with sand and gravel. in 2000, the space became a spot for the san francisco zoo. these are some memories that many families remember swimming at flyshaker pool. . >> clerk: okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, april 15, 2021. on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of

emergency related to covid-19, and on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely to the end of the shelter in place. this is our 49 meeting remotely, and i think when we reach 50, i'm going to stop counting. remote meetings require most of all your patience. we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 187-744-4056. when we reach the item you are interested in, please press star then three to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your

indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime when your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will tell you your time is up and mute your line to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, turn down down -- speak slowly and clearly, and turn down the volume on your t.v. or computer. i will now call roll. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed

for it happen wans. ice 1, 2019-019822-drp, 4079 cesar chavez street, a discretionary review is proposed for continuance to april 29, 2021. item 2, 2020-008474-cua at 3519 california street, a condition use use authorization is proposed for continuation to april 29, 2021, and item 3, 2020-003223-cua, a conditional

use authorization, proposed for continuance to may 13, 2021. >> director hillis: jonas, there was an item that supervisor peskin requested to be proposed for continuance, item 13. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, that would be a waiver from height, 2018-011269-cua, at 1567 california street. members of the public, if you want to make public comment, press star, three to enter the

queue. >> i'm calling remotely in support of the [inaudible] street project. >> clerk: we haven't reached that item yet, ma'am, so when we do, i'll ask for members of the public to press star, three at that time to make their comments. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: you're welcome. last call, members of the public, for public comment on matters proposed for continuance. seeing none, public comment is closed and the matters are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items as proposed. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue all items as proposed -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us under your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and

considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing, in which we have one request for an item to be removed from the consent calendar. that's item 6, 2020-008507-cua at 2119 castro street, so we will hear that at the end of the calendar. that leaves us with items 4 and 5 on the consent calendar. members of the public, if you would like to make public comment on the consent calendar, please press star,

three now. seeing no members of the public wishing to make public comment, public comment is closed. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to approve items 4 and 5? >> commissioner tanner: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to approve items 4 and 5 on your consent calendar -- [roll call] >> clerk: and commissioner fung, you might try killing your video. that'll oftentimes assist in at least getting your audio through, so if you just turnoff your video camera, that will help. >> commissioner fung: okay. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us under commission matters for item 7, consideration of adoption draft minutes for your march 25 and april 1, 2021 hearings. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star then three to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak at this time, commissioners, public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: move to approve the minutes as submitted. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on the motion to approve the minutes of march 25 and april 1 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us on commission item 8, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i just wanted to note that last week, on the 8th, even though we weren't meeting, there was a virtual ribbon cutting for a streetscape in the excelsior, so i just wanted to commend the staff who worked hard on that, as well as the youth from the

youth art exchange. it's a really fabulous program where they train children to use their artistic skill to create artistic furniture, so such a great opportunity, and another great example that their facility was able to take over a vacant storefront out in the excelsior neighborhood, so again, flexing our opportunities for the store to be a place for young people, when they are able to gather indoors in that space. just want to thank supervisor safai and his staff and

neighborhood for the effort. just really want to comend the supervisor, the staff, and the youth for the really great work. >> vice president moore: commissioner koppel, do you see my name? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you sent that to me privately, but yes, commissioner moore is requesting to speak. >> vice president moore: okay. all attendees, is that what i do? i wanted to thank all staff for the report on the guttenberg project. while i appreciate the submittal, i would appreciate someone from staff with a

landscape background to review what's proposed. one, i would like to see if the planned palate is within the range of what the city recommends for this type of landscaping. in addition to that, i would like to raise my concerns over the use of synthetic grass in these gardens. i find that somewhat inappropriate, do not support it in principle, and i believe if this comes forward as an approval to the commission, i'd like the commission to have a voice in the disadvantage or advantages of synthetic grass because i do not consider them contributing towards quality of life and what a garden is all about. those are my personal points of view, but i would like the department to take a closer look at the details of this updated plan.

>> clerk: commission president koppel, commissioner imperial -- commissioner diamond is requesting to speak. >> president koppel: please go ahead. >> commissioner diamond: i just wanted to second commissioner moore's comments. first of all, i wanted to confirm that you can hear me, jonas, because i'm participating by phone because i can't participate my screen. >> clerk: we can hear you. >> commissioner diamond: thank you for confirming that. i did want to second commissioner moore's comments. i did receive the recommendation in the memo

about the use of synthetic grass. i would like staff to make a hard look at that and see if that's the direction that makes the most sense to go in with those small little patches of synthetic turf sprinkled around this complex, but again, i appreciated the memo and the detail and the plans. >> clerk: okay. if there are no additional requests to speak from commissioners -- i take it back. >> vice president moore: i have one question for the director. we are not to direct staff, we're here to basically be in dialogue and reflect on what staff's doing. in the past few weeks, a number of errors have showed up last minute, and i'm concerned that, for example, with the item that

we took off consent today, there was seven or eight errors, which if the item would have stayed, they probably would not have been noticed. when we are reflecting on a project that's being heard, that's somewhat concerning. i want to ask that question very carefully for what happened on california and polk street, the nonnoticing of the increased height limit, and what does it do when this project was heard two years ago, and we did not know about it, would this have opened up different opportunities for this project? this is a constructive question, not a criticism, but i'd like to get some guidance from the director on this. >> director hillis: yeah, thank you, commissioner moore, and i think not in a fairly similar case there, the california

street error was kind of a change to the height map that was made 20 or 30 years ago. still trying to figure out how that happened. that was an unusual one, but i recognize that the quality control. we've got to step up on some of the reports that we send to you, so thank you for pointing that out. commissioner diamond did the same, and we'll talk to folks and make sure that we're doing the best review and report. >> vice president moore: i'd like to just make a general comment, for all of us on zoom, where everything is far more difficult to create with each other as well as in the larger world, since everything is virtual, it creates an extra load for all of us, but when it

comes to more critical decisions, it would be helpful if that extra minute would be spent to verify that we're all on track. thank you. >> director hillis: fair enough. >> okay. if there's -- >> clerk: if there's nothing further, that would place us under department matters, item 9, director's announcements. >> director hillis: good afternoon, commissioners. just a couple of follow-up items. we talked about the number of hearings and the limitations under s.b. 330. we've since made, at your request, kind of clarifying language to director's bulletin number seven that calls out the fact that independent requests from project sponsors will not count against the hearing limits under s.b. 330, and that's our interpretation of the state code, but we've

discussed that with the city attorney, so we've clarified that in the memo that talks about s.b. 330. and then, you also received two memos regarding how project sponsors in the last five years or so have satisfied their affordable housing obligations. there's a memo how they have satisfied their 415 obligations with other on-site options, and you'll see that 75% over the last five years have selected the on-site option, so the majority of projects. commissioner moore, you asked how many have come back to change from on-site to fee or fee to on-site, we sent that

memo to you, and to the extent you have questions, please let us know. that's all i have. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, director hillis. item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. there was no h.p.c. meeting yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this week's land use committee was cancelled, so i have nothing to report to you on that. the mayor's office ordinance to pass the chinatown passed its second reading, and the japan ywca passed its first read. [inaudible] the subject property is a three-story

single-family residence. the department identified the property as an individual significant resource under criteria three. the ceqa appellants disagreed with the department ease determination, and the proposed project met the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. the appellant focused on approved in-fill of the light wells and removal of the windows on the side facade and removal of existing structure at the rear. the appellant's qualified preservation consultant argued that the features would result in an adverse change to the historic resource. the day of the appeal, the commission received new information on historic review.

supervisor peskin asked the e.r.o. if the department would rescind the categorical exemption. for this, the department determined it was appropriate more time to make the determination and then make the determine whether it was appropriate to deny or grant the f.x. on the substance of the appeal, supervisor peskin stated that while the appeal was a neighborhood dispute, it also has large implications for north beach. during public comment, one neighbor had no issue with the project and supported upholding the cad ex, while there was no

opposition to the appeal. in the end, supervisor peskin made a motion to uphold the appeal and deny the cad ex. this motion passed 10-1, with supervisor melgar with the dissenting vote. finally, i would like to ask your indulgence as a close with a short poem. fair in your hills, my city, fair in her old. supreme in her splendor, facing the city of gold. city of old, city of dreams. happy birthday, san francisco. >> clerk: thank you for that,

mr. starr. you got me all thrown up. on behalf of the deputy zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night on several items that may be of interest to the commission. the first is that commissioner santacana has resigned from the board of appeals. second is that 4840 mission street, the board hearing a rehearing hearing for the request of a demolition permit for this project. the appellant argued that this affordable housing would result in increased crime and decrease property value, requiring a taking. the board denied the appeal.

finally, at 41 cronquist court, the board heard an appeal of an alteration project to allow decks at the side of the property. the board heard this as an appeal on january 30, 2020, and took d-r -- d.r. on the stairs from the side of the property to the rear. the department noted that the proposed planter was the largest that could be accommodated in accordance with the decision. the board unanimously denied the appeal and approved the

project as proposed. if there are no questions, commissioners, we should move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction with respect to agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each speaker will be allowed three minutes to provide public comment. when public comment exceeds 15 minutes, public comment will be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star and then three, and through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> linda chapman. with regard to the issue of quality control and, you know,

surprises and so forth, i was very surprised to receive a courteous call from the director on the subject of our height limits, among i things. i was never actually to reach the planner in charge on that polk and california street site because he does not take phone calls, so i was not able to get written materials on it until there was a copy on the agenda and so forth. but i am still waiting for the records of the zoning actions that took place that reduce the height limits throughout almost all of nob hill to 65 feet, including the entire neighborhood commercial district, including the sites that have been built and are proposed for building higher between polk and vanness. vanness had a higher height

limit for one lot along van ness. the maps that i have bear no resemblance to the two or three additional rezoning that went there. i ask, you know, lower polk neighbors [inaudible] to consider that this is the only neighborhood commercial district, the only historic neighborhood that has any kind of development like that going on, like what is happening around bush and pine and so forth. nob hill has been turned into a redevelopment area like the

fillmore was at one time just recently, and because of that particular group, and the planning commission acting as if they were representing the community, and the fact, you know, what happened to the -- >> clerk: thank you, miss chapman. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastasia ionnapoulos. i'm glad that director hillis has clarified the continuances, and i wonder if that information is available to the

public, because we had a question on that. and on the sites -- off-sites buildings, and the information that you were able to gather on that, two different sites, is that information also available to the public? and one other item, i didn't hear the first item that's proposed for continuance. is item 12 on today's agenda, jonas? >> clerk: item 12 is on today's agenda. >> thank you. >> oh, hi. good afternoon. it's georgia schiutish. you had the illegal demolition

at 403 28 street, and i think that's a case of behavior defined policy. the executive hearing document says on page 7, quote, applicants who would otherwise apply for a demolition permit have attempted to avoid review under the commission's policy by configuring their projects to comply with the technicalities of d.b.i.'s approval of a project rather than a demolition. this section 317 defines demolition independently of that determination so that projects that propose removal of a substantial portion of their building envelopes will be subject to the requirements of section 317, close quote. section 317 requirements implemented policy approved in 2008 to correct bad behavior.

the 2016 staff training manual tried to thwart that behavior. adjustments to the calcs is required to deal with policy defining behavior. the existing calcs are too large. they require reduction pursuant to planning code b-2-d. that's all. thanks. be well, be safe, good-bye. >> yes. my name is michael nolte, and i wanted to reiterate some of the issues that linda chapman was bringing up about the issues that seemed to be occurring along the lower polk corridor, and on the agenda, that was -- supposed for the meeting yesterday, it was also talking about the renaming of lower polk neighborhood, and i have concerns about how can a neighborhood decide to rename

itself, and especially since it's a -- you know, lower polk has been an on going name as far as polk gulch goes. so as a native of san francisco, i'm kind of concerned about how neighborhood organizations are sometimes doing things that maybe are out of their purview. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is david elliott lewis. long time resident of san francisco, almost 40 years, and member of tenderloin people of congress. my understanding as part of your approval process for new projects, that project, in addition to meeting code, has to meet the most basic

fundamental criteria being necessary and desirable. when i look at some of the projects under consideration and your past decisions, i question whether that necessary and desirable, really, whether a project is desirable for the neighborhood really helps. there are projects coming up in a involve, for example, really -- that involve, for example, really small units that are going to be in existence for decades, maybe 100 years, maybe much longer, and do we really want this kind of housing in our neighborhood? that's just one example of many, but i ask that you take that consideration seriously as you evaluate each new project, that how will it really serve the community in the long run, not just make the developer a short-term profit, but really make a community benefit. that means including open space and greenery and maybe leaf

certification and environmental quality of the building, there's all kinds of things you can do to make a building more desirable for the neighborhood, and maybe aesthetics, because a lot of the aesthetics have been poor for the neighborhood. you can consider that when you make the decisions. that's all. thank you for your time and attention. >> hi. this is theresa exxon. i'm with project access, a quality residence access provider for low and very low-income community. i'm calling to ask for your support in the 450 o'farrell housing project. >> clerk: okay. ma'am, i'm going to have to cut you off at this time because we're not talking about 450

o'farrell. we're only taking general public comment. we will be calling that item next, so just hold onto that thought. go ahead, caller. we're taking general public comment for items not on today's agenda. okay. i guess they did not want to speak to general public comment. so last call for general public comment. you need to press star then three to be added to the queue. for items on today's agenda, we will be requesting public comment when that item is called. we have one more caller. >> when you hear that your line's been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking.

>> my name is jason crossland. i am a fourth generation san franciscan, and a tenant leader for the central city [inaudible] -- oh. >> clerk: sir, did you want to conclude your comments? >> yes. i feel that the project is not reflective of the needs and wants of the tenderloin neighborhood. we have too many high density-type buildings already. more importantly, there's a tendency of not working with the community. >> clerk: sir, i'm going to stop you. are you speaking to 450 o'farrell here? >> yes. >> clerk: as i told the woman

before you, we're not taking comment on 450 o'farrell just yet, okay? we will be doing that next. for items not on today's agenda, to make public comment, press star, three. all right. seeing no further commenters, public comment is closed. >> director hillis: jonas, can i just make one comment to miss ionnapoulos' question? the link to today's agenda can be found under director's report. >> clerk: and it will be listed under packet materials on the commission page.

commissioners, that will place us on item 11 on your regular calendar, 2013-1535-cua-02, 4550 through 474 o'farrell street and 532 jones street. this is a condition of approval. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> president koppel: just a note, normally, i would be allowing five minutes, but in this case, i'm allowing ten because we might have to go over some of the previously reviewed materials. >> clerk: thank you for that clarification. staff? >> is it possible to pass me the ball so i can share my

screen? >> clerk: yes, i need to do that. >> thank you. >> clerk: although miss grob, i don't see you on our -- because you are not a panelist, so -- >> oh, okay. this is -- i gotcha, because i didn't have video until right now. >> clerk: okay. you have the ball and should be able to share your screen now. >> awesome. thank you. it's still thinking about sharing the screen. it's not giving me that option yet. >> clerk: you should have the option. >> my share is grayed out. >> clerk: let me take it away and give it back to you and see if it comes up. >> thank you.

>> clerk: anything? >> nothing. >> clerk: okay. let me see if my staff can put up the presentation. >> okay. this is going to staff right now, and what i can do, i can start with my presentation, if that works, or do you want to wait until it's in hand?

>> clerk: why don't you go ahead and start, and then, we'll pull up your presentation as soon as we're able. >> okay. sounds good. okay. i want to make sure [inaudible] umm, okay. good afternoon, commissioners. karly grob, planning department staff. the item before you is a request to modify the conditions of approval for the project at 450 o'farrell, which is located in the rc-4 zoning district and the 80-2-1-t planning district. the site is comprised of three lots with a total area of approximately 22,105 square feet. on september 13, 2018, the planning commission approved demolition of three buildings, including the current location of the fifth church of christ scientist and the construction

of a 13-story project at the subject property. the approved project including 176 dwelling units, ground floor retail, an institutional space where the church could be relocated, and ground floor parking. during this presentations, i will refer to this project as version one, or the original project. the original project required a conditional use authorization for the following reasons: one, a planned unit development or p.u.d., with the exception from rear yard, permitted, and loading structure, two, the demolition of five residential units, five, height competing 70 feet in a residential zone, and for the establishment of a new religious institutional use. in january 2020, the current sponsor submitted a conditional use authorization to modify the

original project. this modification would replace the 176 approved dwelling units with 302 group housing rooms and a total of 316 beds. >> clerk: carly, i'm sorry to interrupt you, but i wanted to let you know that your presentation slides are up, and if you want to go to your next slide, you'll have to let josey know. >> thank you. actually, these aren't my slides, these are the project sponsors slides. >> clerk: okay. i didn't know they weren't your slides. >> that's okay. this modification also removes the off street parking. the massing of the building remains the same except that the area of the rear yard set back has been increased to

greater set back. this revised project, which i will refer to as version two, still requires the approved conditional use authorization, except that it no longer requires p.u.d. exceptions from exposure or permitted obstructions. version two was initially scheduled for hearing in january of this year. during the community outreach for the project, the sponsor received concern from individual housing to group rooms. in approximate response to community -- in response to community concerns, the project sponsor has continued to revise the project to accommodate larger rooms intended to serve families. this project, which i will refer to version three, would decrease the number of

familiar -- increase the families helped -- change the number of families helped from 360 to 316. version three was not finalized at the time the packets were published. in order to proceed with version three, the project sponsor must make revisions to address minor outstanding code compliance items and must publish a revised e.i.r. in a moment, the project sponsor will present a presentation for version two and version three. the department is generally in support of the modification of conditions of approval and the proposed group housing project is on balance, consistent with the general plan, the planning

code, and the original approval. should the planning commission elect to approve the project today, it would be 302 group housing rooms. instead of approving version two, the commission may instead instruct staff to continue to approve version three. finally, since packets were published last week, the department has received two additional letters of support and five additional letters in opposition. letters of support indicate the need of housing in the city while letters of opposition state density housing and change from the project

proposed during community outreach. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> clerk: thank you, carly. mr. zucker, you'll have ten minutes through the chair. mr. zucker, are you with er, i computer. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. in the future, would you please advise us that you want to call in via phone. you have ten minutes, and your slides are up.

>> good afternoon, president koppel, commissioners. our presentation includes our church board president, ellis strom, and from forge development project, david zucker. ella will begin our presentation. ella? >> thank you, david. commissioners, good afternoon. next slide, please. slide two. the church is requesting today your approval of a change from traditional luxury type of dwelling units to an innovative workforce essential housing. building housing on our under utilized land, housing which families can afford, has been at the heart of our mission statement for the project. slide three, please. not only will this project

benefit the local tenderloin community but it will also enable the church to fulfill its mission as a christian science church, which it's unable to do in its current structure. this rendering shows the entrance to the new christian science reading room, directly accessible from the street, with the sanctuary located right behind it. slide four, please. since from about mid 1980s, we have been trying to find a way to build workforce housing. the developer we were working with withdrew from the project due to financial conditions.

richard [inaudible], a friend from the 1980s, and forge, stepped in to save the project, and with the help of the planning department, came up with the idea for this development project. >> with the revised project, housing is more affordable, better designed, and more aligned with the church project mission statement. what's this involve specifically? thanks to clarifications from the planning department and the zoning administrator, we're now understanding more of what's allowed by code on our project as a principally permitted use. in our most recently change in response to community suggestion is to include larger residences for larger families and households.

slide six, please. cutting edge technology results in a highly efficient and sustainable building. and this is important: having housing that is more affordable, as our amendment does, enables the city to remove a current barrier to social equity. the amendment would make the city a fairer place to live. slide seven, please. our project is aligned with the church's initiative, and this is a way that we can all contribute. >> thank you, commissioners, for your time this afternoon.

my name is alexander [inaudible] with forge development partners, and thank you, carly, for highlighting some of the aspects of the version two of the project, and now, we're going to focus on version three of the project. just to clarify, what's up for discussion is the permission from the development to group housing units. the project also contains over 14,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor amenity spaces, including a roof deck, two interior courtyards, and ample indoor amenity spaces that will

be passed out. resident kitchens, a gym, and after-school care, etc. slide eight, please. the affordability difference between the two projects, on the top, you have the previously approved luxury rate product. you can see they have 28 units below a.m.i., so they list limited brackets here. compare that to our 316 unit essential housing product below, and you'll see that we add 48 additional units below 150% a.m.i. slide nine, please.

a quick summary of our community outreach. we've been doing community outreach on this project for five years now. we've had countless meetings in various different forms, town hall meetings, individual project briefings, community briefings, and meetings with our neighbors, and over the past couple of years, we've had 17 letters of support and over 110 signatures of support on our petition. here's a look at the ground floor of our project. you'll notice it looks pretty close to the original project, church taking up most of the room with their reading room on o'farrell street, residential amenities in dark purple and on the corner of shannon and o'farrell in light pink, you'll

see a retail space. slide 11. so kind of wanted to show you what the change was between v-2 and v-3. we had a lot of community feedback and have been working with the planning department to refine that. you'll notice the community amenity space in purple in the lower right hand, and that has, in v-3, been converted to a large family-style unit of over 800 square feet. slide 12, please. you can see here that converted to a unit and the amenity space moved to the middle of the area. slide 13, please. wanted to give you an idea and some artist renderings of the

spices. so these are some artist rendering and potential furnishings for the projects. you'll notice that each unit does have a private bathroom and cooking facility. this is one of our smallest units at a dining time. slide 14. here's another view of that same unit. this is right from the entryway if you had just walked in the front door. slide 15, please. here's one of our medium-sized units. again, you'll notice a private bathroom and cooking facility. slide 16, please. another view of that same unit. slide 17, please. this is our largest unit, the one we've been working with planning on over the past couple of months. you'll again notice private bath rooms and cooking facilities. slide 18, please.

another view of that same unit. next slide, please, 19. and here is the facade that we spent so along working with planning. you'll notice that kind of the modern building fitting directly into the neighborhood character. the adjacent properties are kind of long, skinny, punched buildings with tripartheid design. that's the end of our presentation. we have the whole team on the line here to answer any questions you might have. thank you all for your time. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this item, 450 o'farrell, by

pressing star then three to be entered into the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your opportunity to begin speaking. you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon, mr. president and members of the commission. my name is michael shonefeld. i'm the attorney representing the neighbor at the pacific bay inn, which is at the corner of jones and o'farrell. that is a 113-year-old building, built 1908, and it currently houses homeless residents and -- with a tenant cy, that ties to the city itself. you can see it's a aged building. it's seven stories high. this building is going to be within 10 inches, almost called

a zero set back of the east facing facade of that building, and it will obliterate all by one window facing to the east and light wells. the more important issue we have is the discovery that the footings for the foundation of that building encroach on the project site. that was information that was not discussed, disclosed, or revealed in any of the ceqa documents, including the addendum. it's new information, and it clearly has implications that need to be look at before there's any adoption of a ceqa addendum. that's what we're asking for. what are the implications? well, there are plenty. this is going to have at least a 16-foot deep excavation right up against that building.

presumably, what will it do to the old pacific bay inn buildings? how will it present to the residents who live there? we cited in our january 7 letter concerns of obliteration to all windows to the east that face out over the current one-story building, the loss of light shade, and now more important is this potential hazard. this is a critical issue for ceqa. i think that public health lies at the heart of environmental concerns, and with this information, we just need some time to get geotechs in there to find out what these excavations, what these construction plans may do. and it may be minimal, but it may be very drastic, and it may imperil the health and safety of the residents of that

building, and it may imperil the historic pacific bay inn. we're just asking to push out any approval of the project or the ceqa addendum to allow us to get geotech engineers to look at this. and until you do this -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kathy vaughn, and i live in the -- i'm a resident of the tenderloin, and i'm also on the ccsro land use committee. the developer did not amicably engage community engagement around the design. if they did, they would have heard concerns about overcrowding on the need for

family units. on o'farrell, there is already a lot of group housing. we are concerned that the plan represents new units would replicate the overcrowding many low-income families currently experience. there is a need for family units, and we would like to see this project have some units at 1,000 square feet. the tenderloin does not need group housing that can accommodate more than 1,000 residents. we urge the commission to urge the developer to go back to the drawing board and develop housing more reflective of our community needs. thank you. >> garn, commissioners and

public. my name is dale seymour. i've been in the tenderloin 35 years. it's a great neighborhood. i was just at an event a few minutes ago where our supervisor said the tenderloin is the most welcoming neighborhood in the city of san francisco, and we should not be taking it upon ourselves to deny entering anyone in this community. i'm concerned about how this project will affect our streets and our sidewalks, and i'm 100% housing. i just can't go against anything that combines housing. some of calls have suggested that the developer take it back to the drug board. if that happens, we will not have how's -- to the drawing board. if that happens, we will not have housing at that location. i know it's not the best situation for everyone, and the

only thing that i'm not really good with is just the language from the developer, where they are talking about a private bathroom is an amenity. that's not an amenity. that needs to be involved in any project in 2021. so i would like to see a planning commission goal and make any deal they have to with the developer. we have 30, 40 people living outside on the block right now. do you think tyrone cares about the square footage? do you think sheela cares about the square footage? i don't think so. just get this project approved and stop with the run around. thank you. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> hello. my name is amos gregory, and

i'm the founder and director of the [inaudible] project. we sit about 25 feet from the church. we've been there ten years. we're a health and wellness organization, and we feel that currently the developer offering, you know, 22 units out of their 316 units, from 600 to 330 square feet was vocal and adequate for the community. [inaudible] in qi would replicate the overcrowding that many low-income families are currently experiencing across the tenderloin. the tenderloin also does not need a project that houses more than 600 people in that building. i'm looking at this design

here, and this design here does not show any path forward for any folks that are transitioning out of houseless -- or being unhoused into a housing environment, so essentially, it's not really taking care of our needs. they haven't done any true, like, social equity impact studies in that community to look at what the graphics and area of that neighborhood look like. thank you. >> hello. this is susan bryan. i live in the tenderloin. i'm a member of the alliance for a better district 6, and we're concerned about the potential 600 people and two

persons per small unit. this is -- it's kind of hard to live that way, and these people will have jobs, and the problem is that it's kind of tied in. i know what it's like to live in these reduced circumstances. i would think that people would prefer to be able to spread out just a little bit if they're a family. also, i'm wondering about the infrastructure. the sewer and the pipes and all of the things that are there, if they will be -- if the burden on the infrastructure would be increased?

also, storage. people living under -- living like that have a hard time living like that or would they have to purchase elsewhere? thank you. >> hi. my name is martha, and i'm in great support of the building project as presented by the sponsor. i think that the comments that we've heard so far really are interesting, but i've also

heard the adage, don't let the concept of perfection get in the way of what's good, and it is good to get affordable housing for people who are essential workers who live and work in san francisco and to have the opportunity as is presented by this church in adding and amending and enhancing the neighborhood of which they've been a part since 1923. i think it's such a forward move, and i think we can embrace it and adapt to it and be greatly benefited, all of us. thank you.

>> hello, commissioners. thank you. my name is curtis [inaudible] and i am the chair of the tenderloin people's [inaudible]. i am a long time tenderloin resident, and i also work in the tenderloin neighborhood full time, a community organizer. i've been there well over a decade, and i'm calling today because i'm actually taking a position of opposing this project, and i'm saying that for a couple of reasons. we supported the idea of this project. we like the concept, the housing, the community. we talked to the developer on-site on quite an on going basis. this project isn't the right kind of project for this district. we already have the highest density of the city, and continuing to add to the

density isn't the way to go. people often refer to the tenderloin as the deposit building in the [inaudible] none of these units will be -- people living in the tenderloin will not be able to afford to live in these buildings. these units will be placed out of reach of people living in the area and people that are sleeping on the sidewalk. the 20 or 30 people that are living on the sidewalk, i think they're going to be pushed out. i have lived in a unit that was

actually a little bit over 200 square feet, and it was really -- it was dehumanizing is the only way i can frame it. so the housing, you should reconsider. just go back and think about it a little longer -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> hello. i'm reginald meadows, and i just want to say number one [inaudible] that's not right or fair, to be equal. now, i see here where they say essential workers need a place to say. [inaudible] you say there's working class people here. those who come here already had jobs, and they put us on the street while they built those places for people who are coming, and it's not right.

i think this whole project stinks because they did not take the time to talk to us [inaudible], and now, you're here today, kind of [inaudible] but you have not even taken the time, the needed time, to talk to the community at hand. you find out from the city and the community about everything, you would have had to go back. [inaudible] tough. you should go back to the drawing board like you said two years before and do this thing right. make it fair for everybody. not just the wealthy, not just the first-class people, but for everyone. we all deserve a home. we should not be sleeping on the streets while you keep building for these people that keep coming here. thank you. >> hi. my name is lester johnson, and

i'd like to say, first of all, let's be clear, this is not housing, this is warehousing. this place isn't a place to build a home. it's a high end bunk house [inaudible] and building oversized complexes in densely populated areas. the consequences of that are going to be predictable. there are going to be hundreds of residents that outpriced units are going to be [inaudible] there's going to be conflict, cops with guns, and residents of the portola community are going to suffer with bad decisions by the

developers. i'm not against housing, but i am against [inaudible] i'm not against profits, but i am against profiteering. once again, don't let the developers walk away with pockets full of cash while we suffer the consequences. thank you. >> hello. my name is don laffey. i've been a resident of san francisco over 60 years, and my wife and i have are a member of the science church. we are in support of this project that will bring a sense of community and home to the neighborhood, and we know it will support the neighborhood in multiple ways.

thank you. >> hello. my name is steven tennis. i am a tenant leader, and i live in an s.r.o., and i volunteer for two nonprofit organizations, of which one is s.r.o. collaborative. [inaudible] also, as land use committee supports the previous building project [inaudible] which was family housing for 176 units, and i don't understand why that wasn't good enough, but i think that's what a lot of people would support. the reason being, we don't know and understand the fact [inaudible] our families, that's the backbone. that's what will make, that's what will sustain our community for the long-term, and that's what it's all about. we don't need single dwelling people to come and go, we need family units. so we urge the commission to

engage the developers to go back to the drawing board and develop a proposal of long-term stakeholders and their needs. again, my name is steven tennis, and i thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition in support of the proposal in front of you today. we had previously shared our report card for the project, and so i do not want to reiterate those points, but a couple of additional items. number one, we absolutely need more family housing in san francisco, and we absolutely need more middle-income housing in san francisco, and we absolutely need more housing of all times for transitional age youth and housing for seniors.

it all comes down to the problem that we don't have enough housing for the people that want to live here, so adding housing is incredibly important. when we have a proposal that will provide middle-income housing because of the design with no subsidy, then that's really a win-win. we're aiming projects with the intent of subsidizing it, and that's good, but when we have the opportunity to do so at no cost to taxpayers, we cannot let that opportunity pass. next thing i want to share is i shared a petition with you previously. 45 additional names in support of the project. 40 of those names indicated they lived in zip codes 94109

or 94102, which is the same neighborhood as the project. so please consider those additional 45 voices when you consider this item here today. it's not always easy to leave work at 2:00 in the afternoon to attend planning commission. >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gabriela ruiz, and i am the planning and policy manager at tndc, a local policy and housing developer, and we would like to make comment on

450 o'farrell and make it known that the developer did not engage in proper community feedback on the design. since then, we have fortunately sat down with planning and the project sponsor scheme to make changes to the project where the developer imagines all projects designated over 600 square feet for families. version three does not seem sufficient considering the size of the project. we urge the commissioners, as well, to encourage the developers to go back to the drawing board and develop a project alongside stakeholders from beginning to end, and we'd like to point out that there is an equity issue that goes beyond this project as residents have seen an alarming trend of project developers not

engaging in genuine community engagement. we must set a standard that all developers, especially market rate developers in sensitive communities sit down with stakeholders to influence the project at planning to ensure that what is being built is in response to what is needed by the community. in general, tndc is not against this type of housing, but in the context of this location in a very dense neighborhood, we see an inequitable distribution of this type of housing, so we would like to see a pause on market-rate group housing in the tenderloin in the future. thank you. >> yes. my name is david elliott lewis.

i'm a long time member of the central city s.r.o. project land use community and have been following this project sometime. i also live a block away and can literally see the project from my window. i lived in a 225 square foot apartment for over a decade, equivalent to the sort of density that this building will have. it was oppressive, a damaging way to live. allowing dwelling units of this size, that's a really bad precedent in terms of lowering the quality of life for future residents. it also makes it difficult to have roommates, to have couples living together in such tiny units. it's also not covid safe. coronavirus is a sad fact, and it's not going away any time

soon. look at all the emerging cases, look at all the variants, which are vaccine resistant. it just doesn't make good public health sense. this is a dangerous project in terms of public health. finally, it's a necessary or desirable project. it needs to be revised. please send this project back to revision, and redesign and give the community something it really needs. again, this is david elliott lewis. thank you for your time and attention. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i oversee the community organizing department of [inaudible] housing clinic, and you've heard from some of the

land use members here. we had initially supported the project when it was a family housing because we felt that was the greater need in this community. but as of last year, late last year is when we learned about this project, and that's when we got together to ask why the project had been changed, and we found out it had been changed from 176 family units to 302, and now, with a lot of push, to 316 units with larger units after hearing a lot of concerns. so i just want to take this opportunity, i don't want to reiterate again. in tenderloin, we need more family housing in this neighborhood, and i want to basically echo what gabby said about how we can have more family units in this particular

project. right now, -- we urge you to basically ask will developer to go back and develop a better plan so that we can all agree upon. thanks.

>> i have been here through 40

years of the members of this church looking to create affordable housing, and this is the best iteration we've seen yet. the luxury housing did not go through. they did not find the funding for it, so we are grateful to forge for finding a way of getting affordable housing for people who can work in the city. the best part of this project is the reading room being right on the ground floor so that we can continue our church mission of healing and outreach to the community. our church is unanimously behind this project. it is the future of our church in the tenderloin, and i remember collecting signatures on the sidewalk, and many

people asked, well, will the units be affordable? version -- the version before the forge version was luxury, so i'm looking forward to amplifying the good that is in the tenderloin and to give affordable housing the chance. thank you. >> hi. this is chris [inaudible]. i am a 20-year member of this church. i was on the board, and i've reviewed almost every project that's come through, including the contract. this project will provide housing, safety. the number of people i think is wonderful because these are customers for new businesses, and we need new business to start, so all of these family-owned businesses. it will provide innovation and

beauty and housing. each of the project that has been proposed over the decades has been rejected because of the reason of the density or it's too small. look at hgtv and tiny homes. all kinds of people are moving into small housing and loving it. i think innovation, make a tweak here or tweak there, i don't know, but i wholeheartedly support this, and san francisco needs this type of project to move forward from the paradigm of s.r.o. this is a place of luxury that few people can afford, particularly middle class people. the size might appear daunting, but it is not. i hope that the board will

approve this project and go forward with it. it at least is needed for san francisco, and is a move forward. i thank you for the opportunity and to make a comment and for the work that you have done to clarify both the need, and i want to make a comment that many, many, many meetings have been held with individuals, with community groups, with opportunities to have an input. it has not been a top-down rule, do this. it's been a what do you want? how can we make it better? >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> hi. my name is jeff pollack. i've lived in san francisco 15 years, and i just want to speak

in support of the climate crisis, that we currently have a problem where people are commuting to san francisco because they can't afford to live in the city because there's not enough space, and these people have done a great job putting together more housing that uses less space and less water. if we care about people, we'll build more developments like this, so thank you to the developer and thank you to the church for this fantastic project. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john mitchell, and i am a resident of san francisco for 23 years, and i run a nonprofit here in the -- in the city, in the west portal area. we have 61 staff members. we vitally need and must support families with this type of housing.

i am a practicing christian scientist and an active christian scientist and has watched this type of housing. the church has expressed incredible engagement. this is one, hopefully one project out of many. we can't put everything into this project. other developers will look at this project to see how the city operates. we are described as the city that knows how. well, let's show it, and by going forward, this was approved in 2018. it's difficult when the goal posts keeping moving, and so let's get started, and other developers and other churches or communities of faith will see, gosh, this is how they were treated. we'd like to do this, too, to be more fully engaged in our community and build up the tenderloin which has lagged behind all the years that i've

lived here. we need to support the tenderloin, and this is a wonderful way to do it. it's a unique opportunity. the church has done a great job. we urge you to consider this. it's very thoughtfully done. the units will be for, you know, hard working individuals and families, and people don't live in one place forever. let's remember this, as well, but if we don't do this, we'll really regret it. >> hello, this is cheryl.

can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> i want to support this project wholeheartedly. i've visited from out of state to that tenderloin area, and i've attended the church of christian science there on fifth. i am a student of christian science, and this church loves their community. i love this community. we are committed to making things better, and i have to support all those previous comments. the one thing that i want to bring up is i have lived in a 300 square foot unit for several years, and it is doable, and the reason it's doable is because the space is for living, eating your dinner, enjoying a relaxing evening. this project has a community area where you can engage with others and visit. also, i want to bring up that renting these units is a

choice. nobody is going to move into a unit that they don't want to move into, and that they have the offerings of the small, medium, and larger units, and also the 48 units that are more affordable for people with lower incomes. it's marvelous for grandparents who perhaps want to live with a grandchild or an adult child. this is an opportunity for someone like me to live in the city that i love. i do want to thank you and the planning commission, and embrace everyone. that tenderloin area is loved. everyone's comments are appreciated, and i know that wholeheartedly that the group that would be continuing with the project would never impugn the safety of their neighbors, and they have been and will continue to work with the neighbors and meet the neighbors' needs, and i do trust in this. and i do thank you for the

time. good-bye. >> hello. my name is jason crossland, and i'm a fourth generation san franciscan, s.r.o. tenant, and a member of the [inaudible] collaborative. we have too many high density s.r.o.-type buildings already. more importantly, there's a [inaudible] in distance to working with the community. we weren't given enough time to work with the revisions. to me, it feels like warehousing in the densest part of the city, and not all housing is good housing. therefore, i'm asking that maybe we work together in trying to make this right for everybody. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. this is casey asbury with the demonstration gardens. i'm an environmental activist, and i work with environmental justice with the tenderloin people's congress. i want to speak in opposition to the current iteration of the project. while i applaud the effort of the church, i want to know that when people are suggesting that it's fine for tenderloin residents to live in very tiny homes, they may be thinking in the context of tiny homes embedded in a large amount of open space. that's not this situation with this tenderloin development. i want to advocate for housing that meets the needs of the people who are already in the

community first. market rate microunit congregate housing was banned in soma and prohibited in the mission, but it's being rushed through in the tenderloin. to allow this containment zone planning mentality to continue in the tenderloin as we recover from covid and don't quite know yet what will be needed with changes in local officing demand would appear precipitous. while it's abundantly clear that san francisco needs more homes and more access to affordable homes and below market rate homes, the tenderloin neighborhood especially does not need higher density of market rate housing designed to support transient residents with high incomes. as population density increases, sufficient public green space and street trees must be afforded by and through each of these development

projects, and this isn't happening. concentration of microunit group housing in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods operates as a form of modern day red lining. this is a practice that was made illegal -- >> clerk: thank you. that was your time. >> yes, hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> oh, great. so -- my name is eric, and -- let's see, so, yeah, today is april 15. i'm grateful for this meeting that finally has been postponed, postponed, for years. i'm a regular attendee at fifth

church of christian science, and also today's my birthday, which i would want nothing more for my birthday than this project to be approved. this has been years that i've heard about this, and i'm still -- i just think it's a great event to utilize that space for -- you know, instead of just having the church there, which that's been there 100 years, and they could redo the church, why not use the space and make the church smaller because we don't need that -- they don't need that huge space just for the church, that they could use it for housing, to utilize the space, which i could see would be totally useful, especially in

this city. i live here in soma. i'm not -- i'm .7 miles away from the church on third and mission. i rent a b.m.r. i've been in a b.m.r. for 16 years. before that, i stayed at perry street, which are single occupant rooms, which i'm very grateful for that. it's still rocking and rolling. it's the yerba buena gardens at perry. also, that area basically is union square. you're saying tenderloin. to me, tenderloin is a little -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> hello. i'm phyllis clark. i am a christian scientist, and i'm very much in favor of this project. i believe it's the right idea

to give people in san francisco housing that they can afford so they don't have to give their energy to commuting every day instead of contributing to the locality where they're working, and i thank you to the church for all the efforts they have made, and i believe that their presence will contribute to the community there. it'll be working for good and not against in what is already a good community. thank you for letting me share, and i hope that you approve this project. good-bye. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sarah ogilvie, and i'm calling from the mission. however, i have lived in the tenderloin for many years. i enthusiastically support bringing these homes to that area. these much needed residences

are really important to helping alleviate san francisco's housing shortages. i think it's a beautiful use. preservation of the building facade is really nice. the bicycle parking spots, no vehicle parking, and just, you know, that walkability to muni and b.a.r.t., as we recover from this devastating health crisis, it's going to be critical not just for people to access the area where they work, but to be able to access the bay area and everything it has to offer. as somebody who's renting in san francisco, i would love to be able to give more people the opportunity to rent in san francisco, and the only way

we're going to be able to do that is to create more homes, and it's a city, and, you know, we do trade off, you know? we may not have as much space. i'm living in a very small unit, but i have a park, you know, and i have outdoor space. there's plenty of places to walk, and there's a sense of community all-around me. so let's bring that to this site. these homes are urgently needed, and the longer that we delay is the longer that we're depriving people who really need homes the opportunity to find them. so let's please stop delaying. i support all of the christian scientists' comments. i think they know their church and they know the community really well. everybody knows their community well, and everybody knows that the tenderloin is most exciting when it's a vibrant place for all. please support. thank you.

>> yes, my name is michael nolte, and i'm a community organizer and a citizen planner, and i'm also the author of a multilingual on-line petition requesting 450 o'farrell developer to redesign their project to the concerns of the neighborhood stakeholders. this petition has gathered 538 signatures. i've also lived two blocks from this project and have a long issue with dealing with the issues related to 450 o'farrell. i would like to echo all the concerns that have been brought up at the hearing today. i am also against the second and third proposed versions of the project with group housing. i ask for a continuance. i also would like to point out that, you know, group housing has just come up on the screen

for everybody to have to deal with, and we don't need this kind of housing in the tenderloin. we have more high density housing, and we need housing that meets the need of the families. i heard several people point out that they had petitions. my petition beats that, and i did send copies of it. it beats it threefold, so it points out that there is a large number of people that are having problems with the design of the current proposed project. thank you. >> hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. this is anastasia ionnapoulos. i have been listening carefully to the comments, and i hope you

have listened to the members of the community who told you this is not the right project, and it needs to be revised. pause it, please. the community know what's happening there. the density and overcrowding is not good for the neighborhood. you need to consider, and the developer needs to consider the project together with the stakeholders who live and work there. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john mccormick. i work in the tenderloin neighborhood development organization in the community organizing office. i really just want to give a shoutout to the last speaker. i really feel the same way. so far, today, as far as i've been listening, i've heard a lot of comments from people who don't -- who haven't identified as living in the tenderloin or

working in the tenderloin, and i think that is a major, major fault to this development, that we're not hearing today from people who live in the neighborhood, but also, the developer has not done a good enough job in engaging with the community who actually lives in the neighborhood. if they did, as you just heard from the previous speaker -- the previous two speakers, i should say -- they would hear that the project isn't wanted nor needed in this entire neighborhood. it's not about being in the neighborhood, it's about listening and hearing what they have to say, and it's about where housing should be developed. we don't need more housing in already the densest area of the city. let's put it in other neighborhoods where there isn't such density, and let's listen

to the people who live in this area of the city. that's one of the most important parts of it, and i just don't see it being considered in its entirety. thank you so much. >> yes, this is mark nelson. i'm a long time resident of san francisco, over 40 years. i've also participated in building and developing property throughout the city at various levels and kinds. i'm very familiar with many of the neighborhoods, and i'd like to say a few things. many of these have already been said, but i think it's important to understand the church has made a decision to redevelop its property to provide housing and a church at ground level, but without that church's decision, they could just renovate the church or adapt their existing building

and maintain it, and it wouldn't provide the housing that i think they -- and i'm delighted that they've done this because it does bring a tremendous amount of high density housing that is needed. housing of all densities is needed throughout the [inaudible] and this project is in an area that can use this type of housing and the density. i understand the need for family housing, and that is being pursued in many other developments, but i think this type of housing works here. i think they've done a beautiful job in organizing the design and having it fit into the neighborhood in a reasonable way. i also think it brings a right kind of housing that is contemporary, that brings all the modern elements that are missing from many houses or many types of residential projects that are only adapted in old buildings. this'll have the proper seismic

and building code, safety mechanisms in the building itself that will make it safe for those people that are living in it. the other thing it does bring and i think is very much needed it a vibrancy to the ground level. it'll bring a church, reading room, and various types of retail to the ground floor and activity. and many people that live here will use the public transit. that's what this is about, living in areas with public transit to get to other areas of the city -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> hi. my name is -- good morning, commissioners. my name is felicia smith, and i am a member of the s.r.o. collaborative land use committee. i've lived in an s.r.o. for about seven years now. i'm here to voice my disapproval because we have families of three and four

people that are living in small units like what the developer is proposing, and it's inhumane. we need more housing for the families. we have a lot of single room occupancy around the tenderloin, and it's time that we get some families in here. i would also like to encourage the commissioners to have the developers go back and be with the stakeholders to find out what the community really needs, which is family housing. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john nolte. i'm a fifth generation san franciscan. i lived in the tenderloin for

over ten years, and i moved out because of the health housing problems i was having. living in an s.r.o., the health department has already stated, what the life expectancy of a tenderloin resident is living in a small place. the study has already been done in the north of market area, an area of 50 square blocks. we already have in that 50 square blocks, student housing and the hub that was just passed, too. so you have all this housing in this corridor north of market neighborhood being built, with thousands of new units being put in. and this is just another

example of too much housing on a site. i've followed this for 20 years, know all the people involved, and they still haven't gotten it right. it's a shame they've got two versions in front of you today. that shows their inability to make a decision on this site and that other speakers from the church has said, they've been trying to develop the site for 40 years. so i think that speaks for itself. thank you very much. >> clerk: great. thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on 450 o'farrell. if you'd like to speak to this matter, you need to press star, three to enter the queue. when you hear that your line's been unmuted, that's your

signal to begin speaking. >> hi. my name is susan touchstone, and i'm a member of this church, and we're all so appreciative of the commissioners and listening to all of the varied comments, and there certainly are a lot of different opinions about this project, and those are appreciated. there is a tremendous need in san francisco for housing of all sorts for many different needs, and that is throughout the entire city. one need that doesn't seem to be addressed, and that is for essential workers, and that is what this project is designed

for. it's not for all the different various members of the community and their need for housing, but it does meet the need for essential workers, and the church is hoping to express our religious activity by fulfilling our mission of developing the underutilized land at 450 o'farrell. much appreciation to the commissioners and to all the different comments today. thank you. >> hi. greetings, honorable commissioners. my name is clifford wallbeck. i'm a san francisco native, and i want to show my whole hearted project of the project at 450

o'farrell street. i serve on the bay area endorsement community where we voluntarily provide input to residential and commercial developments. i'm pleased to see a development that's focused on the community's housing needs. this will provide much needed housing, allowing for those who work and own local businesses to be able to live in this city instead of having to commute. sometimes as much as four hours a day. the development is beautiful in its efficiency and simplicity. each unit maximizes space without sacrificing comfort, such as air purification systems. we urgently need more

developments like this one, especially a development that is aimed at providing housing for our middle-income workers. that is why i encourage you to approve this project today. thank you, commissioners, for your thoughtful consideration of this project and taking time to receive my feedback. thank you. thank you. >> hello. my name is laurie lasley. i'm just amazed at the response that this project is receiving, and -- and i'm inspired by the passion of so many of these people, and i'm also inspired by the position of this group

that has worked for 40 years to make this project happen. and they could very easily have sold the building and left the area, but they are obviously committed completely and from their hearts committed to serving this neighborhood not only as a church but as fellow members of that neighborhood. [please stand by]

>> most o colleagues have to work out of san francisco because they don't make enough money. this is middle income housing and it is affordable for essential workers, the workers that work in hotels and restaurants and state workers, city workers, federal workers. police officers, firemen. all the essential workers that

we've been dealing with in the last year because of covid. but the more important issue is our stay needs to be rebuilt. that is our mission, to stay in neighborhoods where there is public utility to keep the focus on a spiritual sense of things. these are apartments. they're not houses and that needs to be looked at. as previous people have said this is a place to move into and to be comfortable in whatever number of people you have. it is not unlikely that those european apartments are very small too, but they're very

efficient and they know how to handle families in these spaces. thank you, commissioners, for listening to these comments today and i would encourage you to -- >> clerk: thanks. that is your time. >> hello. i have a question. after 42 years of being here, how come all of a sudden in 2002 [indiscernible] essential workers. many people have left the city because the city's rent is way too expensive to live here. not because there is housing, but the rents are too high.

another thing that would be good is the -- how come i don't see these people going to do outreach? how come i don't see them outside ever? the door is always closed. [indiscernible] -- but at the same time i feel that it should be -- they should be honest with this whole thing, be truthful with this whole thing. people on the outside need help. no one talks about help for those people. for the people who don't have nothing, this is no good for

them. >> clerk: okay, members of the public, final last call for last call on this matter. you need to press star 3 to be entered into the queue. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed -- there's always one. go ahead, caller, you have two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners, for this opportunity. i have lived a block away from this place for 20 years. i lived there with my wife and our 9-year-old son.

i would just encourage you to listen to those who are in the neighborhood, we don't want to see this block desolate, but we want to see it full of families and full of working people. this is exactly the thing we need to do. >> clerk: commissioners, the matter is closed and is before you. thanks for being patient. i just want to review a few things. the previously approved version

was from 2018. ms. grove, you can correct me what i'm about to say. the project sponsor is requesting version 3 which may need more dir work. is that correct? >> that's correct. the version 3 e.i.r. is complete and version 3 would just need an update. >> before i call on any other commissioners, i would like to voice my support for version 3. if there is one guy or woman that would like to look for more workforce housing, it may be me. we have too many blue collar workers who make too much to qualify for this housing, but

don't make enough to live in san francisco. i would be very much in favor of looking at version 3, but would like to hear from the other commissioners. >> having been on the commission in 2018, we spent an extraordinary time on this project. the delta from 2018 to 2021 is too large for me. looking for larger units and the unit outcome is what i would be thinking for. version 3 or 3 a. is what i'm looking for. the community has expressed they are willing to work with the developer. the community is ready to roll-up their sleeves to do exactly that. in the current version i cannot support it anyway, so let's move on to do the right thing.

>> i do have a question to the staff regarding -- because i believe in 2018 and also the second version there's going to be a demolition or a replacement of the five units. can you clarify back in 2018 whether there -- i'm trying to remember. was there any rent control agreement that was made during that time? >> there is a total of 43

inclusionary units required plus the five. >> thank you for that clarification. actually, i am -- of course after all of these comments and -- especially in this time of covid-19. i hope to see in the version 3 that there is a consideration in taking also the public health aspect since you are going to get it in the pandemic era. in my comments i would like to add this is not necessarily the increasing of beds, but of sizes of units. that's what i would like to see.

that needs to be considered and talked about with the community. i'm looking forward, fwrt e.i.r. that'sor the e.i.r. that's going to be discussed with the nearby building. in terms of of the [indiscernible] needs to be looked again. i believe it was version 2 and here you have this only 10 inches away which is something that is new to me as well. i hope that's going to be addressed in our analysis.

>> i have a couple of questions for staff and i will follow up up with a couple of questions for the project sponsor. ms. grub, a couple of questions were made about there was a ban -- i'm sorry, i can't hear you. >> i was muted. there is a lot going on over here. the central area plan did establish a prohibition on group housing that is market rate group housing. it does allow for the development of 100% affordable group housing. i can check the mission as

well -- >> that would be only central soma and not soma? >> that's correct. >> i think we had a couple of projects -- okay. >> that's correct. the recent zoning was in the central soma plan. i don't know about the mission as a whole. there are a couple of different zoning regions. so it would probably be a district-by-district, conditionally permitted or not permitted. i would happily check and follow up with you. >> if you would. second question for you is this basically is a little bit more than a revision.

why is the affordable housing percentage carried forward from previously what would now be required? >> when we were evaluating the project, the department determined that it could be a determination. modifying the types of residential that's provided from group housing units will change with the project. >> okay. >> i have some questions for the project sponsor, one technical question and two more broader general questions. the technical question is i was

looking at the open space proposed. i understand that the terrace is part of this and the rooftop. in the center of the project above the community kitchen is also rooftop, but there's no designation as to what use there is for that roof. is that unoccupied roof or is it also open space? is there anyone from project sponsor on? >> sorry, he was muted. project sponsor, you should be with us now. >> this is richard hammond speaking. the building is an area that is

less used for activity and more for green space and water recycling. it also provides light and air into the relocated stained glass windows that are inside the church in the courtyard area. >> in your present, it was referred to demographic studies. can you provide those studies to the commission? >> yes. we did include them in a package that was sent out and it may not have reached you. we undertook starting in 2013

and 2015, we undertook extensive studies in the tenderloin including going door to door to provide information and it provided much of our understanding and background for the size of units and families and units and working demographics of the community around which we based a lot of the design assumptions. yes, we provided that. >> there were multiple submittals. the last question. do you have information within the tenderloin district on the types of inventories of types of units? what is in the district ranging from s.r.o. group housing to

smaller units, one-bathroom studios to larger-sized family units? >> we do not have that exactly location. the tenderloin was built post the earthquake and it was built as workforce housing. much of the tenderloin was build as small unit housing during that time. much of that remains in the tenderloin. this site and many others remain. we don't have the exact information on the unit sizes. >> thank you.

>> you'll have to start from the beginning. i had to unmute you. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. >> thank you. i have both technical and policy questions for staff and technical questions for the project sponsor. let me start with staff. so am i understanding correctly that the original approval was for growing units. and both version 2 and version 3 of this project is now group housing that has some limit on cooking facilities, is that correct? >> that's correct. the group housing is limited in

the facilities by definition. >> okay. and yet the project sponsor described the version 3 as having -- i don't know whether he said full cooking facilities, but something to makes me think there are limitations on them. >> group housing has limited cooking facilities which is a two-burner stove, a refrigerator, and a microphone. the limitation is on the oven and the foreburner stove. that transforms the group unit housing into a dwelling unit. i believe this can provide a

little bit more information about exactly which cooking facilities they're proposing in version 3, but to my knowledge it is an induction burner, a sink, a garbage disposal, a dishwasher and a microwave. >> let me turn to the project sponsor to resolve some confusion in my mind around what they're actually providing in version 3. >> thank you for having this. can we pull up the last slide that was there.

>> it's coming up now. >> we have a slide on this. group housing falls into a category of building code which is called congregate residence. unlike a dwelling unit, the congregate residence has an actual requirement for large community cooking facilities built into the project to augment the amenity case of the building, whereas we have a number of community spaces in the building. there is one in particular that

is designated to fulfill this requirement or kitchen. in this building this is 3,000 units of feet. if we look at the last slide -- we have one more. what's allowed and what we're proposing, we did a great deal of work with pan sonic. within the constraints of the

code allowance, high-tech appliances that are state of the or the -- state-of-the-art and they are induction burners that are highly responsive cooktop facilities. we have apartment-sized refrigerators, sink with garbage disposal, dishwasher. and although it's described as a microwave, it's what's called a four-in-one oven which is a microwave, convection, induction cooking unit that was pioneered by panasonic that allows people to prepare meals in this environment.

recognizing that it's technically not called a full kitchen, i'm not sure that there are many recipes that you would not be able to prepare in this environment because of the nature of the environment that is provided. all of this is provided as the base project. >> is it two induction burners in each unit? am i understanding that correctly? >> there's actually not a limit to induction burners per se. we want the counters to remain open and functional. in the largest unit you can have

more than two if that's your need. some people use only one, but the opportunity exists for there to be a range of one to four of these simply by power limitations. we expect it will be two as an average per unit. >> staff, would four be permitted? >> it sounds like there's a hot plate and a burner differentiated here. the two burners would be generally installed into the countertop. that would be limited to two. >> that is part of the

challenge. the planning code says that these housing should not have this cooking facilities. this limits it to two burners, no oven, a small sink, and a microwave and that's it. that's part of the review. this could be fitting in what is group housing as opposed to dwelling units which would require a full kitchen and group housing rooms are intended to have little to no cooking facilities. >> i'll just state my view on this and then it's equally applicable for a project on the agenda later today. i cannot conceive of approving a

building for 600 people with 300 units that has only one cooking facility downstairs. as large and beautiful as it may be, we need to make sure if we are providing these smaller units that they are used to us on a broader range as possible. these units may be very appealing for people, the people who don't want to cook much or who would take out or use the downstairs cooking facility or those who want to treat this as a regular life and not have to do communal dining or take out or cook in a very limited fashion. i am feeling like our group housing definition generally

needs updating or we need to understand why group housing is being used for these units as opposed to dwelling units with the number of studios. i don't have any objection per se to small units, but as work is done on version 3, i would want to make sure whoever lives in these units is able to cook without necessarily having to go down to a communal facility. if, in fact, whatever we come up with is really limited in terms of what goes into these kitchens or kitchenettes, then i would want to see more than one communal cooking facility for 600 people. it just doesn't make sense to me. i can't make sense of that reaching a broad enough range of the population. i recognize, and maybe this is a question for staff, that there is a lot of work that you are

doing internally and thinking about group housing and how to tailor it going forward. i recognize they're so far along in the process. but if we're going to approve the project, i would like to see it with the ability for people to cook in their unit, prepare meals, and not have go to a downstairs facility unless they chose to do that. i'm interesting in a broader policy basis on how many of these units have been approved, how many built and how many in the pipeline.

>> we are working with california college of the arts to try to understand congregate living more broadly than just an s.r.o.-style building or a nonery or a con vent or a fraternity. this is a broad definition.

as was said and we've looked into this and don't know how many exist in the city. but as for the pipeline there are 24 group housing projects. we've taken out the guessing. i want to note that group housing can really range in size and in scale. of those 24 projects, two are currently finished up. one is 333-12 street, it is a

relatively large project. the other is a seven-room project in a single-family home. >> let me interrupt you for a second. do you have a sense how many units are represented. >> i can do some quick math and let you know. we're looking at a range between five group housing rooms and an existing structure all the way up to 290 group housing rooms. let me do a quick sum of the rooms and let you know. >> while the other commissioners are asking questions and before we finish discussion, if you could pop back in with that piece of information. the last thing i would say is we're going to have all of these

very small units, i would have liked to have seen and maybe it can be accomplished in version 3 more communal space on each floor than one space downstairs. it seems to me i liked it. 316 is not a magic number. i would be fine with fewer units or some that were larger.

hats off to the church for trying to find the right solution. >> [indiscernible] 775 rooms. >> i'm sorry, could you say that again? >> sure. there's 24 projects that we identified, both in the pipeline and recently completed since 2010. it's about 775 group housing units.

>> should i go ahead? >> sure. >> i wonder if you can help me understand this version 1. looking at the drawings from 2018, i think [indiscernible] -- were these the final numbers that ended up in the final e.i.r. that was submitted by the previous developer? >> these are the final numbers. the unit changes from entitlement to permitting. i can pull that up right now.

generally it was [indiscernible] for the version 1 has 176 dwelling units, 30 studios, 54 one-bedroom, 68 two-bedroom. >> just to clarify, for the 68 two-bedrooms, what was the range of the unit size? >> i will double check right now. bear with me one second.

>> while you're looking that up, i can ask another question. my general comments for this project, it's interesting as a city and a department, you've been talking about expanding the choices and having different various types of housing types. so i think it's a positive direction that we're moving beyond just one type of housing in any neighborhood and i think it does important to have this conversation in the tenderloin but we know there are 3,000 children living here and there is a need to diversify the types of housing options. that's what i'm really interested in seeing in version three.

i encourage everyone to take a look at that to see the family unit would be [indiscernible] not about the size, but the design. for square footage and cooking and other daily uses. so take that into consideration when thinking about the design. >> i also wanted to make a comment about this. i do appreciate that the sponsor is trying to address the housing. i found that workers of color and immigrants were representing 66% of workers. and in san francisco people of color are more likely to live in family households.

asian and latinx households face higher levels of overcrowding. it's good to take a good look at the design of the units. >> the units range all the way up to 1,210 square feet. i'm happy to dig in just to give you updates on the sizes. i can follow up by e-mail. >> that would be great.

>> can you hear me now? yeah. whether you're a supporter of the project or wanted to see changes, thank you for taking the time . i want to commend you persevering. hopefully we will have a successful endeavor to have new congregation facilities. i want to underscore commissioner diamond's outlook.

i do want to echo having more cooking facilities around the building. there is a thought to have communal facilities on every other floor. there is a two-storey design in the communal spaces. perhaps some of those can have cooking facilities there, not just as a communal space, but a place where folks can prepare a meal. that way folks don't need to go down to the lower level. if they want to eat in their unit, practically speaking, if you forget your salt or pepper, you have to trek back up to your unit. what's the quality of life in these units. i want to align myself with the

community of having more communal space and the comments other commissioners have made. fewer units overall, but larger units would be preferable. when i think about the numbers you're providing, the previous project, my understanding is 48% family-sized units. if i'm understanding correctly, 22 or 24 larger units are being provided out of the rooms, that is 6% if my calculator is working correctly. that's a big shift. some would argue, picking up on commissioner chan's comments, that a thousand units are a family-sized unit and this is not meeting that.

i'm hoping that version 3 may change in the overall count and the larger units in the proposed building. also on overcrowding, can you speak to how you define overcrowding and how many beds are allowed to be in the units of different sizes. >> sure. the question about how many people can offer safely is controlled by a number of different code, the housing code, the building code, it depend on how many rooms, how much square footage is in there. from the planning code, group housing facilities are limited

to two beds per room. the planning code allows that to be an average. so that's what was driving the version 2 to version 3 is we identified [indiscernible] -- come could make the difference and some one. >> these are all things that the units in the building touch on and at the same time it's important to think about one of the things that can lead to overcrowding is it's so expensive to live here. folks are forced to live in

situations where they're crowded. one of my concerns is beginning with the overcrowding in mind. there is a child sleeping room in the back and one in the front. i want to know -- i mean every building is to be a large room, but it's concerning if we're beginning with an overclouded unit out of the gate and that's concerning. thank you for the information about the s.r.o.s. i did notice that there are a

lot of approved projects in this area and a couple that are pending. almost all that i mapped are in the eastern neighborhood. there is one in excelsior and one in richmond. this is all about housing. we have a lot of group housing here. how are we thinking about the group housing and the sizes of

amenities that need to be provided. is it possible for staff to come back on the existing housing in the tenderloin to understand how that's taken out by the market. will this put upward pressure.

-- >> there are a couple of different buckets. m.o.e. has some master lease projects and projects in the pipeline. that wasn't included in the list i sent you. not exactly group housing. i know that d.b.i. manages that database and who owns those facilities. so that might be information that we can share with you as well. so i think we can dig into that. i think there are different

housing options. >> i wanted to understand the base of the building. it notes that there is storage. bike parking is son-in-law for [indiscernible] but there are 316 rooms, 600 possible people. i'm concerned about the bike parking. the rooms are already small so storing a bike in these rooms is not possible. i'm wondering if there would be storage possibilities.

>> there are some minor comments outstanding between version two and version 3. >> lots of interesting comments to respond to, but to go to your basement question, we don't have a planned slide to share here. i know it's in your package. the storage that's located in the basement is several thousand square feet and it is all intended to be divided up into individual spaces used by tenants. we recognize that when living in small spaces, people very often

have other additional materials that travels with them. our experience in doing all of the analysis that it cannot be terribly a lot at this stage in their lives. it needs to be stored, but it needs a place to go. the bicycle parking is what we're dealing with on planning for the real requirement. it's fungible. because of transit, we are encouraging that. with the advent of other forms of shared transportation that is promoted by the city that we're going to see an impact on how that is actually stored. that's what that storage is for. we think there is a large component of that storage provided, but it is a constant

study we have ongoing. >> thank you. that is great. i will add -- and i don't know if this was described in this project, but there is some type of relationship to percentages. what i hope we could figure out to do is get the required parking that is needed and any excess could be additive and not part of the denominator so we could get more for the residents.

are there going to be some trees? >> those would be required. >> do we have concerns from the neighboring building about vibration? is this something that is addressed or not? can you elaborate on where we'll see that. >> my colleague can jump in if i'm mischaracterizing anything.

>> okay great. do you feel that would address the vibrations and would there be monitoring and things of that nature. >> there were multiple measures put in place. [indiscernible]. >> that would be all my comments and i'm supportive of version 3 b.

>> my question is a comment was made that the foundation of the adjoining building is reaching over into the adjoining property. that's a complicated question. i hope that that will be addressed in particular because the other building is quite old and that can be resolved when foundations hang over the adjoining property line. you mentioned you were working with the property study. i would like to hear whether or not you are asking discussions about health issues and effects of covid on these spaces. >> we haven't touched on covid

directly. recently we've tried to incorporate a greater lens into this study. we're trying not to just pull from european countries and asian countries. we're trying to pull from local bipoc examples as well. we can definitely raise that with c.c.a. the goal of our study was to understand these functions. we wanted to understand a little bit more about how this is scaled differently for different

levels of income. acknowledging that our planning code doesn't travel out of detail and regulatory framework. >> one of the biggest thing was the highest incidence of the coronavirus is in socially and racially impacted communities. i think that should be carried straight forward into the discussion how the congregate housing. we -- our previous standards

might not meet the new regime anymore. >> the second point i would like to raise while this would be a mixed project in a number of interpretations, i would like to see a slightly higher level of amenities. i think the commissioners eloquently spoke about the need to diversify the kitchen facilities. cooking is a private, intimate family thing as we are adding units to accommodate families, i think we need to have -- i think commissioner diamond raised this issue, have breakout facilities on different floors for that to occur. in other congregate facilities,

and i'm thinking about panoramic. there were rooms that could be rented in the building. there were multiple options to prioritize the communal living. i would agree with the basic infrastructure for storage for supports for small units that can't accommodate the bicycle or the baby carriage. and i do not really see much provision for a child-friendly environment because these small-type family units being added, these will be families with children. how are we particularly addressing the child friendly units we are bringing into this project. those would be my additional

questions that you're preparing for. >> i was just going to give a little bit of a code background on the congregate units. it's helpful to understand in the planning code, it separates our residential uses into two categories, either dwelling units or group housing. those are the two uses permitted in the planning code. and everything beyond that is a different characteristic. you can have student housing or

s.r.o.s, et cetera. all of our units are dwelling units, group housing. as ms. grove explained, the group housing definition is extremely broad. she gave a lot of examples like boarding houses, fraternities, religious-related facilities for housing. it doesn't limit it to that and it provides very little guidance on an appropriate scale and amenities and things of that nature. so it is very broad. we treat them differently in the code. for dwelling units, we regulate density by units and for grouping housing it's by the number of beds, number of bedrooms. and the planning code treats them differently in requiring the conditional use authorization. and some planning code requirements are basically reduced for group housing.

for example, group housing projects require less open space, less exposure, and have different bicycle parking calculations, et cetera, that we do treat the two uses differently. and the project sponsor referenced the congregate living occupancy in the building code that would be used here. based on the codes [indiscernible] when we're looking at larger sweep in the group housing context, that's what we're looking at in the

dwelling units in group housing. a little bit of background there would be useful because it can be confusing especially in this context. >> i have one last thing. i notice that on the shannon street side of the project there are a number of codes and i understand some of the other street-facing sides cannot have balconies. i'm curious and would like to see if there can be more balconies provided. it looks from the rendering that they're scattered and not every unit has one. i don't know if that's architecturally possible, but that would be good if it's feasible. does the project sponsor want to comment if they have a response? if not, they can take it as

feedback for future iterations. [indiscernible] -- because we're in the national historic district, balconies are not considered part of the fabric of the tenderloin. we have a small, small balcony

where you can step outside. it is in the planning requirements along shannon and the central courtyard. and most importantly we created really significant roof garden spaces in this building and the terraces so there are a lot of areas for people to leave the building and get outside, but not leave the security of the facility itself -- >> thank you. i just want to -- and absolutely, picking up on the family friendly. my only comment is i would like to see more balconies on the shannon street side and understanding they're feasible. at least from the rendering i'm looking at, it looks like they're interspersed. i would like to see that maximized for the maximum number of units possible to have a

balcony. if it is just a small romeo and juliet balcony, something that gives that impact. that would be my preference. >> i think what we're going to see in version 3 that the project sponsor has taken these points into account. i know we have to do environmental review. i would suggest pushing it out a month and if we need more time pushing it out from there. >> before we take a date, i was

going to see how much we would need. >> we were looking at june 10 to give us a bsh dsh enough time to wrap up. >> june 10 might be a good target date. >> for the sake of this project as the sponsor, we need the earliest date as possible in order to maintain the financeability of the project. >> i move to continue this project as proposed by the

planning department to june 10. i don't know if i need to be more clear. >> i believe all the comments were heard and we'll make the considerations for the final project. commissioners, if there's nothing further -- >> is it possible to have a sooner date or is that the soonest? >> we can certainly continue it sooner. i think staff is suggesting june 10 as the most reasonable opportunity to have the environmental review conducted. did you want to -- did you think that there is any chance that the environmental review could occur sooner? >> the one thing is this is not subject with c330.

we could have it earlier. >> i forgot about the environmental part needing to happen. that will take some time. >> okay. so there is a motion seconded, commissioners, to continue this to june 10, 2021. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: commissioners, that will place us on item 12 for 2019-020740 cua on 468 turk

street. we have a request that this matter be continued at least three weeks for further consideration. i know the project sponsor is opposed to the continuance or the request for the continuance. i think it's up to you how you want to handle it. if you want to go ahead with the staff presentation and sponsor it and have public comment or should we consider the continuance. >> do you want to chime in? >> no, i will chime in after you. >> and i believe commissioner diamond had a comment as well. just to resolve the procedural matter. >> do we need to talk about diamond first? >> sure, why don't we go ahead

and get that out of the way. >> did you have a disclosure? >> sure. i wanted to let you know that i personally retained the service sincere of one of the lawyers at the same law firm that is representing the project service. the lawyer that i am using is not the same. i do not plead this will have any impact on my ability to be neutral and impartial. >> thank you, commissioner. if i understand correctly, the desire is to hear the sponsor presentation and then accept public comment and then take up the matter of potentially approval or the continuance. for the benefit of the sponsor and the public, the sponsor will have five minutes and the

members of the public will have one minute for members of the public. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is a request for a continuation use authorization to demolish a two-storey mixed-use building. the parcel is located in the rc zoning district. in order for the project to proceed there must be a conditional use authorization. the project is use looising the

california state density law. the base project includes 67 units and the project is seeking a density bonus of 60% for ad 2345. 25% of the base project or 17 units will be affordable. 10 of the units, 15%, will be affordable to low income households. three of the units will be available to low-income households and the remaining four to moderate income households. there have been three e-mails from a nearby neighbor and a

another resident. [indiscernible] -- providing support for the project. opposition to the project is centered on the lack of existing services, concerns about impact on the adjacent facility on turk street and concerns of gentrification and overdensification of the area. there was a meeting held on february 23, 2021. the tenderloin housing corporation [indiscernible] --

the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies with the general plan. there is a proposed substantial amount of rental housing. the department also finds the project to be necessary and compatible with the neighborhood. thank you and i believe the project sponsor is available for their presentation now. >> project sponsor, your slides are up and you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, i'm one of the owners of the property.

heard you will share my excitement about our proposal to bring affordable units to a street that has had its difficulties over the years. thank you very much for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am -- >> just one second. i'm having troubles getting the slides to adjust. there we go. go ahead. >> this is a photo of the site with its two existing buildings. this is an image of the proposed residential unit including 101 s.r.o. units. this is a proposal of the building. these are the ground views of the first and second floors. the dining areas are generous

[indiscernible] -- 24% more than required by code. on the left is a planned view of a typical floor. the shared roof deck provides 35% more common space. each s.r.o. unit will have its own living, bathing, and kitchenette facilities. the kitchenette will have an undercounter fridge, have an induction cooktop, a conqueks microwave in which you can cook and brown a small turkey. there will be a big window that

extends off the window. there will be a heating and cooling system. this is a very tripped out unit. here are some images that describe the community kitchen and dining area which overlooks the generous two-storey-high community living area. since each unit has its own kitchen, residents can freely use these kitchens based on their daily lifestyle. this is a rendering of the front facade per the design guidelines, it is a clearly defined basement and top. this is drawn from the best examples of the surrounding area. >> the views before you are

almost identical to the units approved in 2019. mark, who you just heard from designed those units as well. the main difference is those units are only 178, compared to the larger units we are seeking approval for today. i would like to talk about our change in plans in which we will put a second community kitchen in the basement and sacrifice one or two of the basement units to do that. the neighborhood outreach process started in 2019. since then, there have been more meetings. we believe that the seven meetings met concerns, even if

we missed one or two groups. my client wished that the good neighbor group was just about that and didn't require a bunch of final requirements that we adjust rents. that's problematic in a time when our new units are not cancelling out. i wanted to remind that the commission can't do this. this is protected by s230 saying this cannot affect a project filing under 330. we're entitled to go with the definitions that were in effect at the time we made the application. this is where all 100 units are

expected to be rented between 50% and 100% a.m.i. why? tables of [indiscernible] -- happens to be what is the fair market rent today -- >> thank you. that is your time. if there are no immediate questions for the project sponsor, we should open it up. members of the public, this is your queue to add yourself to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your opportunity to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a resident of the tenderloin land use committee. this is one of the densest neighborhoods when it comes to

housing. i was disappointed to hear the developer had only reached out to four participants. it was only when community members reached out that the stakeholders heard from project architects this year. we were then informed it was too late to make changes. therefore, community feedback has not been taken into consideration. we as residents want to see more housing in our neighborhood. these units cannot accommodate families. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gabriela rulees. i am a policy manager at a local housing developer. and we would like to comment on this and emphasize our disapproval of this proving to the planning process without

approval. this is already in a dense neighborhood of s.r.o.s and group housing units. while the developer stated no other project is feasible at this location when the community asked for larger units, they expressed openness to a community open agreement. if they had engaged early, we would have time to work out these details. we want to signal to the commissioners that community process should be a requirement when building in low-income bipoc -- >> that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

i am a community engagement manager for social justice. we are asking for a continuance of this project. we have been working with community members to ensure that marginalized voices are heard in their neighborhood. in this instance, community providers are required to provide input. additional time will get residents a chance to work on a mutual beneficial agreement to which there is none. add to the issue group housing. we are asking for a 30-day continuance and we would agree to a three-week continuance. thank you. >> hi there, commissioners. my name is paulie.

i live at the building. this proposed building would have happening directly outside of where i live. it would be taking up all my sunlight. the sunlight for half of the building would be gone. i would really ask for a continuation on this. one minute is not enough to discuss what's wrong and especially with a lack of community engagement with the project proposers, i would really like to see more discussion happen and some time would make that possible. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here on behalf of the housing action coalition, respectfully asking that you consider the item here today similar to the last item,

similar that the market can deliver units and homes for affordable residents is not something we get often and continued continuances sends a message that building homes at all income levels isn't always the top priority. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is micah barama. i used to go by the deli in the existing building. i support this project because that's where the improvements for the building on turk street. i worked there for 40 years. i know everybody in the tenderloin and this is a good thing for the tenderloin people.

>> hello, commissioners, i am co-chair of the people's congress. i'm calling in on this project just to ask that you postpone this, give us more time. the residents of the tenderloin just have not had an opportunity to really engage with the project sponsor and we need more time to work out what is best for the neighborhood. here we are talking about another group project. honestly, we don't have supports and services to deal with the consequences that are made by the [indiscernible] project folks who support the project

live, but they don't want it in their neighborhood. honestly, it's just not even fair. the equity is fine. that's an issue we do need to discuss. i hope we begin talking about this deeper -- >> clerk: thank you, that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have lived and worked in the tenderloin for 22 years now. i think we need more housing for all in the tenderloin and i think this new housing will improve the quality of life and the influx of tenants will be a plus to the neighborhood. thank you for your time. [ please stand by ]

>> this is david elliott lewis. thank you. >> hello. my name is gail and i was just here a few minutes ago on the last project, but you all know i'm from citrus city sr.o. on

the land use committee. i really basically was going to say the same things i said on the last project. we want to emphasize to the commissioners ask and current and future developers the importance of community and community engagement early on. thank you very much, commissioners. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john knollty. i'm a life long citizen of san francisco. and the issue again here what was heard by the prior agenda item that half of it, in ten years you only had 50 of these units done and this, today,

you're having seven of them are done today. so you show the equity of ten years doing it in one day with the same type of housing. thank you very much for listening. bye. >> hi. my name is michael nulty. we are on the planning department for the developer failed to reach out to our organization for this project. this reviews land use issues since 1999. we do not support group housing at this site, but we ask the planning commission for continuance. thank you very much and i'm also related to the prior

caller john nulty. >> i'm a member of race and equity and all planning coalition and we are 30 organizations of low income and black and american indian and disadvantaged people who signed on to a letter that will be either has gotten to you or will get to you requesting a continuance of this project basically because we need an equitable project and we need time to work it out with the developer. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. as a resident who's lived in the tenderloin for many years,

it just really disappoints me for people who have enjoyed the wonderful vibrancy of the tenderloin community once again delay 101 much-needed affordable new homes at 468 turk street. if this had been done to the people who are renting now, they may not be able to -- they may not have been able to have the opportunity to live in this area. i think the homes here were thoughtfully designed and uniquely well suited for this particular location. it's conveniently located near public transit, just a seven-minute walk to the civic center and bart station. we need to look at economic redevelopment in san francisco. we need to recover this economy and the best way to do that is to bring more people into an area to patronize businesses, to work in the community, to

pay taxes. >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> hello, commissioners. i'm with the [inaudible] project. [inaudible] once again, we are not a group housing project and we strongly feel there's a need for developers to [inaudible] with these communities. these type of proposals are usually made. from my experience over the last several years with these two present proposals and other proposals, that has happened and we're tired of, you know coming to the tenderloin and what i really wanted to say

race and racial equity when it comes to community process like the tenderloin. thank you so much. >> my name is sue hester. i've been working with the tenderloin people for about 10 years. this is probably the worst outreach project i've ever seen. the planning department does not realize a racial and social equity. it's more than a topic on the calendar in a couple weeks. it's projects are coming through. when you do outreach, you should hit community organizations and contacted the outreach that was done during a pandemic and additionally they

opportunity to say what kind of outreach and what kind of notices are done is an integral part of developing the plan. the last area plan to this area was years ago. it's too late. get planning commissioners to please continue this hearing. thank you. bye. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is felicia again. i am with sro collaborative and i'm calling because we are neither for or against this project, however, we think that in the future and with present developers, there needs to be more community engagement and more community outreach because

this project care we know the covid thing. but we really need to have, the residents need to know what's going on and we once again, we don't oppose it and we are not for it. thank you. >> president: great. thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star then 3 to be entered into the queue. you have one minute. >> hello, my name is justin johnson i'm with the [inaudible] people's congress. it blows my mind we're talking about this project. we have route 5. we have the project on 550

o'farham and a block away from this one that you didn't even consider another development. so you're going to choke us to death. please, at least delay a previous project until there's been more interaction with the community. thank you. >> hello, my name is jason schultz. i'm a resident of the tenderloin for the past ten years. one of the comments i heard is that the sunlight is going to be blocked. the building i looked at looks at that roof top apartment and a roof top space and not a single person has used it in the past two years at least. and, on top of that, there's so many people that need housing

it doesn't seem reasonable that we're delaying the development of this housing project for the past two years. these things need to move forward and we need housing in this area and considering the proposed project of what they're trying to develop, it seems very reasonable and much better than other s.r.o.s in the area. so this should absolutely be approved as quick as possible. >> thank you, commissioners. that will conclude public comment and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i was actually not to be called on first, but i would just generally like to express my support for continuance. public comment's appreciated and much reflect what we truly

heard earlier. this is a smaller project. it has a number of interesting aspects. but in light of the larger questions and challenges the commission itself posed, i'm in support of this project to also undergo examination. and so i ask that we continue this project. >> commissioner: i will also honor supervisor haney's request. is that a motion? >> commissioner: yes, that is a motion. >> commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i just wonder if that's the time given the nature of this project and being continue if it's appropriate to give any feedback at this time before it comes back or if we just continue without any discussion? >> commissioner: always you

can get some feedback. >> commissioner: okay. just before we vote on the motion. i just want to give it on the motion. i imagine some of our project sponsors and some of those carry over. i think we want to -- for me, that's important in how i understand the project. i think overall, if there can be more community engagement and more enforcement, that would be great understand that may not always be possible but hopefully there can be more meeting of the minds. with that, i'd like to ask if the project sponsor can just explain the nature of some of the discussions of the community about the good neighbor agreement that we talked about and what they see coming forward in terms of collaboration with the community. >> yes. can you hear me, commissioners? >> commissioner: we can. >> okay. well, i've had some long

discussions and i think gabby reed for the time she's taken. the good neighbor agreement has some good provisions that we can sign off on and then some not so good. the good provisions include periodic meetings between the construction manager in the neighborhood, periodic meetings between the equal operate neighborhood and that's someth

simply can't do. which is one of the lowest you'll see any project do. but if you're inclined to give a continuance, certainly hope to continue that discussion and thank you. >> commissioner: okay. thank you very much for explaining that. and while i understand you may not g able to add additional b.m.r. units there may be some provision to make space for other voucher programs. i think that would be a great way to provide a service to members of the community who may have vouchers. that's going to be really hard to find places to use. we know that that can happen still and so, if there's going to be a commitment to really

open the doors then that would be excellent to see. i wanted to ask a little bit about the furnishings of the unit. i will say i'm a little concerned there's just the undercounter privilege provided. is there a way in the fridge to provide a larger refrigerator unit or if you can just understand that choice. >> i'm going to let the architect mark macy is on the line. go ahead, mark. >> yes, commissioner tanner. everybody hear me? >> commissioner: yes, we can. >> that's a possibility. however, we're following the specific planning department guidelines in this regard. interpretation 209.2a i believe of october 2005 specifies a small under counter refrigerator. we've provided the largest under counter refrigerator on the market. and just to let the

commissioners understand the context of that in my personal home with a family of four, we have an 11 cubic foot refrigerator. so, that's, you know, have the size, but maybe just for one or two people. >> commissioner: okay. >> any larger amount would violate and make this become a dwelling unit under the z interpretation. >> commissioner: okay. if that's what we're requiring by our code, then that's what we're requiring. but if we're providing larger fridges, that would be great. thank you for the renderings, for the photos of actual units that have been built. is that my understanding that this is mark macy again. that is actually a photograph of a full-sized mock up that was built for the project we did for patrick kennedy which

this commission also approved and that is a photograph of 178 square foot unit that the commissioners are invited. in the existing unit. >> there's a covid protocol. even with some members of the community and distanced manner but certainly that might be a way to familiarizize folks as safely as possible and we have to continue to mind our protocol right now. can you explain a little bit about the furnishings for the units? will they all be furnished? partially furnished is there an extra rate for that? the intent is that's all included. so it does not increase the rent. certainly, if someone doesn't want a piece of furniture, we will remove it.

having these prefurnished with these built-ins is a real benefit. the idea there as you can see in our renderings. >> commissioner: okay. if we find something. it's not in the price tag. i want to speak to community members a little bit. thank you for whether you were part of the project. this project is applying for the state density bonus and also a couple other regulations. so my understanding and perhaps you can correct me if i get this wrong, but we have some limitations in terms of no new regulations that would affect this project. kind of froze the regulations in time when they submitted their application. i see her nodding yes. there's also limitations in the planning commission, you can't actually reduce the number of dwelling units in the project

through our feedback. they have a bigger rear yard. more larger unit. that's correct? >> yeah. that's correct because this is under the housing accountability act, we're limited in terms of what we can do. there are if you have to adjustments we have to accommodate then that's fine. >> commissioner: so i just wanted to let the community know and so, with that, while i would love to see a few larger units in the building, that is an option that i'm just putting out there. other commissioners may or may not feel the same way. and, again, i think the ameant space provided on the ground floor is great. it looks like it will be really

nice. but i'm just curious if there has been any consideration for the need for more amenity space or looking at other buildings of the similar type. if that large immunity space on that ground floor seems to be sufficient for the number of residents is the project sponsor to talk about how big of a space whether they have it all centralized or disbursed. >> i can speak to that, commissioner. yeah. in terms of this particular project, you know, as you mentioned, it's substantially smaller in terms of gross square footage. we're talking a fifth of the size and our site is very small. in the context of that, it's quite a modest project. rather than itemizing all that space on the floors and diminishing its impact and have that as you mentioned the dining area overlooking a very

double generous height. that would also activate the street level. so we're at the point in order to solve all those issues, that's why we propose that. >> commissioner: okay. and the last few comments i'd like to see to just provide opportunities for both in addition to use so we can agree that can be added greater than was proposed, i would love to see more bike parking provided on site. i think another question i wanted to ask was about south and east. i understand there's roof top space which is being provided. is there any opportunity architect to add to this project, or is this something that we'd not be able to fit in with this project? >> yeah. i'm personally very interested in the balcony idea. in this particular unit, we

have to solve very many different functional issues. we are providing and it's a very important feature of the unit, a big window that extends all the way from the ceiling down to within about 24" of the floor. so that extension of the ceiling provides for the natural light, it throws light deep in the space and the closest to the floor actually connects one to the outside. so it has the affect of the space. this has been really important and the other projects have smaller units that i've designed. we're also using that little 24" space beneath the window where a juliet balcony might be. it's very narrow, very stylish, very compact, but it still needs that 24". so we felt with the low window

threshold, combined with a fully operational window of generous pro portions that we're really trying to balance those needs and get the best of both worlds. and i should point out we have 38% more open space on the roof and there's potential to add another 1,000 square feet on the roof. we just didn't promise that because we might have to reserve some of that for mechanical equipment. >> commissioner: thank you so much for that. those are my questions and comments. >> commissioner: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: i'm sorry, commissioner diamond, you are muted. >> commissioner: am i unmuted

now? >> yes, we can hear you. >> commissioner: so i wanted to provide my comments as well to many of which commissioner tanner's comments. before i do that, i was intrigued by something that mr. gladstone started to say but he was cut off. if i heard correctly, he had said maybe they would substitute another kitchen down stairs for a couple of units and i was intrigued by that, but wondering if instead that could be done further in the building that it was more accessible to the units as opposed to being even further away. >> well, i'm going to let the architect address as to the other places it can be. it's not a true basement because it looks into the rear yard. it's not all underground.

but could you comment on whether it can be done in higher floors, that second one because we said we would do it down in the lowest floor as well as above. thank you. >> yes, commissioner diamond. well, i do think this building is smaller. it doesn't require a smaller kitchen. actually sort of independent cooking facilities in each unit which i think definitely get our daily healthy meals in. if the commission felt it was necessary, we could locate it. one thought i had was locating in the area and rather having people to go down to the laundry room, there would be an additional community kitchen down below that would connect with the rear yard so it would support indoor, and outdoor dining perhaps. i guess it is conceivable to put the kitchen up higher, but

that seems less desirable. but i suppose it is conceivable. >> i don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, but i have the same comments although they're less extreme on this because it's smaller than i did on the other one. it's really important to me that each of the units have the maximum number of cooking facilities that's permitted and i was delighted to hear you're going to do two burners and convection stove and i would like that to be part of the project approval whether it's part of the design that's approved assuming that's okay with you. correct. >> yeah. >> commissioner: because you're proposing that, is that right? >> yes. we don't mand what you put in the condition in the plans that we describe to you. >> okay. then my question for mr. tig,

is can the same thing be applied without violating housing regulations? >> the short answer is "no" because the planning code definition for group housing itself actually says that the group housing has to be without individual facilities. it's only through the interpretation that was to my understanding largely to take account of kind of our historic group housing that tended to have minimal and limited cooking facilities and to kind of put them out of compliance with group housing, that the interpretation allows for these limited cooking facilities that makes it very clear what it can have. and, there, it specifically says that the only facilities you're allowed to have are a small undercounter refrigerator, a small sink, a microwave and a two-ring burner. it specifically says you can't

have an oven. i think part of the challenge that i'm hering is that there seems to be a desire from commissioners and the community that the suites of these rooms become larger and have more substantial facilities and essentially are more self-sufficient. the challenge is the more that happens, the more these units, more cooking facilities become larger and more self-sufficient. we get into this binary issue of when is it a dwelling unit? and one of the key components is kind of a cooking facility in the unit. so that's kind of a longer answer than what you ask for. but generally speaking the interpretation is already providing more than what the code allows and it very strictly limits what those facilities can be. >> commissioner: okay. but you are okay just to

confirm with the combination convection microwave? >> right. and there's so many different types of appliances like that today. i looked at the specks on the ones provided for this. my counter tops has more and was larger than what was provided here. i don't think we have a big appetite into delving in to kind of multi-feature microwaves. obviously, when you get into larger ovens and floor model ovens, that's where we're trying to stay away from for group housing. >> right. i get that. my concern with the definition of group housing is when we get to these very large projects and we've got one hundred different units sharing one communal kitchen. we've got one hundred sharing one kitchen, there's a lot of tension between trying to