. during the design process, we thought long and hard about what the city and the neighborhood needs. it seemed clear we had a housing shortage. escalating now to a housing crisis. we live here, work here, raising our boys and caring for elders. we love the city and our neighborhood. we would like to build this project to serve more families, in turn, hopefully we can solve our community and city-wide housing crisis by housing more families. since the average san francisco household is comprised of two people, our project mix -- the project mix of 1 and 2-bedroom units are designed for couples and working families. the one and two-bedroom units are far more affordable than the 3 and 4-bedroom units. i would like to address your concerns over the shadow on the

neighboring lot that has been vacant and identified by community members for new public space. research has determined that park and rec looked at the site several years ago to not pursue this lot. instead they purchased a lot where they are in planning for the open space. currently we meet the affordable housing requirements and we have provided -- and if we were to increase the affordable housing percentage, we could probably no longer afford to build the project, due to increasing construction costs. we hoped to be flew the planning -- through the planning process in three years. it's been 13 years. it's been a lengthy process combined with financial constraints. we're in a tight financial environment.

challenging for borrowers and lenders. escalating construction costs, not to mention what the future holds under the pandemic. so any push for more affordable housing units will make this project not viable and may forfeit and leave this hole in the ground indefinitely. we hope that you see the difficulties we face. we pray that you a i prove this project and allow us to contribute to our community and help solve our city's housing crisis. thank you, planning commissioners. and black lives and asian lives matter. >> i'm a founder of the firm. i'm going to go through the slides. 1145 mission street, situated on mission street with the frontage facing northwest between the cross streets of 7 and 8th street.

it's surrounded by historical and new buildings, some contemporary buildings are larger and residential developments and also in federal building across the street. compositionally having varying types and width, creating some patterns and some with a rhythm of warehouse-type structures that vary with lot width, carry a sense of scale and repeating pattern. slide 2. our lot is 75 feet wide, 90 feet deep, positioned between a two-story commercial building on the north and another two-story commercial building on the south. directly behind the lot is a six-story residential structure and our six-story proposed structure has a yard setback of 25% of the lot, creating a 22.5-foot setback over the first floors of our proposed building.

[bell ringing] the front facing is designed to provide to -- rear yard open space for the project, four street trees and one curb cut. the plan on the left is the basin plan, approximately 12 feet deep, providing 10 parking spaces. the plan on the right is the ground floor having a main residential lobby positioned on the more southern portion that leads to the parcel rooms. the rest of the space is a commercial space up to 4500 -- [bell ringing] -- the floors above are the residential floors consisting of five units, having -- the layout is a double loaded corridor, central for economical arrangement.

the floors above the second all the way to the sixth floor are very similar with exterior modulation. on the roof, we're proposing a roof deck that is located closer to mission street and two stair towers come with the elevator up to the roof level. the last slide, two images on the right are renderings facing mission street, using the cues, working with planning staff and planning control we create add facade with emphasis of the base, middle and top expression within our context. the base articulation of the facade emphasizes a two-story, slight variation that steps down on the southern end for an intimate lobby entrance. the mid -- >> we're going to -- sorry, you've gone considerably over your time limit. commissioners may have questions for you, but we need to let that

happen, please. >> okay. sorry about that. >> why don't we go ahead and open public comment. to the member of the public who acceded their time to the sponsor, we certainly appreciate your patience. is the caller still on the line to submit their public comment? >> yeah. am i up? >> yes. hi, my name is patrick change. i'm a resident of 638 minnow. we share the north lot line which borders the project. generally i'm in support of the project because san francisco needs significantly more development, especially in west soma. but i have a few concerns with the project that i shared with linda and -- and darren.

first, my main concern is previous action with the property where they demolished and excavated the property without proper permits. darren mentioned it about the structure being brick masonry that fell apart. and secondly, it sat empty for years because it became a security risk for our property over the years. lastly, we haven't heard from darren, the developer for almost 10 years on this project until two days ago after my e-mail was to planning was forwarded to him. as well as a few other of our residents in our building. and >> andrei'm hoping for a good working relationship. as a neighbor, i'm obviously concerned with the air quality, what is going to happen during construction and hoping that -- [inaudible] -- i'm concerned about damage to the foundation and the structure.

>> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> hi, i'm owner at 638 minnow. unit 12 that faces the lot. i'm on the upper floor. i'm also generally in support of this project given that a couple requirement are met. i definitely have concerns about the size of the building. he stated that 638 minnow is a 6-story building. we're a 5-story building. so there is a whole story they're building that is going to overshadow us. there is 23 feet between my unitnd the building. my concerns are we have a lot of people who work on this side of the building and regular san francisco construction hours are going to disrupt the flow of life for the people who work

here. so if we could come to agreement on a work schedule that is reduced, maybe 9 to 6, monday through friday, rather than a.m. to 7 p.m. every day. that would be huge. i know someone under me is going to lose windows. i'm not sure if he's on the line. he can speak for himself. but those are the main issues i have with the project. if they meet the requirement and work with us on a couple of the other thing, i'm sure it's not possible to chop the top off this thing, but i yield my time. >> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> hello commissioners, this is david wu. we ask that the commission

reject this project as currently proposed. the proposed 25-unit market rate housing project with dismal three units of below rate does not provide the type of housing that is desperately needed by the working class. this site underwent an illegal demolition carried out by the current developer. the developer submitted an application. based on the application, there is only 12% affordable housing requirement for the project. instead of the inclusionary rate, demolish the building and then sat on the project with a significant reduction and required percentage of affordable housing. the majority of the improvements are one bedroom. the south of market does not need more high-end housing for

wealthy residents. disproportionately people of color are displaced out of the south of market. as the planning department undergoes and they take rectify the historical injustices that exist today how land use and planning have negatively impacted -- this is not supporting racial and social equity goals. this project is doing the opposite, creating high-end housing that gentryfys the neighborhood. the trickle down economics needs to stop. building luxury housing for predominantly white residents will not help and never has helped working class communities or communities of color. i hope that the comments can be applied to the project and that planning can begin to reflect

the on the ground needs of the affected communities. this would cast a shadow on two-thirds of the lot, that is lot to the left of the project. this lot has been identified by community members as a space for new public open space and the recreation and parks department has recently committed to purchasing this lot when funds become available to create a new open space in the south of market. open space is a huge equity issue in soma and planning needs to be holistic and take into account larger impacts and needs of the community. for this reason, the project should not be approved. >> announcer: you have three questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i'm a renter in the city. i want to say that i'm glad that the hah is in effect and we're going to see more housing projects get built. my only comment is that due to

our racist zoning that we talked about earlier, this project is illegal on the west side. so this is talking about benefits of this project and the cost of this project we should think about why this type of building is only allowed in areas like soma. and why they're not permitted in wealthy parts of the city. thank you. >> you have 3 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. earlier today, item 7, this commission just overviewed and affirmed the racial and social inequity initiatives with a resolution and acknowledged that the planning commission historically acted with their positions of power advanced discriminatory planning policies and that people of color, black, indigenous and other people of color have been denied equal access to services and housing

opportunities, as well as admitting with the 2010 census, there has been a sharp decline in the number of children for every racial group. as housing price rise, neighborhoods become more segregated. this is not made and allowing the district to have a self-determining ability to make sure this district and this neighborhood is going to be one which is designed for the working class, low-income and multiracial families that exist in the district. i would ask that you affirm through your actions the words that you affirmed today in the resolution. and deny the project, please. it's got a very low threshold of one-bedroom housing. it does not satisfy the needs for family housing within the district. and it's only going to further serve to segregate this neighborhood. thank you very much.

>> you have three questions remaining. >> he low. i'm part of the central city's coalition. this project is in district 6 which sorely needs more affordable housing. through a loophole of previous years, if you approved this project today, they will be rewarded with less affordable units than if now the 20-25%, whatever that is. so i don't feel it's the right type of project for this neighborhood. as you've heard from david wu and the previous speaker, it's not the right fit for the residents of the community. please reject this. thank you. >> announcer: you have two

questions remaining. >> hi, my name is robert. i live in district 5. i think that i agree with the earlier caller, theo, who talked about how the west side building more housing rather than focusing development on the east side of san francisco. just as an example, i want to point out that a recent home sale, i just looked it up. in a single-family neighborhood, there were two homes, very close, so for $3.5 million apiece. these are single-family, five-bedroom homes. i think it's only acceptable to have one site in town where no homes can be built that have more than, you know, one or two homes on a lot. and then on the other side of

town, we have an apartment building which has to go through all these -- this incredibly long development cycle to build housing that san francisco needs. i think it's absolutely unacceptable. and so i just want to make that point. thank you. >> >> announcer: you have two questions remaining ven . >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live in district 9. i just want to affirm the statements made by theo gordon, it unfortunate we're looking at a project that is providing potentially so many homes, but because of the zoning and because of the history of gentrification in that area, you know, it's going to be -- it's been an uphill battle.

you know, the projects like these, they belong in the west side. i mean, the west side of the market is actually demanding more -- that you know this is built. but the zoning doesn't allow it. this is the predicament the city has put themselves in. but i do want to affirm the project sponsor, you know, he is asian-american. and he is a family and san francisco native. he deserves, you know, to be able to balance the needs of -- his needs with the needs of the community. [please stand by]

>> that is incorrect. we are on five floors on this side, so they will be covering us well over the roof line of our building, and therefore, the height of this new proposed building is not acceptable. fire sprinklers are also expected when building on a property line to protect our windows. the next is will restrict our light in the living area. this could either entirely block light, blocking entire windows or heavily restrict them. there are a few practical solutions for this issue, and there may also be reduced quality to the outside air that is available to ventilate the units as a restricted air flow, and the addition of units in the neighboring buildings would

be adding ways to blood count our air and light. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i have a question for the project sponsor. how many community meetings did you do with the residents

together and with soma filipinas cultural heritage district, and how are those dialogues happen? >> early on in the project, we had a community outreach project meeting, and i believe only one or two parties showed up for this community meeting -- this neighborhood notification meeting. thereafter, i've been in contact with the president of the h.o.a. at the rear over the start of our planning process, and mostly -- it's been about a week since i last spoke with him regarding this project.

he did inform me to contact the residents individually, and i did, but by that time, some of the residents had already moved out, and that's where we are now from there. >> commissioner imperial: and with soma filipinas? >> the soma filipinas, we spoke -- i've been in correspondence with raquel, the -- i believe she's the director. after the initial e-mail, i didn't hear back, so i followed up with another e-mail. i heard from david wu, and we've been corresponding since --

>> commissioner imperial: everything's done in the e-mail? >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner imperial: so the correspondence were done in the e-mail? >> that's correct, yes. >> commissioner imperial: and with their proposal -- or with their interest of having a 21 unit affordable housing, you said that affects your viability. was there any kind of, in your part, order to increase it or how was that discussion happening from that time? >> in regards to market rate, we discussed the 20% over e-mail, however, i replied back that for us, it was economically unfeasible due to the -- the length of time that we've had to carry this project

forward until -- to this public hearing today, as well as the rising construction costs. >> commissioner imperial: and did you guys talk about the kinds of units and the a.m.i.s that will be for this building? >> yes. they want four bedrooms, geared more towards family, however, at that time, we were pretty much in design and planning, so that was pretty much a moot discussion at that point. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, project sponsor. the thing about this development, as i see this, all code compliant with the planning commission -- or with the planning department, however, this is in the soma filipinas cultural heritage district, and this is on the

mission street, which is a main corridor of the cultural heritage district. and as we are, you know -- today, as i'm listening about this, i'm thinking about this idea of the equity, and the idea of the soma filipinas cultural heritage district and how it came out, the need for the filipina district especially was the families. know that the soma filipina yet doesn't have land use controls, however, i -- with the recent -- with the recent decision that we have earlier, i am more compelled not to

support this project. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yeah, i have some questions for staff about the b.m.r. requirements. i am truly bothered by the notion that someone who submitted an e.e. application 13 years ago is exempt from current requirements and gets to take advantage of a lower b.m.r. -- lower affordability requirement. so my first question is staff is, have you poured over 415.3 and are you absolutely convinced that there is no way to require current affordability requirements to be imposed on this project? have you discussed it with the city attorney's office, as welwel well? >> good evening, commissioner diamond. during the 2017 inclusionary

overhaul, we did have weekly meetings with the city attorney about our implication of 415, and how the inclusionary would apply to different projects because the e.e. was so important to the inclusionary rate itself. there were through buckets essentially that were created. any project with an environmental application submitted -- a completed environmental application submitted before 2013 was permanently grandfathered at 14%. anything between then and january 2016 was exempt, and anything after january 1, 2016

fell under the new requirements. >> commissioner diamond: it strikes me as really unfair and it results in incentives that seem backwards, that the longer -- a project could stick around for 40 years and still be subject to 12% because the developer chose not to go forward, and it feels like it would be appropriate for the department to consider there's a time period after which it is no longer appropriate, even if you submitted an e.e.f. decades ago, that you still get to take advantage of the 12%. i would love that the department would take a look at this and come back to us with a recommendation for proposed changes in legislation that we could potentially recommend to the board so that we don't face

this situation again. i don't know, director. what do you think about that? >> director hillis: yeah, definitely agree. i think those are good comments. carly, if i can just ask a question, and i'm not sure you know, do you know why that decision was made to not have the one pre-2013 expire, but the others closer to 2013 did, and do you know how many project right si projects are in that bucket because it's been a long time? >> i can follow up with the projects in that bucket. i don't have that number offhand. that conversation was also driven by the grandfathering that was introduced as part of the kind of post prop c-changes to section 415, and i think when we combined everything together and started to interpret, you know, the resulting code section that came out of the subsequent

amendments that introduced today's rates, you know, these 2013 permanent grandfathering hadn't been touched, and it hadn't been changed or addressed as part of that sort of grandfathering that went before 2013. >> director hillis: okay. commissioner diamond, i think it's a -- you know, it's a logical policy call and one we should look at. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you, because i just can't really see the justification for that length of grandfathering. >> director hillis: i agree. it seems incredibly low, especially where our inclusionary rates on now, and this has kind of been on the books for ten years and been grandfathered for that long. >> commissioner diamond: right. it also doesn't make sense to me if you were between 2013 and whatever -- 2016, it expires, but if you're before, it doesn't expire. that's just not making sense to

me. so that's my first comment. i -- my request to the project sponsor is that they take a long, hard look at their financials and see whether or not they can't up their b.m.r. requirement to 20%. i don't know if that's adding one unit or two units, and even if it isn't currently required, i believe that that would be something that it would be important for them to consider to volunteer, especially in light of all of the other comments that have been made today. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just want to echo comments made by commissioner imperial and commissioner diamond. i think -- thank you, commissioner diamond for often just getting to the heart of the flaws in the code that put

us in challenging positions, and i really appreciate fast work to try to look back into the grandfathering of inclusionary and what we can do to shift it, because i totally agree that it feels -- that yeah, it feels ridiculous, and -- and i think given, you know, the comments that were made by the project sponsor of needing to meet the current needs of the city, that includes affordable and below market rate units, and i would just echo the encouragement of the project sponsor to take a hard look on what they can do to bring on-line another one or two b.m.r. units.

i know you were in the design unit already, but i heard a call for a three bedroom, something that both recognizes the context that you're in and something that recognizes the need around the city's housing stock. and there hasn't been talk about the programming related to the retail. i'd love to hear thoughts about that, and i always see that i've been asked that in a way in which you can provide community surveying uses and space, and so i would also encourage the project sponsor to think about programming that space in a way that meets the needs of the surrounding community. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: there are two thoughts here.

by asking for three to four units, you would lose unit count, but i'm wondering why i have a strange echo. the delta between 12% and 20% is 2.8 units versus five units. i'm not sure, and perhaps planning can help me. are we, at this moment, getting three units or are we getting a fraction? what are we getting? >> we are getting three units. we round up anything that's greater than .5. >> vice president moore: thanks. i like that. the other thing is instead of asking for clarity on 12% or 20% versus 25%, i have said many times year in and year out, adding a use it or lose it

clause to any of these projects helps to keep things from falling in this design. this building is well designed. it's a relevant building except for our justified concerns regarding the amount of affordable. perhaps instead of asking for 20%, we should be asking for four units, which is in between. i want us to create an opportunity for us to find a solution to approve this project under the housing accountability act which was pointed out to us as a constraint early on. so we can approve this project or we can disapprove it. i'd rather find a way to negotiate the affordable units

up to four rather than scrap the project altogether. [inaudible] >> vice president moore: could you please explain whether that's true or not? >> commissioner, what happens is that their building is a nonconforming use, and that was built all the way out to their property line. because we're setting our building back 22 feet, those windows, which should have been fire rated, could remain. as far as the light and air, you know, the code is very clear that everybody has to take care of their own light and air on their own project. this -- we actually have a rear yard, and they don't. they actually have -- they call

it a courtyard, but it's more like a light well with a fire escape for their second means of egress onto the roof. i so believe that our project doesn't materially affect their project. >> vice president moore: well, to the contrary, with you providing a garden, there's a significant relief that it's an oversize garden. we had a similar situation last week where i asked project to stay off the property line for a future building, not be affected by it, but i was not making any progress in achieving that, so i believe that that impact is simply not there. i am stuck with wanting to support a slightly higher affordability rate, but i can only suggest that because otherwise, i find the building -- a good building well designed in context, but the issue of affordability is of concern to me.

>> commissioner imperial: i think someone needs to mute their mic. >> clerk: yes, indeed. i think someone needs to mute their mic, and it may be the project sponsor's phone. >> commissioner imperial: i just want to share my experience that in that legislation, the housing amendment, the grandfathering was actually a hot issue at that time. commissioner diamond and johnson, you're right. those amendments don't make sense, but at the time, it was a hot debate, and i appreciate some comment to the board of

supervisors about the abolishment of the grandfathering the housing. [inaudible] >> commissioner imperial: and i wish that the developer could also look into the kinds of units that will be more applicable to the families, especially for the inclusionary housing so the developer can

provide 20% housing, even if it doesn't have to be inclusionary housing amendment or inclusionary housing law, they have that discretion. i also appreciate commissioner johnson in terms of the affordable commercial space. this is also in the labor -- in the corridor area, and it's part of the goal as well of the soma filipina cultural heritage is to promote the small businesses -- or the filipina small businesses, or this can be a small business space. i hope that the developer will be actually -- i wish there were more discussions and dialogues that happened between the community and the developer of the building, especially if the developer is trying to show some good faith.

i will be open -- i will be open and -- to continue this building so that -- to continue this project in order for the developer to have meaningful discussion and really listen to the demands of the community. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question for staff. linda? >> yes. >> commissioner fung: can you repeat what you said at the beginning of the meeting regarding what the housing accountability act limits what actions we can do? >> certainly. so the housing accountability act restricts reductions to the floor area or number of units. also, the only changes that the commission can really condition

are design changes. and there's also as part of sb 330 and the housing accountability act, there is a five limit total, which would include any appeals, informational meetings, continuances, and whatnot. >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i guess just a clarification since staff mentioned there's a maximum hearing. does that mean that the planning commission cannot propose a motion to continue this? >> rich sucre. >> go ahead, rich, if you want. >> oh, no. the commission can certainly

propose a continuance, but i would just advise to be mindful that the -- if there are future appeals or opportunities for appeal, you'd want to leave at least a one or two hearings within the total of five that they're allowed or that the state law basically restricts us on for this type of project. so since this is their first public hearing, basically, they would have another four remaining hearings. >> clerk: commissioner moore? commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> vice president moore: i was muted. no previous deliberations on this project prior to its current configuration are

counted towards the number of meetings, correct? >> clerk: this is the first hearing, commissioner moore, so this is the one that will count against the limit of five. >> vice president moore: thank you for clarifying. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: this is a question for staff, talking about the housing accountability act, and also a comment to understand the adding of bedrooms and losing unit count. so if there were a single unit of available housing on this site, would that count against the unit count or does it not specify? overall, does the unit count stay the same? >> i'm not quite sure i understand. they have a specific percentage of units that they have to have, and they need that requirement, the dwelling unit

mix. maybe carly -- i see carly here. maybe she can help me. >> it doesn't matter if the units are affordable or market rate, it's the number of units overall. does that answer your question? >> commissioner johnson: yeah. i take to heart commissioner moore's comments. i recognize both that this prudence and it's important to make sure that we don't lose the project altogether, and i think that there is a chorus of people saying that we wish and we would like at least another unit of affordable housing to support this project and make it be relational to the context that it's in, and so i'm having a hard time, but those are just

my additional comments. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i would like to make a motion to continue this item and for the developer to have a meaningful dialogue with the community. i'm thinking about the timeline. usually, i would like to say in a month or perhaps -- yeah. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: do you have any other instructions -- commissioner imperial, do you have any other instructions for that continuance? perhaps, would we like to hear about the addition of one additional unit or any other

direction? normally, when we grant a continuance, the commission has a certain idea of why it continues. >> commissioner imperial: yes. i would like to make a motion to continue so that -- to continue this item where the project developer will continue to have a dialogue with the community in order to -- especially in -- i would like to see more of affordable housing in place for this building as well as other community asks especially that would be in the commercial space, if that would be in the dialogue with the community, as well as -- i guess that's the main thing i have. >> vice president moore: i'll second that motion.

>> clerk: so commissioner imperial, you're looking for about a month? >> commissioner imperial: yes. >> clerk: so being june 11, we wi will -- we'd be into july now, so we could do july 9. >> commissioner imperial: yes, thank you. >> clerk: if there is no additional deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to july 9. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that item passes unanimously, 7-0. that places us on items 14-a and b for 2019-001455-cua and var for 1750 with a wawona str. staff, are you ready to present? >> yes, sir. this allows the tantamount to demolition of a 2700 square foot two story home and legalization allowed beyond the

scope of work under permit. during construction, the project proceeded to remove existing vertical and horizontal elements and exceedance of the threshold established in planning code section 317 without authorization. january 18, 2019, structural inspector inspection report documented dry rot on-site.

the structural engineer determined that much of the structure could not be salvaged or reinforced and recommended removal and replacement. planning was unable to verify whether the structure was in decent condition due to the substantial amount of demolition and replacement already performed. the planning code was amended october 13, 2019, to expand the rear yard requirement from 25% to 30% of the total lot depth. as proposed, the project requires the conditional use approval and a rear yard variance to abate the violation and continue construction. the department had multiple conversations with a neighbor in support of the approval. the applicant has also provided letters of support. the department finds the project in balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the planning

code -- of the general plan, and the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. >> president koppel: all right. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? project sponsor? >> hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: we do. katy, do we have a project sponsor presentation that we can share? >> do you see that? >> clerk: we can. go ahead, project sponsor. >> thanks. good evening, commissioners.

i am the project sponsor for 1750 wawona street. i will be presenting, and if you have any questions on behalf of the owner and the design team. i want to thank you for this opportunity to present and for your time and consideration. i was very moved by the passion and honesty you addressed the social injustice and inequity and black lives matter movement. today, we are asking you to approve our request for conditional use authorizations, pursuant to planning code to allow the tantamount to demolition of an existing single-family dwelli

single-family dwelling. i'd also like to point out, to avoid any confusion, that this presentation also addresses our corresponding application for variance for a rear yard requirement. if you could go to slide 2, please. so katie was very thorough and covered a lot of what you're going to see in these slides, so i just want to kind of summarize the circumstances. this -- for this slide here compares the existing site plan, the site plan of -- regarding permits for the two-story rear yard addition

and interior alterations to an existing single-family dwelling. and this requirement is after the rear yard had changed. so on september 28, the permits for the addition was issued, and if you could go to the next slide, please.

[inaudible] >> -- on march 18, following an inspection, the inspector had instructed the owner to get the additional work approved before they could continue construction. we had hoped that the walls had been removed to be counted, as well, replacing time, but at that time, we were not able to prove that the walls had been damaged by dry rot. we were instructed to request a conditional use authorization. next slide. so the next slide specifically addresses the variance. as you know, with the change to the code at the beginning of the year, the requirement for the rear yard had increased, putting the approved addition

in the rear yard. because we weren't able to secure a conditional use before the end of the year, we were at that point subject to the new rear yard requirement and had to reapply for the variance as well as the conditional use. so it's been 15 months since construction has been halted. the house has become a nuisance and an eyesore to the neighborhood, and it's been broken into, as well. this was an honest mistake, and

we would be grateful if the commission would request approval for c.u.a. so we can finish construction and the job that we started 1.5 years ago. that concludes my presentation. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay, commissioners. if that concludes staff and project sponsor presentations, we can go to public comment. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, president o press one and then zero. >> clerk: members of the public, if you would like to submit your comment, now would be the time by pressing one and zero. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hello. my name is jonathan randolph. please approve this project c.u. and variance. in my opinion --

[inaudible] >> -- and the planning department should be the one to propose the replacement because they were the ones who originally proposed 317 in 2008. i don't see any evidence of any attempt to unfairly create improvements that they didn't already have the right to do under the original permit, and i don't think the crime of tantamount to demolition makes any sense whatsoever. a few months ago, i called a planner in san francisco to ask what is a contractor supposed to do when they find dry rot when they're doing a renovation? she said if you call d.b.i. and have it inspected, then d.b.i. will let you replace it in kind, and it's not considered a demolition. however, if you don't get it inspected by d.b.i., it goes back to planning, and planning will consider it tantamount to demolition. the planning department gets

$20,000 in conditional use fees, and the lot sits vacant at no use to anybody while the project sponsor sits and waits for a c.u. meeting. in this case, we're talking about joists and studs here, you know, sidewalls that don't even count towards our neighborhood character. instead, we should abolish tantamount to demolition, and when the zoning administrator thinks there was action by bad actors to make more many, the planning or d.b.i. director has the ability to refer it to the district attorney for prosecution. there's no bad action here. thank you. >> operator: you have zero

questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: i have a quick question for the project sponsor. did you guys take any pictures of the dry rot? >> i'm sorry. i just unmuted myself. i didn't catch that question. >> president koppel: yeah, sure, no problem. did anyone take pictures of the dry rot that was removed? >> we did not have any pictures that we could provide. i think if we had that, then we would have been able to count those walls as replaced in kind. my understanding that the

sponsor had already replaced the walls. >> president koppel: i don't think people understand how much of a concrete document blueprints are. that's what is based on the bid and the legal exchange is based on the blueprints. i feel a lot better hearing these kind of items if other people took this as seriously as we did, and it seems like people just keep saying that hey, we made an honest mistake, but it should be taken a lot more seriously for that. and just for future, pictures are evidence and can literally back up your case and support your arguments, so just some advice there. commissioner moore?

>> vice president moore: thank you, president koppel. wise comments. we have this matter appear before us frequently. i think this looks like an honest mistake, and i appreciate the department ease presentation. i am prepared to move to approve what's in front of us. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> vice president moore: that's a motion, that's correct. >> president koppel: did you want to chime in, rich? >> sure. i think this lot is in a fairly unique location. it backs up against the edgewood center, which is unique, and this lot has a large set back of a little more than 30 feet, so when you look at that altogether, there are some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to

this lot, even if you weren't looking at it in the aspect of being tantamount to demolition. they're going to maintain about 40 feet of rear yard, and i think someone mentioned this fairly modest, still going to end up being a fairly modest two-story home, so from a variance perspective, i think it's doable. >> vice president moore: thank you, mr. teague, for telling us that, and that you still support that. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: question for staff, do you work with the building department and if not, can we suggest to the building department that they put brightly colored paper with large letters on it, on the front of every building permit that is issued, saying if you end up needing to do

more demolition because of dry rot, call first for an incident inspection, take pictures? i completely agree with commissioner koppel, but i don't know how many people listen into these hearings or reach the general contractor audience, and it seems to me that there should be warnings issue in writing in conjunction with the building permits that are issued. i think you're on mute. >> i agree. i think they did this by mistake, and it was a painful process to get this to commission today. i'll definitely champion more

coordinance with the department. >> commissioner diamond: i'm prepared to second commissioner moore's motion. i don't feel it was a bad actor, i think it was a mistake. i feel we should take action to reduce these mistakes going forward by doing whatever we can to work with the department of building inspection to issue notices ahead of time about what to do when you encounter these circumstances, but i am secondedi seconding the motion. >> clerk: corey, do you want to chime in again? >> yeah, just to echo commissioner diamond's comments, we did have a hearing at planning commission about a year ago, and we did have staff from d.b.i. to respond, and this was one of the topics that was discussed pretty

thoroughly, which was a pretty common situation of getting into a job and finding dry rot. they do communicate to people, if you do find dry rot, and you need to go beyond your permit, your next step should be to contact d.b.i. to the extent that that's noticed in bright, bold colors on documents, i'm not sure . we can follow up with them on that, but it is d.b.i.s clear direction if you find you need to do more, you should follow up with d.b.i. right away. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> clerk: commissioner moore, did you have another comment?

>> vice president moore: yes. i think comment -- we commented that we wanted to keep a list of people who make these errors, they find loopholes to avoid the process, and we like to keep track of that. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that's been seconded to approve this motion with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7-0, unanimously. as the building commissioner intends to say --

>> i will close the hearing and grant the variance with the stated conditions. >> clerk: that will place us on 16 a, b, c, d, and e for 2515004568 for the properties at 10 south vanness avenue. you'll be considering adoption of ceqa findings, shadow findings, the downtown project authorization, a conditional use authorization, and the zoning administrator will be considering a request for variance. i can see staff is prepared to present. andrew perry, the floor is yours. >> thank you, jonas. good evening, president and

commissioners. the project site is triangular in shape, and in addition to market street and south vanness avenue is bound on its third side on the west by 12 street. it would demolish the building on the side last used for automobile sales and repair and construct a mixed use 25 story apartment building in its place with the project tower located toward the middle of the project site. the lower structure consists of a podium structure, rising to a maximum height of 140 feet along market street and 170 feet to the south of the tower. the project would include 966 dwelling units and approximately 30,000 square feet of retail and service uses. the dwelling mix for the project consists of approximately 36% studios, 45%

one bedrooms, 17% two bedrooms, and 2% three bedrooms. two basement garage levels would include 255 total parking spaces, six car share spaces, loading, bike parking, and other amenities, including showers and lockers. the project provides various types of open space for the residents, in total more than 40,000 square feet, including balconies, large terraces at the tower levels, and large terraces different levels of the building. at the ground floor level, the project also includes a privately owned public open space along south vanness avenue with the intersection of market street. a midblock pedestrian passage is provided through the site between market street and 12 street and all three locations will see a number of streetscape improvements coordinated by the city such as

the better market street plan. lastly, the project intends to construct a new entrance for the vanness muni station for the ground floor building as has been stated in the plans. under a land dedication alternative, the project will dedicate a land share proposal. commissioners, on the subject of land dedication, i want to note that there has been a proposed change to the simple language of that condition of approval, number 35 in the downtown project authorization motion. i will be quickly putting that

language up on the screen so that you can see it. the additional language is intended to provide some assurance to the project sponsor that they will be able to fulfill their obligation in this way, particularly after they have already made substantial progress and expenditures toward acquiring the site to be dedicated. the main addition of that language states this motion vests the project sponsor's right to comply with the housing code requirements of section 415 by land dedication pursuant to planning code on the date that the following conditions are satisfied. one, the board of supervisors file number 200559 including planning code section 249.33

b-16. second, mohcd sends a letter to the project sponsor indicating its willingness to accept a project land dedication, and three, the project sponsor has acquired the land to be dedicated. additionally, there is a memorandum to file dated june 3, 2020, which was prepared by our environmental planning staff with respect to ceqa review of the land dedication part of the aspect. the land dedication option as a project condition would not cause significant new impacts or result in the substantial increase in severity of the impacts identified in the

project's final e.i.r., which was certified to may 31, and no new addition measures would be required. the second update is staff was made aware that the mmrp was inadvertently omitted from the staff report as attachment b of the ceqa findings motion. the mmrp was circulated to you earlier this week, however, the mmrp has been available as part of the final e.i.r. document. commissioners, that brings us to the actions that are before you today for this project. the project was already certified by the commission at the may 21 hearing. however, at today's hearing and prior to any other approval action for the project, the commission must adopt ceqa findings associated with the project including significant and unavoidable impacts, a statement of overriding considerations, and adoption of the mmrp. second, the project requires adoption of shadow findings

consistent with findings from the recreation and park commission at their hearing on may 21, that the net new shadow cast by the project on seven properties under the jurisdiction of the recreation and park commission will not be adverse to the use of those parks. third, the project requires approval of a downtown project authorization. as part of this approval, the project will require exceptions for the following code requirements. one, sun light ex-pon, two, access to public sidewalks, three, maximum wind levels. height and bulk levels envisioned by the height and bulk projects, and dwelling other hand mix requirements. in -- dwelling and mix requirements. in short, the department feels that the project meets the mix

requirements established in the code, but i'm happy to answer any questions on these. fourth, the project required a retail use authorization. the proposed space is approximately 9,000 square feet and is located at the second floor of the project. [please stand by]

public comment to date. the few comments received are generally supportive of the project and the residential density at this important site. the few concerns expressed have dealt with loading impacts and the loss of the fillmore west and the importance to commemorate that history. in conclusion, commissioners, the department finds that is the project is unbalanced. the project will add 966 dwelling units in a location close proximity to downtown. the project will contribute toward the creation of affordable housing. which conveys the site to the

city for the construction of affordable housing. additionally, an estimated $17 million will be paid to the city as market octavia area plan requirements. the project is well designed and vision for the hub area and the project will include streetscape improvements with planning efforts under way. in addition to these benefits, it is anticipated that the project will include new entry to the van ness muni station and for all those reasons, the department supports the project and recommends adoption of findings and approval of the project with the requested exceptions and with the conditions of approval contained in the motions. that concludes my presentation, but i'm happy to answer questions about the project. >> thank you, andrew. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation?

>> yes. >> andrew, i believe you'll be sharing their slides. once they -- look at that. they're already up. project sponsor, you have 10 minutes and, through the chair, public comment will be limited to two minutes. >> great. starting with slide one. good evening commissioners and director hillis. thank you for the opportunity to present today. i'm with crescent heights. on the line is kpf architects and counsel. i'm give a short overview of the project. next for context in 2014, we started with the code compliant project with two towers. after the hub plan was announced in 2016, plan requested that we study a single tower version. over the last five years we provided the project with feedback, with community organizations and that's what we're focussing on today. slide 3.

in addition to new housing at 16 transit line and the future brt, it will create 350 permanently affordable homes. we're integrating a new entrance to the muni station to replace the exposed stairs that have needed improvement for some time. an investment we're happy to make. in addition to $40 million in local infrastructure and community improvements, we've heard from stakeholders about the real need for non-profit space, so we're pleased to offer 9,000 square feet for non-profits or below market rate community-based retail. it will create 5,000 new construction jobs. our 30-year commitment to labor extends to van ness. other include a passage lined with retail, a new plaza and

complete redesign of 12th street, which angela will detail shortly. the project includes an interactive historic exhibit integrated into the public realm. i'll discuss that in a moment. we believe deeply in sustainable design and we're proud of the fact that this is one of the few projects certified by the state of california as an environmental leader development project, which means the project will be carbon neutral. as you know, from 1968 to 71, the site was home to bill grant and aretha franklin, surprise show, ray charles. it's so important to honor that legacy in history. that said, the project will include an interactive multimedia exhibit of history of

the fillmore west and the broader cultural impact. we're also exploring other ideas, as well as space for recording music and podcasts. we're in early discussions with the bill grant foundation to provide a permanent home for the bill graham memorabilia that is traveling the country. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is angela wu. the office of development -- we should be on slide 9 right now 10 south van ness is located at van ness and market street within the hub's plan that was recently approved by the planning commission. it was updated from a two-tower to a single-tower scheme.

they have 966 units and almost 30,000 square foot of retail area at 590 foot tall. next, please. out of the urban fabric, it was clear us early on that the project needs to respond to the surrounding neighborhood, scale and materials, breaking down the -- and public realm. the project will also reflect unique integration of urban text context in nature. to do that, we first look at the basic formation of the building. respecting the bart tunnel influence, the residential tower is located as close to the market and south van ness street as possible. next. the architecture form started with the street wall. for more human-scaled podium. the towers rotate away from the street and the podium is pushed back to allow for more public open space.

four components reduce the perceived bulk on the skyline. bricks within each component at sky gardens, reduce the scale of the building. it goes up the tower as each one is carefully positioned to relate to the surrounding box and views. the balconies at the intersection of each tower component further breaks down the massing and meets open space requirement. to respect existing context, the podium of the building steps down in height to meet the scale of the adjacent buildings. the top is exterior wall of a contrasting palate, with the dynamic pushing and pulling of the tower and massing.

we should be on slide 20. the resulting form reflected in the solidity of the tower. the distinct podium arises from the geometry, creates a dramatic and memorable intersection of 12 van ness. compliance single tower scheme has less core on the ground, dedicates more area to open space. for a scale-appropriate passage that links 12th street to market street. this new 35-foot wide dedicated public passageway is based on an

optimized pedestrian flow for easy connection to the future network of open spaces, such as grady park, plaza, oak plaza, as well as to transit. with additional building setback and market street and van ness, allow more spillout spaces and public plaza to reinforce the vitality of the public realm. the ground plain supports a variety of uses from art, culture, entertainment, retail, and restaurants. it's fully integrated at the podium the project, complete with a much needed elevator and escalator access. the community serving space at the upper level will be flexible enough to allow for a variety of neighborhood amenities, such as child care spaces, work spaces to support the change of needs over time.

the pedestrian street will be widened by four additional feet above the approved 12 street plan dedicating more space to the people on the 10 south van ness side. today, on the 12th street, the right-of-way is 80-feet wide with more than half a space, 50 feet, allotted for vehicle traffic and parking. when the project is realized, there will be a variety of amenities along the widened sidewalk. street furnishings contributing to the vibrancy of the area. along market street, active frontage, will be replaced by double-loaded open passageway activated by special programs,

retail conveniently anchored by the entrance as you can see on the left-hand side of the image. this should be page 31. the van ness corner today with the facade and the narrow sidewalk pinched by the existing entrance on the right-hand side of the image. it will be replaced with vibrant retail store front and canopies overhead to provide a pedestrian friendly and comfortable space. the building setback in the corner allows for an additional 500 feet of open space. it frees up the key intersection of the city. the street filled with metered parking, there will be removal of street parking to be replaced with loading zones for car-share use. envisions making pedestrian

park -- [bell ringing] -- filled with vibrancy to reflect the cultural significant of the place. we're very excited about what this project will bring to the community. especially the new housing for the city. thank you very much. >> jonas: does that conclude the project sponsor presentation? >> yes. >> thank you. if we could go to public comment, please. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> jonas: i'll remind members of the public we're reducing public comment to two minutes. and now is the opportunity to enter 1 and then 0 to get into the queue. >> announcer: you have four questions remaining. >> good evening. this is anna, member of san

francisco tenants union and central city coalition, calling to express concerns about the 10 south van ness project. i hope this project can work out and be part of the hub plan. however, the city has not yet chosen to endorse central city coalition equitable proposal for the hub. we are not accepting of the 10 south van ness project unless the proposal that infirms a -- affirms a commitment to equity and low-income black, indigenous and communities of color living in the hub is incorporated. earlier today, the commission took a bold step by acknowledging the deep history of discriminatory planning policies that have resulted in disproportionate negative impacts, including the displacement of black community in san francisco. we oppose the 10 south van ness

project unless the central city's coalition's equity hub proposal is formally adopted into the hub plan. please reject any plans to do not incorporate equity. >> announcer: you have six questions remaining. >> this is jason henderson, co-chair of the octavia and chair of the transportation and planning committee. i want to raise a couple of issues with the parking for this building. and in the hub in general, it's really unfortunate that the planning department doesn't tally up all of the parking that is being added to this very, very limited geography. as i look at it, there is already been over 1,000 parking spaces approved within a block

or two of this intersection. and the three buildings that you're approving now in this series with the hub add 500 more. that's over 1500 parking spaces right at market and van ness. you should ask yourselves would you build a 1500-car garage at this location? especially with what we know today. in terms of equity, let's be honest, this is luxury parking for elites. i want to draw your attention to 12th street, which is not going to be a beautiful public space, but a car sewer. it's invitation for tncs, not car sharing, it's car hire. there is a loading deficit. what we need is bright and forward-thinking approaches to -- [bell ringing] -- limiting

and restricting tnc and forcing the issue on this parking because 12th street is not going to be functional for pedestrians despite all the glossy illustrations. this is going to be long driveway. and a node for tnc swarming as the plan stands now. i would urge the planning commission to take these issues seriously going forward, especially given that transit capacity is going to be reduced due to the covid-19. [bell ringing] therefore, we need other ways to move around like bicycles and pedestrian corridors. that's where we should be looking and i don't think this gets us there. >> announcer: you have eight questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i'm a renter in district 5. theo gordon. also on the leadership of a couple of neighborhood

association here. i wanted to express my support. we need more housing in the city and this is going to provide that. and it's also going to provide a lot of money into the city for fund. we have a ton of jobs that we're in desperate need of and tax revenue. we did a lot of work with the community and they should be approved as soon as possible. my only question raised in all the comments so far today is why are we only allowing apartment buildings such as this, or even smaller, four or five story apartment buildings, but only in soma? why don't we allow them in my neighborhood, district 5, or in the sunset or richmond? let's look at that as well, but let's get this thing approved first. >> announcer: you have seven questions remaining. >> hi, commissioners, my name is

jordan. i'm the owner of a company and founder of a non-profit here in san francisco called project reckless which is a program for at-risk youth that takes them and allows them to work and become better people. i have the pleasure of being able to work with crescent heights as a community partner and a tenant of their at 10 south van ness. my company activates interim use spaces for doing events and things like that inside of spaces that are planned for development. i'm here talking to you today for -- in full and complete support of the development project as 10 south van ness. on top of my non-profit work and for-profit work in the neighborhood, in district 6, i was also a resident of mission for a number of years. and with the president of that neighborhood association. i'm very familiar with that specific area of san francisco. i think this development project is going to be immensely helpful

in helping to get the population -- helping to get the housing that is so desperately needed in the city and helping to clean up that specific block to public transit and to the 12th street corridor right now as it is. we see there is a number of buildings on the market and mission and south van ness block. i see there is more and more people flocking to that area. the folks in the building right now, we're having to deal a significant amount of break-ins, graffiti and having a development project like this, as such a great community partner, full support and the project should be approved. thank you for your time. i appreciate it. >> announcer: you have six questions remaining. >> commissioners, this is tim, i'm the secretary treasurer of

the secretary building and construction trades council. thank you for the work that you do. last week at the general public comment, i said something very different than what i'm going to be saying right now on behalf of the san francisco building and trades council, we are fully supportive of this project for reasons that two minutes will not explain. but having good jobs for san francisco and good paying jobs with training to keep jobs here in san francisco is extremely important to us. so we're fully supportive of this project moving forward. we urge you to approve all five pieces of this today. thank you. >> announcer: you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, evening, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing

action coalition here to support and there is a nice poetic justice taking a former dealership and building close to a thousand new homes for people. you know, we're really excited for a variety of reasons, obviously, it's a huge quantity of housing that is going to go on this site. it's fantastic. the affordable housing that will come from the approval of this today, we think it's going to be a significant win for the city as a whole. in the public realm aspect of it, that's probably the thing that, you know, somebody that works in the area, walks by the area and pretty much going to work every day, part of normal life and looking forward to getting back out when we can and this is going to improve everything right around van

ness. better for businesses. for all the people that walk right around on the their way to city hall, additional retail, restaurants. we've had three big projects related to the hub moving through here in the last few weeks. and excited to be supporting the last one that may be a major additive to the neighborhood. we need housing. we needed it yesterday. you have a fantastic opportunity here in front of you today and i ask that you please approve the project. thank you. >> announcer: you have four questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm a member of the central city coalition, a coalition comprised of frontline organizations who have a history of serving

low-income and working class black communities, indigenous communities and communities of color. the peoples congress in the tenderloin, united stays the mission in the mission. we're calling today to express concerns about the project particularly within the hub area which has been noted by the planning department having a higher than average poverty rate compared to the rest of san francisco. with your recent commitment to equitable principles that you passed earlier today, while we hope the project can work out and be part of the hub plan, the city has not chosen to endorse the hub. outside of the context, and making a firm commitment to equity and low-income and working class black communities, indigenous communities and communities of color living in the hub, we are not accepting of this project. i am in opposition to this project unless the central city

coalition equity hub proposal is formally adopted into the plan. the very commission took the courageous step in acknowledging the deep history of the discriminatory planning policies that have resulted in negative impacts on the people of color. and the placement of a black community in san francisco. now, more than ever we should be opposing any plans that do not incorporate equity first planning. i would like to take a moment to address two comments made earlier of making comments that this building will go ahead in a roundabout way claiming that it will clean up the neighborhood. just relating back to your comments today, commissioner johnson, this building going up outside of the equitable proposal is only going to create in this area the same experiences for the less than 5% black people that exist in san francisco right there in the hub. i hope you take a stand with those who are suffering homeless on the street.

unless we have real -- [bell ringing] -- solutions, this is only going to further create segregation and make people that are of color unsafe in that neighborhood. i ask that you -- >> announcer: you have three questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners, and director hillis. i'm executive director of the civic center community benefit district. the cbd looks forward the much needed enhancements that this project will bring to the sidewalks and the public right-of-way which our organization is charged with helping to improve. having more residents and retailers and pedestrian foot traffic as this location will make the area much more vibrant and safe, day and night. so from a community perspective, the project sponsor has done a great job, not just letting this

site sit under utiliutilized an blighted. they've given much needed space to organizations and a non-profit on the inside. they've done great job keeping up the exterior for the benefit of the community. so we look forward to continuing our work with crescent heights on this project to help usher in this new neighborhood resource. thank you. >> announcer: you have four questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. once again, my name is len. i'm a member of the central city coalition. i'm calling in solidarity with my colleagues to express our concerns about 10 south van ness project. we hope the project can be part of the hub plan. the city has not chosen to endorse the equitable proposal for the hub. outside the context of incorporating our coalition's proposal and making a firm

commitment to equity and low-income black, indigenous and community of color living in the hub, we're not accepting of this project. i am not in opposition to the project unless the central city coalition equity plan is formally adopted into the hub area one. earlier today, this very commission has taken the courageous step in acknowledging the deep history of the discriminatory planning policies that have resulted in negative impacts on people of color, including the displacement of the black community here in san francisco. now more than ever, we should be opposing any plans that do not incorporate equity-first planning. this way we put everyone on notice of what will happen. so hopefully you'll get to hear us. and really take this proposal into consideration. thank you. >> announcer: you have three questions remaining.

>> hello. my name is aaron. i'm the cofounder and c.e.o. of epic clean tech. we're a water technology startup based here in san francisco. we're actually calling to lend our enthusiastic support to this project for any startup in general, but specifically in the clean technology space, finding willing partner who are going to allow new technologies to pioneer new ways to do things is essential. we've been working with crescent heights or several years and will be implementing our technology into the building. we're going to help the building to reuse tens of millions of gallons of water a year. and making this actually one of the most sort of far-reaching buildings in the world when it comes to recycling of water, of waste water, and for that reason, we're very excited to work on this project and to actually put it on the map, not

just in san francisco but globally for doing more than any other project has done when it comes to recycling water. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> i believe that all of the housing justice and equity

issues that are of most concern to this commission will -- will be addressed in really tangible ways by allowing a project like this to move forward, and i also just want to reaffirm that we continue to need apartments being built through all parts of the city, including wealthy neighborhoods. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. this matter is now before you. >> president koppel: while i'm waiting for other commissioners to crihime in, let me first sa thank you to the project sponsor at coming in under your ten-minute cap. that really does make a difference, and we appreciate it. beyond thrilled to see the deal with 16 and mission to deliver what they've been asking for for years, 100% affordable

housing. this is a win-win for the whole city. and as far as the project itself, very supportive today. this is where i think the height belongs. it's a very transit rich intersection and thrilled to see the project moving forward today. also, i'm thrilled that sustainability goals are being addressed. those do add costs, and they're not simple to implement. let me say more about tim paulson's comments. he doesn't have the time, but i do. especially in times that we're dealing with right now, i'm thrilled to see this project is going to be using local

contractors that hire local residents and giving us what we need as a city more than ever right now is jobs. not just a job, but you have a career. when this developer makes the commitment to use the building trades, they're saying we're going to invest in your local contractors, your local residents. we're not just going to give them a job, we're going to give them a career because each of these trades puts san francisco residents in a career. you don't just get to work on this one job, you're accepted in the apprenticeship training center. our residents get to work here and be trained here and build our city. not just is it a job and a career, it's a good paying job. i'm never going to argue against paying people a living wage so they can hopefully, like me, get to stay here in

the city. and don't forget those training centers, if it's three, four, five years of school, it's free, and people like me are paying for our apprentices now to be trained at a training center. it's something that i benefited from, and now i'm giving back to the apprentices of today. don't forget, city build is going to be helping with this project. i go down to city build, and i tell you, no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, no matter what you have between your legs, we're going to get you a job for life. that's my comments.

anybody else? i would accept a motion to approve. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i think the land dedication feature of this is a very significant move. i think it's very appropriate in the development of more housing -- affordable housing and potentially be located where other aspects of life -- the cultural side, the ability to find affordable eateries, all those kinds of things perhaps can be applied, depending upon the final location of that land

dedication. normally, i have not discussed the design of these large scale projects that have been coming before us. in this particular instance, i feel compelled to bring forth some comments on the urban design nature of the project. the streetscape is creatively done to t do done so the interest of pedestrians is very well done. the articulation of the podium provides visual interest as compared to most of the podiums that have been developed in our city. the variation in height i think

is great. the articulation of the tower provides a welcome relief to our skyline compared to the singular nature of most towers that we've seen, and i would commend the design team on using an asymmetric geometry on their site. quite interesting. if there's anything i would say against the project that is i would differ from what the presenter said about the flat iron corner. i think the flat iron corner could have been more dramatic compared to the way it's currently detailed. i am supportive of the project and would be prepared to act so. >> clerk: is that a motion,

commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i think there are a lot of other comments. i'll hold that, but it would be my intention to make such a motion. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have a question for the staff regarding the motion, and i just want clarification because the post or the amended motion in terms of the motion that the project sponsor complies with affordable housing requirement of planning code, and the third portion of this is that the

project sponsor has acquired the land to be dedicated. so how am i interpreting this motion is that the affordable housing requirement by land d dedication can only be satisfied by three things, especially if the project sponsor has acquired the land to be dedicated. are we sure that the project sponsor has the land acquired? >> hi, commissioner. so the amended language of the condition, i believe, was provided to give greater assurance to the project sponsor team that the inclusionary affordable housing requirements are not going to change after they have already made significant investment toward acquiring a site. the obligation itself is not

fulfilled until such time as when the title to the property is conveyed in full to the city. what this added language to the condition does, it basically says that upon fulfilling those three conditions specified to that the board has approved the hub legislation, mohcd has issued a letter willing to accept the site, and that the project sponsor has acquired the land. there -- at that point, they are locked into that obligation. the obligation still is not fulfilled until it's transferred to the city, but at that point, they're locked in, and it could not be further changed on them, either to eliminate the land dedication portion entirely or impose new requirements on them. and one more thing, because it do did come up, the 1979 mission

site is one of the sites being considered, but it is in no way a finalized site in that regard. that is -- that will occur after -- after this hearing. >> commissioner imperial: i guess my other question is to the project sponsor because, you know, your presentation about the land dedication, and there was news, an article that came out in particular about the 1979 mission street side. as far as i know, there is no communication yet with the owner. i'm not sure if i should be asking this question, but i think i would like -- for me, i would like to see that there is a guarantee of, really, that the land dedication will be put out there, and i think the community needs to see that, as

well, or needs to have that guarantee. other things, too, in terms of this project is in terms of the planning or planning wise or technical wise is the height of the building. i am, you know -- so in terms of the surrounding area to the west of this building, its percentage was 590 feet high, but it's actually 610 feet high. and then right next to it, on 12 street, is the civic center hotel, which i believe is an s.r.o. hotel, and along those lines, it's about 185 feet, and in the hub, it will be 120 feet. so in a way, this is dwarfing -- my critique on this -- on this design or in this height is that there's no

gradual scaling of the height from 61 -- height. from 610 feet, it goes down to 120 feet. the gradual scale is lacking on this. another thing, too, that for me, my concern still, in terms of the ceqa finding is the lwid mitigation. 35 hours of wind mitigation, and this area is a pedestrian field area. this is along market street, and other things to interpret under ceqa is the shadow impact in terms of the seven rec and park areas. i do think that this building

is too fall for this area, especially on the west side of it. it's really dwarfing all of it, and also, as what we have discussed today or earlier today is the equity -- equity first planning and we discussed having an equity framework in this type of development. so those are my concern -- my comments right now, and i want to make sure that the land dedication is something that is actually -- is something that the community has already seen, and that there are discussions around it, so...

>> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thanks. before i begin my comments, i think it would be useful to have the director of the office of economic and workforce development just say a little bit about our work related to the land dedication related to these types of agreements.

staff -- >> commissioner johnson, i thought she was, at well. >> director hillis: commissioner johnson, i'll check if we can get her on the line. >> commissioner johnson: okay. so for my comments, i really like this project. i agree with commissioner fung. i really like the design. the streetscape is well done. i really like the seating. the design is compelling. i've reviewed the ceqa findings. i hear some of the impacts around wind, but overall, i feel like they are satisfactory, and i can support them. i also am excited by the land's dedication. i have great confidence in the department staff that works on land dedication and affordable housing. i appreciate that this project will bring in affordable

housing fees at a time which we know that the city will be hurting for fees and affordable housing fund will be hurting for fees. there's something that i didn't get to say earlier that i just feel that is important to say, and it's broad comments and related to equity planning. it turns out that people of color that are dedicated to planning are not a monolith. we ha we are as dedicated in our relationship to planning as we are to equity and our community, and we are dedicated in making sure that there are diverse voices and prospective voices represented in strategies. and in this case, i think when

making sure that equity plans related to the hub are instituted, that the people that are directly and closely impacted, particularly black folks who are both in hayes valley and the western addition are incredibly important. we, in the hub plan approvals, had really important and extensive dialogue around dedicated funds to do community planning and having seats on the c.a.c. to reflect diversity. it just feels really important to say that there are times just to say what i said.

and then -- yeah, actually, that's all i want to say. and ann happens to be on the line now. i'd invite her to share her perspective on the land dedication. >> director hillis: commissioner johnson, i don't think she's on. we haven't been able to get her on. >> commissioner johnson: okay. >> director hillis: we can answer questions on the land dedication. you see that 1979 mission is called out but not definitive, but that is the land that they would dedicate. for traditional reasons and ceqa reasons, they don't own that property, but there are other properties as well. additionally, they're subject to approval by mohcd.

>> commissioner johnson: yeah. i'd just underline that yi hav faith and confidence in mohcd to make sure that this agreement follows through as best we can as a city. >> director hillis: thank you. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, if i may interject just on a practical logistical matter, we are approaching seven hours straight on this hearing. if we go past 9:00, we will be forced to end this live event and start a new one, which will require everyone, including d.r. requesters, to log out and log back in, which is not so terrible. it will not affect persons who have called in in the 800 number, but just word of advice, if we go past 9:00, and you still have three d.r.s after this. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i, too, am supportive of this project, and in the interest of

time and the lateness of the hour and the number of matters we still have in front of us, i'm not going to reiterate all of the reasons why i support the project, except to say i support all of the -- i support the project for the reasons articulated by commissioners koppel, fung, and johnson. one other that they did not mention, and i think it's worth adding to the list of features that are appealing about this project is the interpretive display. it's a shame we're losing more west space, but i am excited by the amount of effort and planning that is going in to creating this vibrant interpretive space that hopefully will be and it's likely to be a draw in itself to this particular building. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: the project has -- the project has

made major steps forward. it has explained itself very well. many of the issues i raised in the general hub discussion remain issues for me. i wish that some form of agreement would have been reached so the confidence of the community is larger than what it seems today. i hope it's the mission -- the 1979 mission street is not the site of tourists, but any other site in the mission would be only a buy because we would always support land dedication in the area of influence in which a project occurs, and i hope that somebody can answer that. mr. perry, are there other

sites nearby that could be potential back ups? >> i am not aware of the other sites that are currently being considered, but i do believe that there is a requirement that any site to be dedicated would need to be within a mile of the project site. i believe that is the geography. i would need to double-check on that. >> vice president moore: it would be very comforting to know that that would be one condition if, indeed, an equity proposal cannot be made out today. i would like to restate my concerns that this project, just like the others we heard before, lack a certain post pandemic planning component because many of the assumptions are when these projects will be challenged than what we currently are assuming.

in particular, i would like to address the issue of adding parking into this area, the possibility of what looks like a 1500-car garage is of concern, as stated last time, witime, -- concern. as stated last time, with the project, i would like to see this be a no-car district in san francisco. i would like to ask the developer about the amount of retail and service space with retail being under major threat, not just by a pandemic planning, but also by the fact that we had a serious decline

prior to covid in this amount of square footage. >> sure, i can answer that. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> as you know, it will take at least three years for a project of this size to get built. as the retail market right lanes post covid, we are keeping an eye on it. we have businesses planned like a grocery store, neighborhood serving local retail space, as well as maker space, and we also think that the historic exhibit space and the community serving retail space will take up a sufficient amount of retail space to provide continuous active use of the space, but it's something we're monitoring closely to make sure that the retail is filled from day one. >> vice president moore: thank you for that explanation. i want to make a positive comment about your attitude toward the interpretive display. i found that very exciting and very much appreciate that you

shed further light on the question that was actually raised in our previous discussion. i'd like to briefly address the issue of tower massing. while the tower massing is interesting, it is a tower massing that attracts a lot of attention to itself. my question to you is could value engineering ultimately challenge this type of tower massing? we all know that there are voids in this particular tower -- that the voids in this particular tower don't come for free. >> i'm sure there are spaces like this, as well, but we've gone through discussions with general contractors to make sure it is in the design, and it is an efficient budget. we're willing to spend more on design when you get this great design and urban cutouts.

we think it's a great project and we're committed to it, and we do not plan on fanning them out in any way. >> vice president moore: unfortunately, i don't want to dampen your enthusiasm -- [inaudible] >> vice president moore: i just want to make that comment for the record. i'm not trying to put a damper onto this project, especially when you have somebody who's so exuberant about the project here today. i had higher hopes for 12 street than what i have been seeing through the addition of other projects in the past few

months. this project indeed will add something to 12 street. it also takes something away from it because an additional loading dock on 12 street takes away from what i had ultimately hoped for it to be, a small, intricate street, which we have mostly lost when it comes to north-south streets here in san francisco. when originally the refurbishing of the city center hotel came forward, together with the renovation of the plumbers building along with it, there was hope that it would be a small neighborhood focused street. now, i think it is becoming more of a utilitarian street. i would like to comment on the south vanness street side of the project. we have come across a large

number of projects, and we bemoan the fact that this is one of the worst project intersections in downtown, and i don't believe this is transformative enough to give that any kind of context. i am still concerned that there are seven exceptions to the project and a number of variances. while some of them i fully understand and support, i still have concerns about shadow. i expressed those in previous approval processes as well as being concerned about the issue of wind and wind acceleration in this general area. there are aspects of the project i will support, and

there are aspects i will not support, but thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you. so i think it's exciting to see this amount of transit oriented development with mixed retail and housing directly above a transit station. i think we've seen many successful projects of this sort in cities around the world in tokyo, hong kong, asia, and so forth. this would seem to be a really exciting opportunity for a transportation demand management plan, so i wanted to ask the project sponsor and maybe the planning staff a little bit more about the t.d.m. plan. there have been considerations for providing transit passes, for example, for employees or residents? that was a question for the project sponsor or planning

staff. >> i think the project sponsor would be better suited to speak to the items that they have selected. basically, how it works is there is a menuof options that a project sponsor can select from in order to acquire their desired measure. from that menu of options, however, there is no mandate that a project sponsor select certain measures over others. that menu is really at their

disposal to choose however they wish. in terms of transit passes, you know, i do not believe that that is one of the measures currently selected in their t.d.m. plan, but perhaps the project sponsor could address why that is not an option that they're considering. >> sure. i can take this opportunity to mention a few things. i mean, i should mention that all of the loading zones for passengers are on the vanness street side, not 12 street, and all of our commercial uses have a below grade, in the building itself, so there's no loading on 12 street. we also have supported amenities in the unit. we'll have an on-site bike fleet and share service. we will provide transit passes to employees, and we will put together to a program to offer to residents, as well, at their

selection, but transit oriented is something that we're very committed to. we have a whole list of t.d.m. measures that we're committed to, and we're glad to send that to you separately. >> commissioner chan: thank you. and i just want to clarify, for the transit passes, is it at a subsidized percentage or is it, at, like, 100%? >> it's 100% contribution from employees. >> commissioner chan: okay. thank you. >> president koppel: zoning administrator teague, did you want to mention something? >> sure. i was just going to speak briefly on the one variance that's triggered by this project, and that is for the width of the curb cut and access on 12 street for the parking and loading access. you know, i think it makes a lot of sense to consolidate this down to one and obviously to have it on 12 street instead of south vanness or market

street. i think it's an extremely supportable variance. i'll take this time to make a plug that the scale and scope of this project and the different exceptions that are -- it is interesting that the variance is not something that the planning commission can consider under the code, so i would make a plug in the future if there is ever a legislative option to shift that so that some of the items that are not able to be -- under a downtown exception, maybe they should be more appropriately under the planning commission's purview as opposed to requiring an additional variance instead of

considering them more comprehensively in a larger project as the planning commission did for the other considerations in this project. but just generally, the project makes a lot of sense, and i am supportive. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: just my last comments. i just want it put in the public comment or the record in order for the board of supervisors to be considered is to include the equity plan in this project to get as together with the hub area plan. so that is something that i have reiterated in the previous hub area and i would reiterate in this project particularly. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: will we be calling all items at once

or separately so for those that i can support, i will vote yes, and for those that i can't, i can say no. >> clerk: it would be entirely up to you, commissioners. >> vice president moore: i would appreciate if the council take it in parts so we can express our individual thoughts about it. thank you. >> president koppel: go ahead, director. >> director hillis: just to respond to commissioner imperial, i think the request that came up, the center for coalition, we continue to work with them at the request they made after the adoption of the hub plan, which we're working on we wi

on. we will continue that work in hopes that that can be included in the final adoption. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: move to adopt the ceqa findings. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's been a motion made to adopt ceqa findings. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 6-1, with

commissioner imperial voting against. on the shadow findings? >> commissioner fung: move to adopt the shadow findings. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. on the motion to adopt shadow findings -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 5-2, with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. do i hear a motion for the downtown project authorization? >> commissioner fung: so moved. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call]

cle >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-1, with commissioner imperial voting against. do i hear a motion for the conditional use? >> commissioner fung: so moved. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 6-1, with commissioner imperial voting against. leaving the variance for the zoning administrator. what say you? >> i will close the public hearing on the varayanvariance standard conditions. >> clerk: thank you, administrator. that leaves us on item 17 -- [inaudible]

>> clerk: project sponsor and d.r. requester will be limited to a three-minute presentation, and public comment will be limited to one minute. i can see staff is ready so present, so i will pass it off to them. >> thank you, jonas. monica giacomucci, planning department. before you is a conditional use request -- [inaudible] >> -- at 3591 20 street to a limited restaurant. a limited restaurant is a principlely permitted use within the valencia neighborhood commercial transit zoning district. the existing space has been vacant for at least ten years based on research. the subject property is located within the liberty hill planning district. an associated signage permit

will be reviewed by department staff at a later date. the d.r. requester is donald martin capozzi. he's concerned with three main issues. first, that approval of the project is inconsistent with the objectives of the mission area plan. second, that the project did not receive a certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation commission or undergo ceqa review. third, that the sponsor did not identify the name of the proposed business to the department. [inaudible] >> to date, the department has received a total of four letters in support of the d.r. request and 15 letters in support of the proposed change of use from local residents and business owners. additionally, two neighborhood groups, the valencia corridor merchant association and -- [inaudible] >> -- submitted letters in

support of the change of use. in reviewing the request for discretionary review, the department confirmed that the proposed limited restaurant meets the policies and objectives of the mission area plan by eliminating a vacancy within a major commercial corridor and replacing it with a business that promotes a diverse economic base. the change of use does not require certificate of appropriateness because no alterations are proposed at the exterior of the subject property under the scope of the building permit in question, and the project received a categorical exemption pursuant to the california environmental quality act prior to notification. therefore, staff recommends that the commission does not take d.r. and approves the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> clerk: thank you, monica.

is the d.r. requester prepared to present? >> yes, i am present. >> clerk: okay. you will have three minutes. monica, do you need to share a presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: d.r. presenter, i'll notify you when monica is sharing your presentation. please note that there is a 30-second delay, so just speak to the presentation and request that monica go to the next slide. you have three minutes. >> okay. i'm up? thank you. before i start, i would like to highlight the tactics of the project sponsors. i've provided an additional slide of -- [inaudible] >> -- but i was told that it was too late to show you today. these are my intentions.

[inaudible] >> -- i find the sponsors use of hate distasteful, especially in these times. it is surreal that this case is coming today, given how this meeting starts. all right. i will start my presentation now. thank you, again, commissioners, for taking the time to hear this, and thank you, monica, for helping me through this mart. my name is donald -- this process. my name is donald capozzi. my partner, aaron and i both

share a personal connection and we both run garden creamery. i ask you to reject the application on the grounds that the sponsor committed perjury on two separate occasions or directed others to do so in order to expedite the application process. the project sponsor has committed perjury by first lying about the name of their business as matcha ice cream, third, lying about the locations and the leases they operate at, and third, by not listening to brand teachers

like the core, the signage scheme, color combinations, etc. after discovering the perjury, i submitted it to the planning department. the planning department gave the project sponsor another chance to resubmit their affidavit. the project sponsor committed perjury again by lying to a number of businesses. in his submission to the commission, i have demonstrated through a variety of publicly available documents and communications with the project sponsor that represent match and moore willfully misled the planning department and committed perjury. >> clerk: your time is up.

[inaudible] >> i even tried to avoid by one last time to go to community board and go to mediation. so now that i i am here before you today. slide nine. i ask the planning commission -- >> clerk: sir, i apologize. that's your time. you had three minutes for presentation. [inaudible] >> -- submit truthful and correct documents to the planning commission and the public. thank you. >> clerk: you will have a two-minute rebuttal. now is the time for project sponsor to present. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. you have three minutes. your presentation's up. >> thank you. i'm steven williams, and i'm representing jason yu and james mai. these are two hard working young businessman to try to open a japanese style dessert

cafe at the locate 2930 20 street. the d.r. was filed under a fake name for an improper purpose. he's come forward with an application under penalty of perjury claiming this was an error, but if you look at exhibit 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, and 21, submitted by mr. capozzi, you'll see that he continued for three months to send out --

>> clerk: okay. mr. williams, are you still there? >> yes. what do i need to do now? >> clerk: you don't need to do anything. mr. williams needs to unmute his phone. i believe we may have muted the wrong phone line. mr. williams? star-six, mr. williams. mr. williams, are you still there? mr. williams, if you can hear me, you need to press star-six to unmute your phone. we are trying to mute the other

party that was interrupting. your time has been paused. mr. williams, you just need to press star-six. commissioners, at this time, he would have had another two minutes. we might want to go to public comment until mr. williams

comes back in, and then we can go to the project sponsor presentation. >> president koppel: yeah, let's do that, jonas. >> clerk: very good. why don't we open up the public comment portion of this hearing and take public comment. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: i will remind members of the public that this is your opportunity to press one and then zero to enter into the queue. in public comment, as stated previously by the chair, it will be limited to one minute. >> operator: you have 17 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is gordon. i live about three blocks for this project, and i appear in strong support. every one of the so-called homogenized ice cream parlors always have a long line.

we're in the middle of a pandemic, and the golden gate restaurant association estimates that 50% of small businesses in the city are estimated to go under as a result of the pandemic, and here, we have someone trying to open a small business, and they've been delayed 90 days because of this hearing, and i know the commissioners can't change the law, but the -- one thing they can do to help support small businesses in this city is to approve this project as quickly as possible, so i'd ask them to do that. thank you. >> operator: you have 24 questions remaining. >> hi. this is steven voss with yimby. sort of interesting that the d.r. requester has made so many baseless claims and given the impression that this is a court of law. in fact, these claims of

perjury cannot be adjudicated in the planning commission, and i recommend he take these concerns to an actual court. on the subject of the d.r., this is a prime example of the kind of thing that any commission should not engage in. you should not be arbitting between angry millionaires who are mad at each other. thank you. >> operator: you have 23 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is ana mendoza. i live in the city, and i'm happy to live in the city. garden creamery has become a cornerstone in the area, not only the mission, but the area.

i support garden creamery, and i request that the commission grant discretionary review and deny the application. thank you. >> operator: you have 26 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is sam lao, and i'm a frequent diner in the area and a supporter of matcha more. 2020 has turned out differently as many have expected. as we start to open up in phases from the shelter in place, there's going to be a lot less businesses around because they weren't able to survive the crisis. i think any business owners that have the courage to open a business and have the courage to support the community ought to be given a chance to not given up. i urge you to support matcha

more at the 20 street location. >> operator: you have 30 questions remaining. >> hi. i'm a fellow business owner in the mission and a resident of the mission. i found out that matcha more is getting a principlely permitted project, and they're -- principally permitted project, and they're just trying to get off the ground. i support this project and hope that you disapprove the d.r. i'm hoping that they can quickly open. thank you. >> operator: you have 32 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is mike lowe, and i live in san francisco. i've been a customer of garden creamery and its wonderful owners, aaron and donnie, and

support them in the sense of what they bring to the mission. i request that you grant the d.r. and deny the application of matcha n' more. i believe that they should have to submit honest paperwork for this. thank you. >> operator: you have 33 questions remaining. matcha n' mo . >> i think in this climate with the amount of strain small businesses in this city are

facing, we should be enabling the ones that want to open, rather than denying them on technicalities and petty disputes. >> operator: you have 33 questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is ana bell lee, and i'm a small business owner in san francisco. i respectfully request that the planning commission approve garden creamery's d.r. and deny matcha n' more's application.

>> hi. my name is kimberly. i reside in the outer mission district of san francisco, and today, i'm calling in support of matcha n' more. as a san francisco native attending high school in the mission and working at zuckerberg general hospital, it has taught me a lot about the area. unity between competing storefronts is important to make sure that san francisco remains a captivating city, so therefore, i think matcha n' more would add a lot of value to the community by providing new and exciting food options. there's no better way to do this than by introducing a unique and innovative style of ice cream. this can be beneficial for our residents, visitors, and even hospital patients and staff as matcha n' more may become an every day desert, refreshment,

or even catering option for residents, schools, catering, and much more. with that, i kindly ask the commission to deny the discretionary review and allow matcha n' more to continue with the opening. thank you. >> operator: you have 34 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is christine. i live two blocks away from the proposed project, matcha n' more, and i've been living there for years, and i'm in strong support for matcha n' more. as earlier callers said, the mission is a lively district. i'm personally excited to see matcha n' more coming to the city. i recognize that it takes a lot of guts and passion to open a new small business in san francisco. i strongly urge the commission to deny garden creamery's discretion year review and support matcha n' more's -- discretionary review and support matcha n' more's opening. >> operator: you have 34

questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is kenneth russell. why are we trying to put up extra hurdles in front of a business at this point? even if garden creamery was my favorite ice cream place, i would not support this tactic being used against a fellow business. please do not allow our planning process to be weaponized against a competitor. deny this process and allow the project to be completed as quickly as possible. thank you. >> operator: you have 31 questions remaining. >> good evening, everyone. my name is michelle gong, and reside in the richmond district in san francisco. i respectfully support garden creamery's application. i urge the commission to embrace and remember that we need to have economic diversity

and honesty from businesses to assure that everything is above board. i love garden creamery. i bring my family there, and they are truly the best. aaron and donnie embrace all the good in san francisco's small businesses. >> operator: you have 30 questions remaining. >> hi. i am amy lou, and i am from the mission district. i support matcha n' more and request that the commission denies discretionary review and approves the application. matcha n' more is a unique and delicious desert store in which i love all the way from the east coast. we should support small businesses more than ever during the pandemic ain times like this. >> operator: you have 29

questions remaining. >> my name is renee, and i live in the mission, and i'm calling in support of garden creamery. i wanted to point that in the vicinity of garden creamery, we have eight ice cream shops, and to open another ice cream shop, it's ridiculous. i really love ice cream, but i think we need to have more diversity. instead, maybe having a shop that makes some food. thank you. >> operator: you have 29 questions remaining. >> my name is ty, and i'm a native of san francisco. the mission is a beautiful neighborhood that's slowly losing its identity.

i respectfully request that you, the planning department, approve garden creamery's discretionary review and deny the application for matcha n' more. garden creamery has built a community and a neighborhood that has supported my small business, as well. garden creame . >> clerk: i'm going to pause public comment for one moment -- i apologize, ma'am. if you could just hold on for one second, you'll be able to submit your public testimony. i just wanted to remind commissioners and members of the public, d.r. requesters, that when we start approaching 9:00 p.m., we're going to lose this live event. they are limited in time. we did not anticipate this going over, but having said

that, we will certainly be able to accommodate the hearing past 9:00 p.m. everyone should have received a new invitation. callers on the line will not need to log back in. however, i would suggest about 8:50, commissioners and d.r. requesters, project sponsors log out and then log into the 9:00 p.m. invitation that you should have just received, okay? so let's keep that in mind. we will continue with this public testimony until about 8:50 and then transfer over to a new live event on microsoft teams. thank you for your patience in advance. if the caller -- you can go

ahead, please. >> okay. thank you. hi. my name is michelle, and i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm calling as a supporter of garden creamery. i strongly urge that the commissioner approve garden creamery's request. i agree that san francisco needs to focus on their small local businesses and not ones from new york that's going to gentrify our city even more. thank you. >> operator: you have 29 questions remaining. >> hello. my name is carly, and i have lived in the mission for 32 years. i live a block away from garden creamery and the proposed new store. i have seen an awful lot of small businesses have to close down because of bigger places coming in and changing the

mission that i love very dearly. we have three ice cream stores within a block already, and the garden creamery -- the garden creamery by far is more interested in community than anything else. ittine hold community meetings in their shop for all the people around. they're very interested in boosting the world here as we know it. they have a wonderful diverse clientele, and the fact that something bigger, a chain store that's coming out of state underhandedly wants to take over and undermine the community is very disturbing to me. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> so i really urge you to deny the application of matcha n' more. thank you. >> clerk: the next caller. >> operator: you have 28 questions remaining.

>> hi. my name is michael, and i'm a long time resident of san francisco. thank you for hearing my comments. i'd like to voice my support for the committee to approve discretionary review of matcha n' more. i don't believe that matcha n' more's location is in the best standards, and i request that they honestly complete the application so the public and process can move forward. thank you. pray . >> operator: you have 28 questions. >> hi. my name is alan, part of yimby action, and i'm calling in support of matcha n' more. one, i think it should be easier to open businesses in san francisco . two, i think we really need it,

and three, i think it'll add more choice to the area, and as a resident of san francisco, i hope the planning commission takes my needs into consideration and my wants. i love garden creamery, as well. i don't think it has to be a binary choice, and i really hope that those who love garden creamery and are a part of it understand this is not a zero sum game, and this is an opportunity to act cooperatively instead of trying to stop businesses from coming in. thank you. >> operator: you have 27 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. my name is mike chan, and i'm a board member of the asian pacific democratic club. the club is speaking against the discretionary review and approve this application for change of use. i think, you know, personally, i think it's, like, if you want

san francisco to have more small businesses, this is a place that has been closed for ten years and hasn't really had a shop open? and i think that the d.r. requester's concerns are without merit, that the planning department has verified that everything is above board. this is, you know, a small business that is trying to open in the mission, and, you know, i think it is ironic that four years ago, in 2016, garden creamery opened a store next to three or four preexisting ice cream shops in the direct vicinity like vanness, buy rite, and it was fine. it was good to open up next to other ice cream shops -- >> operator: you have 26 questions remaining. >> good evening commissioners.

my name is carmen, and i'm a san francisco native. i'm calling to express my support of the opening of matcha n' more in the mission. as a first generation asian american, i'm excited to see small business opwners and entrepreneurs open small businesses in the city. she shouldn't use competition as an excuse to prevent new merchants from open. adding a japanese inspired business cafe to the mission can only add to the diversity and vibrancy of the neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, i'm going to jump in here one more time just to advise members of the public who are on the 800 line to just hold on. at 8:50, about ten minutes from now, we're going to try to

transfer over to the second live event. everyone who's logged in through microsoft teams, they're going to have to log out and log back in with the second invitation that was sent out via e-mail. callers, do not hangout. you will not need to recall the 800 number or to get back into queue, okay? you will all be able to hold your positions. let's take the next caller. >> operator: you have 25 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is ina. i live in the richmond district here in san francisco. i would like, respectfully, to support garden creamery, of their request, and so i would ask the commission to approve their d.r. to be reviewed, and

to deny the application of matcha n' more. i know aaron and donnie personally, and i know from the heart and the mind that they are full on community diverse advocates. so for that, i request to support their discretionary review. thank you so much. >> operator: you have 24 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is robert, and i live in district 5. i think it's absolutely ridiculous that there are 20-plus people who are fighting over whether or not a soft serve dessert -- >> clerk: chan, did we lose our conference bridge? >> no, i think he got

disconnected. >> clerk: okay. he might have hit the wrong button. let's take the next caller. >> okay. >> operator: you have 23 questions remaining. >> good evening commissioners, and everyone in attendance. i'm marisa chang. i'm born and raised in san francisco and reside in the mission, and i support garden creamery wholly. firstly, this is not a competition, this is about whether or not the right application and information was submitted. secondly, while we are in a pandemic, and i want to see all small businesses do well, along with support many of them during this pandemic and prior, garden creamery has been a staple in the mission. they welcome all to their creamery shop and build relationships -- and have also built relationships with the community and with other small business owners like candy lee

gourmenade. aaron and donnie are huge advocates of the mission. my mother beverly was the president of apala, asian pacific american labor association. i'm very embarrassed -- >> operator: you have 22 questions remaining. >> my name is misha, and i am a proud supporter of garden creamery. i live in the marina district, and garden creamery has been a staple not only in this the mission but to all my family and friends. aaron and donnie hold a special place in the community. they bring so much love and light into the shop and that corner. it's such a special place in my

heart and my family's heart. i am a proud supporter of their request to deny the opening of matcha n' more. >> operator: you have 21 questions remaining. [inaudible] >> i support matcha n' more. i find this d.r. to be, quite frankly, really frivolous and a transparent sad state to deprive competition just following a supseudo private process. we need to have a conversation, like, is this a good use of our

ti time? thank you. >> operator: you have 20 questions remaining. >> hello. i'm mike sizemore, san francisco resident and local strong man. i need as many calories as possible to support my training, therefore, i'm calling in to request the committee to deny the d.r. application and enable more ice cream options for my training. i eat anywhere from a pint to two gallons of ice cream a day, therefore, i'm an ice cream expert in the city. i want more and more ice cream to support my exponential growth. therefore, please, please support more ice cream shops in san francisco. thank you. >> operator: you have 19 questions remaining.

>> hi, good evening. my name is john, and i live in the mission. i'm calling in support of garden creamery discretionary review. i find it really hard to believe that the sponsors motivated by a desire to stifle competition since anyone who knows garden creamery knows that their business is based in collaboration with other mission businesses. however, given how much they care about the mission neighborhood, i can wholeheartedly understand that their desire for businesses entering are honest from the very beginning. therefore, i support their position in that their lee that this business was not honest in their application. >> operator: you have 22

questions remaining. >> hi there. my name is tina sue, and i'm born and raised in san francisco and reside in the mission district. as mentioned already, this is a principally approved project. a change of use does not require a certificate of appropriateness, which is one of the arguments on the d.r. it's not a chain store, and i do not wish the permit process be weaponized to prohibit another business from reopening. i hope people are aware of the economic impact that we have aware. this business will help with the unemployment rate. with that said, i support the opening of matcha n' more and ask the that commission deny discretionary review and accept the application. thank you so much for your time. >> operator: you have 23 questions remaining. >> hi. my name's george chang.

born and raised in san francisco, and i'm an avid fan of garden creamery, which is why i was outraged to see that they were the filers of this discretionary review. it's really sad to see one business going after another. garden creamery knows what it's trying to do. it's trying bleed matcha n' more of cash so they can stifle competition in the neighborhood. it's ironic that when they moved in to an area that already had ice cream shops, it was fine, and they thought that a little competition was not a bad thing, but now that they have competition, it's a different story. as a fan of garden creamery, i'm deeply disappointed in this basis. >> clerk: okay, everybody. i appreciate the vigor with which we're discussing an ice cream shop, but we're going to pause right now for five minutes to give members of the commission, staff, d.r.

requesters, and project sponsors to log out of this live event. we are going to end this live event as soon as my comments are made, and you have all been e-mailed a new join meeting invitation, okay? so i'm going to give everyone five minutes, and everyone who's on the 800 line, you need to do nothing but wait. and i apologize you need to wait, but everybody wants to call about an ice cream shop. so i will now end this live event. we will, again, log out, and then log back in through your new invitation that you received in your e-mail. i apologize that this is going past 9:00 p.m., and i'll just leave it

>> i am j.p., and i am a small business owner. i ask that you take d.r. and hold a review. i've never been the type they've often volunteered their space and experience to help those just starting out, especially those minority owned. donnie and aaron are simply asking for proper business procedures to be followed and are looking after the mission's values of having community leaders that operate with integrity. with that said, i request the approval of the d.r. with the rules that we have in place, small business owners have to be held fairly and equitably to them.

we ask everyone involved to be especially sensitive and educated about how they incorporate certain statements into their claim. >> operator: you have 23 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is shirley. i'm born and raised in san francisco, in the mission district, and i strongly support the opening of matcha n' more. garden creamery is doing the community a disservice by blocking the opening of matcha n' more. with the pandemic, so many small businesses are hurting, and what we need is more unity. garden creamery asking for discretionary review due to

their own fears. i'm friends with the owners of matcha n' more, and they're the most genuine people i've ever met. they poured their hearts into the community. they are a value asset in the neighborhood, and they have nothing but good intentions. please support the opening of matcha n' more. thank you. >> operator: you have 23 questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your time. my name is lisa aguilar, and i live in the outer richmond district of san francisco, and i'm a supporter of garden creamery. garden creamery is a small local business that worked its way from a food truck business to brick and mortar. i support small businesses which sadly have a difficult time opening up and be given the chance to grow and thrive and chain stores many times hinder those efforts. my concern today is the incoming business, matcha n'

more, may have misrepresented themselves in their application, and i simply ask that the planning commission further review the application. and just to add, this really isn't just about ice cream, it's about the owners of a great business who have established relationships with their neighbors not only in the mission district but in san francisco and beyond, and it's concerning to me that a new business will turn them not just into a new city but a new state. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. that is your time.

prard pra >> operator: you have 22 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is suzanne, and i live in the portola district in san francisco. i'm calling to support matcha n' more because it adds diversity to the neighborhood and adds to the growing food

scene in the neighborhood. opening a small business during this time is an incredible feat and forcing a discretionary review would put more burden to a new small business. opening a store would bring more visitors and business to the other businesses in the neighborhood, and i ask that the commission deny the discretionary review and approve matcha n' more's application. thank you. >> operator: you have 20 questions remaining. >> hello. my name is ada, and i reside in the outer richmond district. i would like to take this opportunity to comment in support of the project, 3591 20 street, matcha n' more opening in the neighborhood. i support local business and

matcha n' more will preserve the diversity of the community. matcha has a long and rich history in japan. this will not only bring additional culture and vibrancy to the community, but also give the idea that all are welcome. in light of the recent situation, i would like to say that all small business owners now more than ever are struggling in their communities. in fact, everyone is capable of adding values because we value -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. >> operator: you have 20 questions remaining. >> my name is sharkey liguana. i'm the president of the small

business, but i'm commenting as a small business owner. we do not need to make it more difficult, particularly when it uses principlely permitted, and the property has been vacant for over ten years, i have no doubt that the owners of garden creamery are wonderful people, but i'd urge them to focus on their customers and not the competitors. i'd urge the commission to deny the d.r. thank you. >> operator: you have 19 questions remaining. >> hi. good evening, commissioners. my name is sarah ogilvie, and i live in the mission district. i'm excited for matcha n' more. i absolutely love ice cream. i would love to have more choices, and i would like to see the increase and the draw in new demographics to the community. i just think that this is a

process that's being weaponized right now, and it's just really disconcerting. i think that we should be welcoming new businesses and especially, you know, the owners have expressed that they really want to participate in the community, and most of all, it's been a vacant lot -- you know, it's been a vacant lot for ten years. that's just -- >> operator: you have 18 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is keith, and i live in the mission district, and i'm here to ask you to support the approval of matcha n' more and deny the d.r. this is not the process to hash out a dispute between two local business owners, and i think local commissions shouldn't waste time doing this. thank you. have a good night. >> operator: you have 19 questions remaining.

>> kevin. i live in the portola neighborhood. i support matcha n' more, and i hope you will, as well. jason wu was born and raised in san francisco, and he should have the opportunity to make money in the city he calls home. garden creamery is the height of the gentrification process. it's really rich that they sell themselves as caring about the mission. please do the right thing for matcha. >> clerk: thank you. i'm going to pause for one moment and remind members, d.r. requesters, project sponsors, to please mute your microphones when we're accepting public comment, okay, because you're speaking over public comment and invading the due process. thank you. let's take the next caller.

>> operator: you have 19 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is will. it is past midnight for me, and i am dialing in just for this. matcha n' more is doing more for the community and making use of a vacant property for ten years. during this insane time of n not -- being welcoming, garden creamery's behavior is appalling. [inaudible] >> matcha n' more is not a chain store and does not have multiple locations. please take consideration about the false information of matcha n' more and deny d.r. thank you for your time. >> operator: you have 18 questions remaining.

>> hi. my name is robin park, and i'm a resident in the sunset district, long time supporter of garden creamery. first, thank you so much for hearing all this impassioned testimony. i respectfully ask the commission to approve garden creamery discretionary review. they're a small business that have a track record of supporting other small businesses, and what they're simply asking for is for a finer review of -- [no audio] >> clerk: looks like we lost that caller. let's go to the next one. >> my name is tom, and i've lived in the mission since 2005. i'm calling to support gn