trust if you want to do good in this world, thattttttttttttttttt . >> 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 th

>> 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 limit the number of cooking facilities in any unit versus um, staying within, you know, the definition that you're talking about. so i would be in favor of adding a second kitchen. i'm not sure which is best whether it would be, you know, down stairs and moving the

laundry is more convenient to each of the units and i don't have a strong preference except to say i would be in favor of adding the second kitchen. i think 100 units so i'm very much in favor of that particular proposal, mr. gladstone that you made today. i would also -- i don't think we should change the rules on this game. i would have liked to see for i meant space immenity space like lounge space where people can hang outside their very small units and i would like to have seen some of that on more than just the ground floor. so i think that's something we

ought to take into account when we're thinking about group housing going forward, but i'm not necessarily saying it has to happen for this project because we're at the last stage here and i don't think we should change the rules of the game on you and you designed it this far. although, were you to find a way to add more immenity space and amenity. we've had a number of state projects in front of us since the beginning of the year. each of common was requiring less than the amount of open space. so we push very hard to encourage the project sponsors to add balconies. even if they didn't meet the code's open space requirement, we have been very supportive of the notion of just a little bit of private open space where possible especially in a post

covid world. here, because you're meeting the open space requirements, you know, i don't think that, you know, we would push that as hard. i will say i'm totally. that seems to me to be a real plus and that's it for my comments. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i generally wanted to acknowledge that this project is sensitivity designed and i think the challenges we are posing to the architect i'm sure will be well received. that's probably best

accommodated where the architect finds the right space and other requirements, technical requirements. it can't just be everywhere. when you have the same amenities, those floors which will carry them have more burden and more foot traffic that might be given the facility too much for traffic. so that becomes another question as to whether or not if it's all on the ground floor, then it's just in the building anyway. it's separate from those floors in which the individual units find their home address. so these are all interesting questions. i think that all should be brought forward for consideration and i would look for mr. macy to find the

sensitivity to resolve. own ability to get into dialog about what that project needs to do for the community. that would be my comments. thank you. >> commissioner: i'll make my comments short. i just would like to ask a question to director hill. as we are delving into the housing element and i believe next week or within the next couple weeks there would be informational housing elements i think this kind of project gives us a deeper way of thinking now when it comes to

whether group housing, the redefining group housing also include the inclusion of the public health aspect into it that also looking in to design itself. i'm wondering in the coming weeks. >> well, certainly, i mean, i think we've already sent out kind of a draft policy and actions and i can't recall if group housing is specifically called that, but you try to talk about varied types of housing and small, medium-sized projects being allowed in parts of the city that they're currently not. and anything you see from from kind of the maps happens

primarily in the eastern side of the city and there are some limitations that will make that accessible in r.h. district. there's limits in some of the -- density limits in some of the n.c. districts. so we don't go into that specificity in the housing, but it's a topic we should certainly touch on in making sure this type of housing is not just allowed in certain part officer the city. >> commissioner: thank you very much. i'm ready to vote. thank you. >> president: well, if you're ready, commissioner imperial, so am i. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this motion. on that matter

[roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and as item 13, 1567 california street >> gentlemen. let's get off this line and call each other on a separate line. >> president: indeed. good. that would be good. >> okay. apologies, commissioners. juggling multiple buttons. but as i was saying that 1567 california street has been continued, that will place us on items 14a and b. for item zero 7798. at 48 stockton street.

you will consider a conditional use authorization as well as an office development authorization. linda, i see that you're on with us. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, jonas. thank you. >> okay. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to allow a change of use on floors 3 through 6 from retail to office use at the site of the former barney's department store. the project would convert 37,432 retail space on general office over a 6-story basement building. the project is located in the downtown retail zoning district which requires conditional use authorization for nonretail sales or service uses on the third floor for any use size and when greater than 5,000

square feet on additional floors. a small cap allocation is also required. as of december 10th, 2020, there was approximately 728,338' section 321 and would not undermind the core retail function of the c.c. rvmentd district. the project would not affect the retail shopping experience at the pedestrian level. the subject building is an article 11 historic resource. a minor permit to alter has been submitted to make alterations to an existing entry door along the street frontage. this permit is being processed

separately. to date, the department has used one comment in support of the project from the union square district. the project is unbalanced, consistent with the area plan and objectives and policies of the general plan. although the project results in a loss of retail space, the project reserves the retail space on the first two floors of the building and the office use with flexibility that would allow one or more tenants to occupy the space. the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. i would now like to introduce clark miller from the team who has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions.

>> mr. miller, your slides are up and you have 5 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. i'm clark miller, managing director at strada investing group on the repositioning of 48 stockton. we appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal to you today. next slide, please. i'm going to walk you through the location and proposed program for 48 stockton and share with you the alternatives we consider for this building and why we believe office is an appropriate use for the upper used floors. the building is located at the corner of stockton and farrell. it's a 64,000 square foot 6-story building. constructed in 1809. most recently occupied by barneys. the building remains vacant

today. next slide, please. as you can see in this building section, our proposed program provides 22,660 square feet for retail use. and offers 37,402 degree on floors 3 through 6, plus a new office lobby entry off of o'farrell. this proposed retail shopping experience while providing additional flexibility and leasing the upper floors of the building as office. next slide, please. we carefully considered several alternative uses and first and foremost was retail. and had been before covid made retail performance worse. as this map depicts, there are six spaces currently vacant and available and there are an additional three spaces which are occupied but will become

evacuee cannot soon and are available. based on the number of store fronts, that translates into 25% vacancy and 37.5% availability. stock tan's been challenging for some time and it's great that pedestrian traffic can return once life reverts to some post-covid normalcy. >> the latest queue has just been released. overall union square vacancy has gone from 4.2% in q1 to 13.6% as of q12021. and interestingly, the vacancy rate had already risen significantly before covid hit where it doubled to 8.4%. so we've been careful not to make a knee jerk reaction. for 48 stockton, we're hearing from tenants that multilevel retail is challenging and we're seeing decrease demand and retailers typically won't consider the third floor even

for significantly discounted rents. next slide, please. we carefully considered residential and found the twofold challenge. first, our building has exposure to light and air. the other two sides are blocked by 2 stockton and the sailing building and even the light and quality of that air is highly compromised and those views would be restricted to the back of the building. the second challenge is that the lightwell and necessary circulation would result in a 26% loss in rental square footage. next slide, please. lastly, we studied office and determined it made the most sense to add office for leasing the upper floors and provide us flexibility as we pursue

tenants. it gives the space a unique feel with 16' plus floor and other creative users. plus it has great access to bart and muni. and, lagsly, office use up stairs will help activate the lower floors and allow us to pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements of elevator and to help make deals on the retail floors. all that said, as this slide depicts, our proposal has been designed to maintain the ability to use the third floor as retail. the building's third floor maintaining the ability of a single retail tenant to occupy these three lower floors. next slide, please. thank you for reviewing our proposal today. we believe our approach will help revitalize union square and enable it to succeed.

thank you and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. if there are no questions, we should take public xhen. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to is this matter by pressing star 3 to enter into the queue. have you two minutes. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. excuse me. >> yes. good afternoon, planning commissioners. can you all hear me? >> we can. >> great. my name is karen have you had. i'm the executive director of the union square and i represent property owners and per chants in and around union square. point in time we are very much in support of this project. the project sponsors presented to us earlier this week and when we looked at our development policy, they meet all of the criteria that are

important to us. mainly the use of the building is consistent with the other uses on the block and the district. the architectural design sounds like it will be unaltered other than the small office entrance on o'farrell street. there will be active uses on o'farrell street with the retail. we certainly welcome the office uses on the upper floor. we believe as retail is shrinking. demand for that is shrinking in our area. we obviously have been impacted by the central subway construction. we want to make sure the planners mitigate any impacts to construction that we've been living through and they said they would agree to that.

so we are in support and we look forward to having a project in the area that will help us revitalize and pull you out of this pandemic. thank you. >> thank you. last call, members of the public for public comment. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak >> you pretty much explained it all >> commissioner diamond. obviously, the revitalization of union square is absolutely critical. i put it in the same category as our other major tourist

features that it's an economic driver for the city and that we need to make sure that there's localities of life going on. i don't know how much of the second floor square footage is being proposed office space. are there any proposals for residential. are there plans on the books that you're going to bring us as a planning commission for how you think about encouraging additional developments. i feel like i need context in which to consider this particular project proposal. >> commissioner rich hillis. you may want to take a little bit on kind of what you see in the pipeline in union square.

but commissioner diamond, definitely a challenge and one we're working with oewd on and that retail and the property owners in union square and kind of what the future is for union square and certainly in the challenges that retailers are facing now is not necessarily new it's something we were seeing even prepandemic having this discussion about the second floor and how those spaces that were formally retail could be reused. and i think the good news is our zoning is flexible. so housing is allowed. hotels are allowed. office space is allowed so it's

one of the most flexible units around. some are challenging to reuse and i think what we're hearing from retailers in the union square community, they want the ground floor of the space, they can market the easiest but they need people around and hopefully we're going to see an uptick in that as hotels re-open and tourists come back. but this is the type of use that could activate those upper floors and provide people in that neighborhood and hopefully we'll start to see more of these uses on the upper floor of union square. >> yeah, any pipelines. >> yeah, we definitely have seen an increase. i think we have started to see

an increase prior to covid and even afterwards now. we've seen additional applications being filed. it's very much, i think there's a number of issues going on with union square and i think it has to do with some things we can't control through zoning. you know, the cities everywhere have been dealing with the housing crisis, drug epidemic, all sorts of quality of life issues that are really impacting the downtown. i think the fact that the construction is wrapping up on the subway, i think that's a huge plus for this particular area, you know, it's very much needing activity and i think we're seeing a lot of people wanting to convert the upper retail floors into other uses like the macy's, the corner,

right at stockton and o'farrell is being -- is a proposal for residential with office use as well as retail at the ground floor. so we've got i want to say about between 5 to 10 projects and we're evaluating as they come in. i know that commissioner diamond, you mentioned that you would like a more wholistic approach to these and we are reaching out to o.e.w.d. and others to get a bid to get an idea of how we can stat jiez moving forward. >> yeah. there are limits to [inaudible] -- because of the prop m, prop e caps. there's no availability on the large caps. so a conversion of 50,000

square feet, you couldn't do it because it's not available in our large cap. >> right. [inaudible] one of the other obvious questions is a question that needs to -- >> commissioner, you're breaking up. >> i think we lost commissioner diamond. >> president: commissioner diamond, we will come back to you. but commissioner fung is up next. >> i pressed my name in there. >> president: i'm reading the names i see on my chat list, and that's all i can do. >> okay. >> they're not coming through.

>> president: go ahead, commissioner fung. >> commissioner: a question to the project sponsor. >> yes. >> commissioner: you've indicated the vacancy rates for retail. any idea of vacancy rates for office? >> i don't know the vacancy rates for office in union square. let me try to track down that information for you. it's a very small market compared to the broader san francisco market. versus the 90 million that the whole market offers so it's only about 90% of the entire market. i'd have to understand what that would mean for office vacancy in union square.

>> president: i'm seeing commissioner tanner next. >> commissioner: thank you. i just wanted to hear from the project sponsor if can you kind of follow up on the question. you've got an appetite, customers who want to rent these office spaces or you're hoping that as the economy recovers that these will be leased. do you have tenants that are already identified? >> thank you for the question, commissioner tanner. just to step out one second for commissioner fung, 17% is the current vacancy in union square for office we wanted to get through our approvals with the planning commission before we get too far ahead of ourselves. but we do think that the nature of the building, the unique

historic nature of it, we think it will be very attractive to a set of tenants that aren't necessarily interested in being downtown and so we're optimistic we'll have pretty good traction and activity. >> commissioner: okay. and you mentioned there's an appetite for different size retail. are you concerned about a tenant for that size of space or do you feel those retailers. >> yeah, the remaining amount of retail that would be on the basement and first level and second level is 22,600. >> commissioner: okay. >> and, it is still certainly a large space and there are a number of competitive retail spaces in union square that we will be competing with, but we're going to be aggressive and we know it's an important location for union square as of the foot and the gateway to the

rest of the neighborhood and so we certainly are looking for activity on that and we have one of the best brokers in the business and we're looking forward to getting some tenant act it there soon. >> commissioner: yeah, i think we're all looking forward for any vacant place to get activity and then the customers to follow for really all of our uses across the city. just wanting to both think comprehensively about the future of union square and sure what the vision is and trying to do our best to understand where retail goes what the area looks like residential is really challenging for so many

reasons and then you get into the age of the building and these updates and all the reasons why it's hard in some cases it's more financially feasible to demolish the house than it is to convert an existing office building or retail building. that said, having a mix for hotel and retail office and residential to really give it that 24/7 customer base that retail can survive. i hope that i know you guys are on the job and i look forward to hearing more. >> president: i know commissioner diamond got cut

off. let's see if she's available. >> commissioner: can you hear me? >> president: yeah. >> commissioner: what i was just going to say is even it's important we will get a presentation soon like in the next few couple of months about sort of the grander vision for the rejuvenation of the union square. >> president: commissioner chan. >> thank you. i really appreciate the possibility of converting the office to residential. we're not there yet, but many

many cities are grappling with this very issue and exploring the possibilities. so i think it would be prudent for the department to take a more proactive look. take a look at the investigation. i just want to pose a question and i'm wondering if you can confirm. so office and retail is not necessarily usually exclusive in this case, so while they'll be the option for office, it can always go back to retail. >> that's correct. the only instance where retail would require a c.u. is if it's 90,000 considering the building is 90,000 square feet. that would not be the case

here. >> commissioner: perfect. in that case, i'm very supportive. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: just like the other commissioners, the obviously gaps of office space, ultimately, the concern is how do we maintain a viable city. i am flad to have had the presentation by mr. miller really exploring the potential and the strengths of this building as article 11 this building has extra protections giving a lot of meaning to the lower part. but as an anchor, with maintaining retail on the floors indicated, i think we have a lot of meat left to bring something back which

always transitioned us from post and upper stockton to this particular part of union square. i am encouraged that the spaces as office will attract users that will bring the necessary foot traffic that is expected to bring office back. i have a question and that is since this particular project falls under the retail conversion legislation, nobody talked about a conversion fee will this project be subject to the conversion fee. >> it is subject to that fee.

>> you know. i'm just delving into my pandemic mind. it's basically to improve open spaces within the c3r district. it's separate from the park fee and it's separate from there's an open space fee that's part of c3s in general sort of what the bid is currently trying to do and to provide open space. >> commissioner: thanks for saying that because it would be

interesting to hear as to the commissioners questions on how to create excitement. the exceptionally long construction period has not decimated any feeling of excitement about that part that part of stockton street. i would not know what it is. i would love to hear the union square bid come and discuss what their ideas are and here also by us being on the front line to making these critical decisions such as converting retail space to office. i'd like to just put that out there as an exciting prospect to further the discussion, but

i am in support of the project as it stands today. >> president: i think commissioner tanner also brought up a good point. office can bring traffic even maybe 24 hour timeframes would be even more successful. i would entertain a motion to approve. >> commissioner: move to approve. >> commissioner: second. >> president: would anyone like to second? >> commissioner: second. >> president: thank you. on that motion then, commissioners to approve a conditional use authorization and office allocation [roll call]

so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 15 at 1428-1434 irving street. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes i am. thank you. >> president: okay the floor is yours. >> good afternoon. sharon young planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization. the project site at 1428 irving street and 1434 irving street is located within the inner sunset neighborhood commercial

zoning district. the project in approximately 2,732 square foot vacant commercial space located on the 1st and partial twond floor of the two-story mixed use building. 1428 irving street was approximately 3,081 square foot commercial space of the two story building occupied by an existing animal hospital in business irving hospital at 1434 irving street. the combining commercial spaces of approximately 5,813 square feet of floor area. the project will involve improvements to commercial spaces and interior will be provided in the two existing

spaces. there will be no expansion of the existing [inaudible] proposed. the existing residential meter on the partial second floor will remain with the project. the existing hospital has been on the project site at 1434 irving street for approximately 57 years. it was established in 1954 under conditional use authorization case number cu62.19 under numbers 6238. according to the project sponsors, veterinary services and treatment services will be

located was the proposed renovations. not proposed under the current project and just to note that most operation will be within the interior of the building. the existing rear yard application meeting was not required for the project. the project sponsors have indicated that they have conducted community outreach efforts and have approximately 185 signatures in support of the project. the project sponsors have indicated that there's currently one tenant in the residential unit at 1428 irving street and there were other

projects. the planning department's recommendation was approved and this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> president: thank you. sharon, does the project sponsor have any slides? >> president: sharon, does the project sponsor have any slides? >> only if needed. he was going to give his presentation verbally. >> great. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> fantastic. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david pen with dba

on behalf of the project sponsor. irving pet hospital has been serving the community generally for over 60 years. 1963. an active member of the community, a regular judge. he brings a renewed focus of individualized medicine and continuity affair to i.c.h.. the increasing trends of corporation, dr. fong is an avid believer in specialized health care for sf's favorite residents. dr. fung has also led the practice of accreditation which places it at the top 15% of clinics around the country. in addition to the 700

evaluation required for this accreditation, there's also an annual inspection for the accreditation. i just wanted to reiterate of the 1334 into the adjacent building via the opening across the property lines which would be done in accordance with sfdbi and sfd standards. the additional space in 4 teen 28 irving will offer the ability of the clinic to build out additional exam rooms. specialty procedure of dental suite. shipping and receiving storage

area and state of the art hvac. irving pet hospital has really done a remarkable job in reaching out on this project. back in august, they mailed letters to the entire neighborhood and neighborhood association. they walked five blocks down and up each way irving with fliers. they walked around the block and talked to residents that are share adjacent backyards, fences with the property and they received an overwhelming number of support. the hospital is really an integral the support will be reflected in this large document of letters and support that each of you will have received. but, you know, both specific retail businesses and residences and residential neighbors both signed on and expressed support of the

expansion. i.c.h. has operated for decades without any neighborhood complaints. measures will be taken in the build out of this new space to ensure this continues to be the case. there will be a separate entrance for dogs and cats which will cut down on barking. construction will be dry wall with resilient channels and sound insulation. animal waste will be picked up immediately and stored outside as it always has been. and transported off site. there are no overnight stays. in addition to being an obvious benefit to the community, this expansion will provide, it will also benefit the community in terms of activating a currently vacant retail space similar to the last agenda item.

parking section of this and the hospital will activate the space in a similar way in terms of street traffic as would any other principally permitted use. rates of pet ownership obviously everybody knows are very high in san francisco. has balloons during the pandemic. and irving pet care has been at the center of that and that's what this expansion is all about. dr. fong is on the phone. if you want to make any additional comments? >> i just want to say thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to possibly help the community. it is really true that during this pandemic and isolation that people have found some part of their humanity through their pets because they don't

judge you, they don't care about the pandemic. there's something that's stable that you can come home to. and we've seen in the city emergencies. >> president: thank you, sir. unfortunately, that is your time. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> president: members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3 and you'll be added to the queue. seeing now requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners. public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner: i'm in support of staff's recommendation commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: yes. i think it's wonderful to see neighborhoods that are expanding, they're clearly

critical to all of us pet owners including myself and probably many of the other commissioners who own pets, you know. but i do have two particular questions i wanted to address first. you mentioned that you talked to the res chapel hill tenants, did they have any concerns? >> to the contrary. >> commissioner: okay. so no issues about noise or odor or hours of operation. >> commissioner, no concerns at all. >> commissioner: okay. and then secondly, staff indicated that you will not be using the rear yard. is that for pets from the animals? is that correct of either rear yard? >> there's only a rear yard at

1428 irving and that is correct. that space will be used for employee kind of break area and lunch area. >> commissioner: okay. so fellow commissioners, given all of the issues that we had last year with the doggy day care in the marina, that arose from use of the rear yard and the concerns that neighbors had, i would like to propose or i'd make a motion to approve this project, but i'd like to add a condition that indicates they can't use the rear yard for animals without coming back to us for an amendment because then we could craft conditions probably similar to what we impose on that project to mitigate the issues that were of concern to neighbors. >> i think that sounds okay. commissioner moore.

>> president: commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> perhaps, we can ask dr. fong briefly respond to your question and see if he has any thought about that. >> commissioner: yeah. that's a good idea. >> commissioner: dr. fong are you available to address commissioner diamond's question regarding the use of the yard? >> yes, i am. can you hear me. >> president: yes. >> perfect. we'd rather have that yard be used by staff. we're a hospital, we'd rather keep our sick patients inside and not have them outside. so we would never have any animals out in that yard especially from a hospital standpoint. so i'm absolutely i'm saying

okay with what the commissioner said. >> commissioner: commissioner diamond, if you're comfortable with hearing that as a response i would like him to give staff the opportunity to have lunch out there and be outside. i think that's important for staff health and if no animals are being allowed there, then your question is being answered, is that correct? >> commissioner: yes. my condition was only limited to animals i'm fine approving the project, i just wanted to add a condition that indicated that animals couldn't have use of the rear yard without coming back for an amendment. >> commissioner: with that clarification made, i'd like to make a motion to move. >> president: i believe that was commissioner diamond's motion. >> commissioner: then i would second that. i didn't know.

thank you. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: the only thing i want to say is it's exciting to see an expansion of a small business and i'm just really in support of this project and glad that it's maybe a silver lining that the pandemic that more animals are finding homes. so there's a bright spot in our agenda. >> president: okay. if there's nothing -- if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended to include a condition that no use of the rear yard outdoor space for patients. on that motion [roll call]

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing this under your discretionary review panel. drp-2. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow. >> i'm here and i hope you can see and hear me. good afternoon, commissioners. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is a discretionary review of building applicant

2020-001578d.r.p.-02. for the construction of a 505' vertical addition to create a new second floor on an existing one-story over basement, two-bedroom home. 1,866 square feet and no off-street parking is proposed. built in 1906. the project is by two people. first is kevin fox, a resident of the property who is concerned that the project will impact the light to his apartment and open space and the second request here aaron stone of 44 reed resident of the property across reed street to the east is concerned that the project will impact privacy and light and will result in the elimination of what may be

few of the earthquake checks. there have been two letters of opposition to the project since the project was noticed. and since the 311 notification, the project sponsor has revised the project to lower the height by an additional 2' and 3" and to modify the size and location of the front windows to reduce privacy impacts. the department's review of this proposal confirms support for this project as it supports the building code and the residential guidelines. staff does not recognize the circumstances. the second story vertical addition is lower than the surrounding buildings. the additional vertical massing is just more than the existing cable roof.

the rear wall is set behind the rear wall and the rear deck is set back 3' from the sidewalk line with an open railing. and, as i mentioned, the project sponsor has modified the design to lower the overall height by 3' 2" and modifying the locations of the windows in the front. with this, staff recommends not taking discretionary review and proving what's proposed. i will be here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow. let me see if i can't find these dr. requesters. ms. holly yes. >> you have three minutes. >> okay. thank you, jonas.

and, good evening, commissioners. deborah holly for aaron stone at forty-four reed. one of the dr requesters. i'm happy to confirm that we've reached an agreement with the project sponsors on a modified plan and construction mitigation. since our concerns were addressed, we no longer oppose the project and thank you for your time. i also understand that the second dr requester kevin fox will be calling in on the public comment line. okay. and i'm available for questions if needed. thank you. >> thank you, ms. holly. unfortunately, mr. fox, did not provide a phone number to unmute. >> jonas, i had added his phone number as of late this morning

around 11:00 into the spread sheet. i don't know if that's available to you or not. >> i don't have it. no. it's not here. um, we have his e-mail address that is not visible on the information provided to me. so let me try unmuting those people who have their hands raised. there are three of you. is this mr. fox? >> it is. thank you. >> okay. good luck. three minutes. >> thank you for finding me. and, good evening to the panel. provided that the modified plans are what is approved, i

do not object to the project as modified. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> yes. i had some concerns about the sincerity of the project sponsor. but [inaudible] the modified plans. >> okay. well, project sponsor, i'm not sure there's much of a presentation that's necessary here, but you have 6 minutes. i'm not sure you need all of that time, though. >> hello. good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm sponsor and designer for this project.

the addition is very important to the future for mr. dew and his family. it will be for the lay-out up to the current code. the proposed project will increase the existing two bedrooms and two bathrooms to four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. the second floor of it includes the living room and the two bedrooms placed in the rear with a total building area of 1,866 square foot. we made the adjustments as i mentioned. we lowered the building height. we have relocated and the. we also revised the design of the front to put in the

privacy. and also as david mentioned, the rear setback is for the additional floor is actually the balcony on the top floor this allows light to pass through from the south side we also did asia doe study which shows there's minimum impact into the neighbors. we believe we have made concessions to adjust the concerns and i wish the commission can approve this project. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> great. thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star and to be entered into the queue and the dr requesters in the queue and i don't see any

reason for rebuttal. so public comment is closed. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> commissioner: move to take dr and accept the modifications as agreed upon between the parties. >> if i can clarify please, the recommendation was not to a take d.r., we will honor the modifications since we have the revisions inhand and can do so without having taking the d.r. >> commissioner: then i change my motion to not take d.r. >> second and commissioner. >> does that require further direction that mr. winslow's interpretation of what needs to be done is what guides the problem because normally when a d.r. is formed, we do not vote on it. >> right. in this particular case, the d.r. was not withdrawn but as you heard from the d. rvmentd requesters they are not proposed to the modified plans

that have already been submitted so staff is not recommending any modifications to those plans. so i think commissioner fung got it right that there will be no d.r. approved as proposed and the dates will be cited as -- excuse me -- plans will be cited as dated. >> >> commissioner: and then i second that motion. >> okay. very good. on that motion, then, to not take d.r. and approve the project as modified, commissioner tanner [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and we'll place this on the final item on today's agenda that was pulled off of consent for item 6 case number

2020-00850729 castro street. this is a use authorization. >> commissioners, i just wanted to introduce ryan volvo before he starts. he's the new planner one on the southwest team in the planning department. ryan uses all pronouns. they had joined the department about a year ago starting work remotely and then serving as a disaster service worker. ryan graduated with a bachelor's in urban studies in san diego, california. >> thank you. i'll start my presentation now. good afternoon president koppel and members of the commission.

ryan balbo planning staff. a conditional use authorization pursuant to section 317 to demolish an existing two-story two-family residence the project will construct a new three-story over basement two-unit residential building. i'd like to read a correction to the record. the proposed structure would be four stories tall. the new building is three stories over basement. the new two-unit building will provide two family-sized units with a two car garage. one is 1,nine hundred thirteen gross square feet and unit two

is 1,square feet. the letter expressed support for the project's compatible design and creates density with two family-sized units. two letters of opposition were received following the case position of the report. issues what they consider an internal lay-out for unit one as well as concerns for light and neighbor. the department recommends the approval as listed in the packet circulated on april 13th and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. while simultaneously enhancing and preserving the immediate neighborhood's character, the project will be developed to meet the needs and necessities of the family.

the project will provide a youth compatible and that the proposed residential building will be compatible with the density and height of the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, ryan. mr. shaw, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> you've got 5 minutes. >> thank you. >> your slides are up. >> all right. dear president and commissioners, my name is jeremy shaw of shaw architects. this project wasn't originally on the consent calendar. so i'll move into some of the neighborhood concerns. we're here today to propose a demolition and new construction

project. slide two, please. the existing building is a small single family dwelling that has been owner occupied since 1975. slide 3. the existing home has a large front setback as well as setbacks on each side. slide 4, please the existing floor plan is awkward with only one official bedroom. the rh2 lot. a full demolition instead of an alteration permit. slide 5. this is our proposed site plan with the original building profile in green. and footprint with the main addition being towards the front with a 12' pop-out in the rear. slide 6, please. this rendering shows our proposed building due to the

typography, we are proposing a three story building over the base am. each of the stories will have separate entrances from the street. unit two thousand one hundred twenty-one comprises the lower two levels. roughly one thousand nine hundred square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. private open space is provided in the rear yard. slide 8. unit two thousand one hundred nineteen is on the upper two levels. the exterior front steps bring you to the main living area. slide 9, please. the roof has a proposed deck that complies with the commission's new roof deck policy. the railings are set back 5' from the sides and that's also approximately 1/3 the size of the roof. slide 10, please.

the section helps show the relationship between the two units. the lower unit is 87% the size of the upper unit and this also demonstrates the slope of the site showing the need for the basement area. slide 11, please. the front and rear facade are articulated to the assigned buildings. with accents of natural wood siding at the entries. slide 12, please. this photo montage shows the rear yard. the project maintains mid walk open space for all adjacent buildings. slide 13, please. this rendering shows the building from uphill on cast trudeau street near its intersection of 28th.

the height follows the neighborhood maximizing the density on the site. and last slide, 14, our neighborhood meeting was held on zoom last september, however, no neighbors attended. at times with our building owner to the east and she sent you an e-mail of support as ryan mentioned. we have only heard from other neighbors this week. recording the homes for south, that was rebuilt in 2013 as a large expansion to a family dwelling. they have expressed concerns about light and views as well as placement of our doors. this image shows the door alignment along the streets, you can see there's varying patterns but ours do more or less correspond to the doors on neighboring buildings. and, further, we are also only

2'3" in front of their building. we have stated both units will be for sale but we don't know what's going to happen after that because we don't have the ability to monitor that. and the rear yard accessibility only makes sense for the lower unit based on the slope and a more efficient lay out. the upper unit will benefit from a comparable amount of open space and while perhaps not common in the area. thank you for your attention and i will be happy to answer questions you may have. >> thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public comment by pressing star

three. okay. you have two minutes. >> thank you for taking this off of consent. this is not a typical stacked flat that san francisco uses that's provided housing so that sort of caught my intention and what also caught my attention was 2.and i'm not accusing them of doing this, but this is what's gone on happening recently in noey valley where two units are sold as a single family home. i don't know if they've got condo papers or what, but my point was that it seems

reasonable within six months of the cfc that this developer send a note back to you and your staff and just let you know what the occupancy is and what the tenure is. i don't think it's too much of a burden. the other thing i'll say about the roof deck is the open space requirement with the deck off unit 1, the main unit, they don't need that roof deck up there and the thing about the roof deck is it's good they took off the stair penthouse, but this is an extremely steep hill and it will be very visible from the street and i didn't know there was a roof deck policy officially. but that was kind of interesting news to me and i'd love to see it written down. that's basically it. i want to just thank ryan and maggie smith for their help

with this and, you know, i think that that's really my main point is to get some information back to the commission, to the staff what's going on as you densify the neighborhood. i guess that's it. . thanks. take care. >> okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak from the public. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >>. >> president: let's hear from commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i hope you're enjoying your time here at the planning department.

i appreciate this project. i appreciate the reasoning behind the rear yard only be accessible to the lower unit. i did have that as a question, but the architect did explain why that is the case. i think the project is well designed and will be a great addition to adding two units on the lot which has just been fantastic. so i would move to approve this project. >> commissioner: second. >> okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion, commissioner tanner [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and concludes your agenda

today. >> thank you. >> commissioner: take care. >> commissioner: bye everybody. thank you. >> mission housing welcomes you and welcomes our political partners who join us today and will be speaking shortly as well as the members of both

mission housing and bridge housing board of director. we want to thank you for your leadership. we want to take this opportunity to tell you the celebration doesn't end here after our ribbon cutting. please make sure you join us on our facebook join to premier the documentary, which is titled, together, designing the la fenix, the story behind how this amazing mural came to life. please help me welcome an advocate for affordable housing, someone who five years ago, when 1950 was still the navigation center in the

mission, she stood her and let the neighborhood know she was on her way to washington, d.c., so she could get support. please help me welcome the mayor of san francisco, london breed. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: well, thank you, everyone. i am so excited to finally be at la fenix. this project is so exciting for me because i remember when we were first opening navigation centers in san francisco, and this was one of the first locations that we opened a navigation to supervise shelter and support to people who were experiencing homelessness. but before that, we remembered

there was a continuation high school. sometimes, when kids got into trouble, they had to go somewhere, and this was a place that provided an opportunity for kids to get their diploma. it was also a place where labor folks learned their activitie. it's been so much for the community, and so it is so fitting that we're able to transform this space into 100% affordable housing for families, 155 units. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and it is absolutely beautiful. i want to thank mission housing and bridge housing for partnering on this project. i was here when it was a navigation center, i was here when we broke ground on this place to build, and you would think that, in bureaucratic

years, ann cervantes, that we would be waiting for this to be built, but the fact is we have 50 families that are housed here as we speak. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: one of the things that i'm also really proud of is that not only will 40 formerly homeless families have an opportunity to live here, but when i announced that i was on the board of supervisors that i was flying to d.c. on a redeye to get h.u.d. to change their mind -- josh, you remember this -- about neighborhood preference, the latino community stood with the african american community. we talked about how the government would come to cities, to communities, and say we're going to build this housing, and this housing is going to make a difference in your community. but then, we would look around and say, well, wait a minute,

this housing is built, but no one from this community lives there. so neighborhood preference, not only did we get h.u.d. to say no to neighborhood projects, the state is actively engaged to make sure when they provide funds, we're able to do it, as well. we have at least 29 of these units that will be available, right of first refusal, to people who live in this community. that's significant because we get thousands of applications for the housing that we build, but we want to make sure that when we do build housing, people in the neighborhoods feel like it's being built for them, feel like they have a fighting chance. and roberto hernandez was there with me on the day that we made this announcement because he and so many folks in this community, they have been fighting to make sure that the

people who create the vibrancy of what represents the mission, the thriving latino community, that they didn't get pushed out like we did, the african american community in the western addition. that's why it's so important, the work we do, to make it possible for them to reach out to places like this, is more important than it's ever been before. san francisco is changing so much. it's not the city that it was when i was growing up, and that's why it's important that we recognize the inequities, the injustices that exist in our housing stock, and that's why we make deliberate changes to deal with those inequities. providing access to affordable housing is so critical, but making sure that those that are struggling with homelessness, those that are struggling with

access, it is our role to continue to partner and make sure that when we provide projects like this, we're able to ensure that they are a part of this, too. so we created not a new community, but we enhanced an existing community as a result of this project. le fenix, the phoenix, the symbol of san francisco to rise again under this global pandemic, after being sheltered in place for over a year, we are emerging stronger, we are emerging even better than we were before, and we are focusing on equity in everything we do. whether it's dealing with this pandemic or dealing with access to affordable housing, this is

one of the most important things we can do. this project started with sam. i know you're semi retired, but this project started with sam ruiz, who made sure there will be child care on location, that there will be a bike repair shop -- i don't know about you, but i don't ride a bicycle anymore, but for the younger folks who do that, it's all good. this will be a community place for kids, for families, for folks here in the mission, and i am so juiced over the fact that everyone who lives here can just walk around the corner and go to pancho villa any time they want. that's the thing i'm most excited about. but at the end of the day, as we come out of this pandemic,

we know there's still work to do. we know there's housing that still needs to be built. we know that we will continue to work with this community to make sure that we are investing in affordable housing, making the right decisions, being inclusive, using neighborhood preference, and building our partners and building our bridges so that everyone has a safe affordable place to call home. thank you all so much for joining us here today. [applause] >> thank you, mayor breed, for your powerful remarks and for taking the time to celebrate this important event with us. good morning. i'm e.v.p. for development at bridge housing.

our mission at bridge housing is to strengthen communities, but we recognize that our developments can only become thriving communities if they provide safe, stable, and affordable housing for those who cannot find a home in a place where they once had a sense of belonging. as cesar chavez [inaudible] despite the unprecedented challenges imposed by the pandemic, our presence here today to mark this moment is a testimony to the tenacity of countless people who came together to make this dream come true. bridge is honored to be a part of a beautiful mission that began with mission housing several years ago, and we are thrilled to commemorate this huge milestone with our residents and our joint partners. we're proud to deliver the first 100% affordable new housing development in the mission in many years, with 40

units set aside for former homeless families. in addition, the development provides ground floor space for a variety of community serving needs, including a head start and gallery and work spaces for local artists who are such an integral part of this community and of this neighborhood. i would like to thank all our financial partners for their support, starting with the mayor and her staff at the mayor's office of housing, the california department of housing and community development, and the strategic growth council, the california tax credit and debt allocation committees, wells fargo and b.n.y.mellon, and the federal housing bank of san francisco. i also want to express my gratitude to the architect, david baker and associates, to our general contractor, and to several other consultants,

subcontractors, and most importantly, construction workers who helped turn our vision into reality. and last but not the least. a big shoutout to the incredible project teams at both bridge and mission housing for their relentless perseverance over many years. i want to thank supervisor hillary ronen for her support and invite her now to make a few remarks. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor ronen: hello, everyone. we are having a great day in the mission. we just came from the second -- not one but second vaccination site just a couple blocks away,

and now to cut the ribbon on 1950 mission is really, without exaggeration, a dream come true. i was looking up -- i don't know if they're still there, but there was two little girls peeking out at this press conference from one of those windows, and all i could think to myself is that's all we have to do is point to those two little girls and know why we're doing this work and why 1950 mission matters so, so much. i think it was eight or nine years ago, as a legislative aide to my predecessor, david campos, i testified at the legislation meeting, asking the city to swap this piece of land for another piece of land so that we could build this incredible place, and to still be here, to be able to cut the ribbon and to look at what has

become, to know that not only do we have, you know, over 100 units of affordable housing, many for formerly homeless families, but that we have an art center and a child care center and a bike repair shop doing their amazing work here, it's a dream come true. and i cannot get over how gorgeous it is. is everyone just jaw drooping or wide open, going, who wouldn't want to live here? it's incredible. i just want to give my thanks to the mayor's office of housing, to mission housing, to bridge. you guys are just performing magic constantly. to our mayor, london breed, who are just -- who is just such a

champion not only of housing but for the mission, to ensure that people from the neighborhood get the priority for these incredible opportunities and apartments, so thank you. with no further adieu, i have the absolute pleasure of introducing gustavo velasquez of the department of state housing and urban development. >> greetings and buenos tardes. i'm here on behalf of the government, on behalf of the administration, on behalf of the state housing department, and i was listening to madam mayor. after so many years, i don't know if you remember, back in

the office administration, i was with the office -- with the obama administration, i was with the office of the assistant director of h.u.d., and i get this phone call , and i remember some of the things that she was talking about in terms of the local preferences, and i just remember her passion, her commitment, her resolve from getting from h.u.d. the commitment to approval. [inaudible] as the state director of housing is just such an amazing experience to be here and hearing you talk

about taking the redeye to h.u.d. for fighting what you know was right, and now i'm here many years with you on this project. it's fantastic, this opportunity. this is not you thanking us, bridge housing, mission. i see my pal, eric shaw, from the mayor's office, who i worked with in the past, all of my partners, not only from the state but also being a part of your vision and your resolve to finding solutions to increase affordable housing in this city. as we all know, something that we -- every day we and the city look forward to to continue to achieve. and our contribution here, it's a small but significant part of the affordable housing but

sustainable community housing programs, which has financed 5,000 units of affordable housing up and down the state. this is a marriage, in addition to all the wonderful things this project has, a marriage of affordable housing and a better environment, and, you know, transit so close. we're making funding available for units but gardens and rooftops that make it more efficient and sustainable for the communities, so that's part of the purpose of the housing and sustainable opportunities program. we're proud to be able to share our congratulations and our thanks to you for making over 150 units of affordable housing in such an incredible

community. so again, on behalf of the state, thank you for having us, and now, it's my pleasure to introduce rich ibarra, the c.e.o. of mission neighborhood centers. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, gustavo, and thank you, marsha contreras, sam moss, everyone from mission housing as well as bridge housing. i want to thank you and congratulate you for this great accomplishment. it's an honor to be here today with mayor breed, who -- whose work i ad mired long before coming to the city a couple of months ago. it's also great to be here with hillary ronen, who i believe

will be an important delegation going down to the border with some of the local leaders, to san diego, to celebrate and support the children and teenagers who are there, being housed at the san diego convention center, who may eventually come here, so the more love and support we can give them with the floricanto caravan who have been through hell and don't need to go through anyone else. we had an interstate highway go

-- i'm right at home here in the mission. in the last seven weeks, it's been amazing. also want to thank josh arce, with the office of housing and workforce development. it's also a pleasure to mention ann cervantes for her work, kevin and ali from list, kim edmonds and her team, our team who did a great job here, as well, and of course, my predecessor, who set the table for my future success, santiago sam ruiz, for his vision, tenacity, and partnership, because he helped, like so many

others, make this dream a reality. thank you so much, santiago. in a few months, we'll be opening up the early child care and education center. we'll be giving families comprehensive services, including mental health management and comprehensive activities. i'm grateful to our staff and our board as mission neighborhood centers. as sam moss said, we wish you many years here of love and success. thank you. >> the hon. london breed: all right, everyone. let's cut this ribbon. five, four, three, two, one. [cheers and applause]

>> in august 2019 construction began on the new facility at 1995 evans avenue in bayview.

it will house motorcycle police and department of forensic services division. both sfpd groups are in two buildings that need to be vacated. they will join the new $183 million facility in late 2021. >> elements of the cfi and the traffic company are housed at the hall of justice, which has been determined to be seismically unfit. it is slated for demolition. in addition to that the forensic services crime lab is also slated for demolition. it was time and made sense to put these elements currently spread in different parts of the city together into a new facility. >> the project is located in the bayview area, in the area near

estes creek. when san francisco was first formed and the streetcars were built back it was part of the bay. we had to move the building as close to the edge as possible on bedrock and solid elements piles down to make sure it was secure. >> it will be approximately 100,000 square feet, that includes 8,000 square feet for traffic company parking garage. >> the reason we needed too new building, this is inadequate for the current staffing needs and also our motor department. the officers need more room, secured parking. so the csi unit location is at the hall of justice, and the crime laboratory is located at building 60 sixty old hunters point shipyard. >> not co-located doesn't allow

for easy exchange of information to occur. >> traffic division was started in 1909. they were motor officers. they used sidecars. officers who road by themselves without the sidecar were called solo. that is a common term for the motorcycle officers. we have 45 officers assigned to the motorcycles. all parking at the new facility will be in one location. the current locker room with shared with other officers. it is not assigned to just traffic companies. there are two showers downstairs and up. both are gym and shop weres are old. it needs constant maintenance. >> forensic services provides five major types of testing. we develop fingerprints on substances and comparisons.

there are firearms identification to deal with projectiles, bullets or cartridge casings from shootings. dna is looking at a whole an rare of evidence from -- array of evidence from dna to sexual assault to homicide. we are also in the business of doing breath allyzer analysis for dui cases. we are resurrecting the gunshot residue testing to look for the presence of gunshot residue. lifespan is 50 years. >> it has been raised up high enough that if the bay starts to rise that building will operate. the facility is versus sustainable. if the lead gold highest.

the lighting is led. gives them good lights and reduces energy use way down. water throughout the project we have low water use facilities. gardens outside, same thing, low water use for that. other things we have are green roofs on the project. we have studies to make sure we have maximum daylight to bring it into the building. >> the new facility will not be open to the public. there will be a lobby. there will be a deconstruction motorcycle and have parts around. >> the dna labs will have a vestibule before you go to the space you are making sure the air is clean, people are coming in and you are not contaminating anything in the labs. >> test firing in the building you are generating lead and chemicals. we want to quickly remove that

from the individuals who are working in that environment and ensure what we put in the air is not toxic. there are scrubbers in the air to ensure any air coming out is also at the cleanest standards. >> you will see that kind of at the site. it has three buildings on the site. one is for the motorcycle parking, main building and back behind is a smaller building for evidence vehicles. there is a crime, crime scene. they are put into the secure facility that locks the cars down while they are examined. >> they could be vehicles involved in the shooting. there might be projectiles lodged in the vehicle, cartridge casings inside the vehicle, it could be a vehicle where a aggravated sexual occurred and there might be biological evidence, fingerprints, recovered merchandise from a

potential robbery or other things. >> the greatest challenge on the project is meeting the scope requirements of the project given the superheated construction market we have been facing. i am proud to say we are delivering a project where we are on budget. >> the front plaza on the corner will be inviting to the public. something that gives back to the public. the building sits off the edge. it helps it be protected. >> what we are looking for is an updated building, with facilities to meet our unit's needs. >> working with the san francisco police department is an honor and privilege. i am looking forward to seeing their faces as the police officers move to the new facility. >> it is a welcome change, a new surrounding that is free from all of the challenges that we

face with being remote, and then the ability to offer new expanded services to the city and police department investigations unit. i can't wait until fall of 2021 when the building is finally ready to go and be occupied and the people can get into the facility to serve them and serve the community. >> growing up in san francisco has been way safer than growing up other places we we have that bubble, and it's still that bubble that it's okay to be whatever you want to. you can let your free flag fry

-- fly here. as an adult with autism, i'm here to challenge people's idea of what autism is. my journey is not everyone's journey because every autistic child is different, but there's hope. my background has heavy roots in the bay area. i was born in san diego and adopted out to san francisco when i was about 17 years old. i bounced around a little bit here in high school, but i've always been here in the bay. we are an inclusive preschool, which means that we cater to emp. we don't turn anyone away. we take every child regardless

of race, creed, religious or ability. the most common thing i hear in my adult life is oh, you don't seem like you have autism. you seem so normal. yeah. that's 26 years of really, really, really hard work and i think thises that i still do. i was one of the first open adoptions for an lgbt couple. they split up when i was about four. one of them is partnered, and one of them is not, and then my biological mother, who is also a lesbian. very queer family. growing up in the 90's with a queer family was odd, i had the bubble to protect me, and here, i felt safe. i was bullied relatively infrequently. but i never really felt isolated or alone. i have known for virtually my entire life i was not suspended, but kindly asked to not ever bring it up again in

first grade, my desire to have a sex change. the school that i went to really had no idea how to handle one. one of my parents is a little bit gender nonconforming, so they know what it's about, but my parents wanted my life to be safe. when i have all the neurological issues to manage, that was just one more to add to it. i was a weird kid. i had my core group of, like, very tight, like, three friends. when we look at autism, we characterize it by, like, lack of eye contact, what i do now is when i'm looking away from the camera, it's for my own comfort. faces are confusing. it's a lack of mirror neurons in your brain working properly to allow you to experience empathy, to realize where somebody is coming from, or to realize that body language means that. at its core, autism is a social

disorder, it's a neurological disorder that people are born with, and it's a big, big spectrum. it wasn't until i was a teenager that i heard autism in relation to myself, and i rejected it. i was very loud, i took up a lot of space, and it was because mostly taking up space let everybody else know where i existed in the world. i didn't like to talk to people really, and then, when i did, i overshared. i was very difficult to be around. but the friends that i have are very close. i click with our atypical kiddos than other people do. in experience, i remember when i was five years old and not wanting people to touch me because it hurt. i remember throwing chairs because i could not regulate my

own emotions, and it did not mean that i was a bad kid, it meant that i couldn't cope. i grew up in a family of behavioral psychologists, and i got development cal -- developmental psychology from all sides. i recognize that my experience is just a very small picture of that, and not everybody's in a position to have a family that's as supportive, but there's also a community that's incredible helpful and wonderful and open and there for you in your moments of need. it was like two or three years of conversations before i was like you know what? i'm just going to do this, and i went out and got my prescription for hormones and started transitioning medically, even though i had already been living as a male. i have a two-year-old. the person who i'm now married to is my husband for about two years, and then started gaining

weight and wasn't sure, so i went and talked with the doctor at my clinic, and he said well, testosterone is basically birth control, so there's no way you can be pregnant. i found out i was pregnant at 6.5 months. my whole mission is to kind of normalize adults like me. i think i've finally found my calling in early intervention, which is here, kind of what we do. i think the access to care for parents is intentionally confusing. when i did the prospective search for autism for my own child, it was confusing. we have a place where children can be children, but it's very confusing. i always out myself as an adult

with autism. i think it's helpful when you know where can your child go. how i'm choosing to help is to give children that would normally not be allowed to have children in the same respect, kids that have three times as much work to do as their peers or kids who do odd things, like, beach therapy. how do -- speech therapy. how do you explain that to the rest of their class? i want that to be a normal experience. i was working on a certificate and kind of getting think early childhood credits before i started working here, and we did a section on transgender inclusion, inclusion, which is a big issue here in san francisco because we attract lots of queer families, and the teacher approached me and said i don't really feel comfortable or qualified to talk about this from, like, a cisgendered straight person's perspective, would you mind talking a little bit with your own experience, and i'm like absolutely.

so i'm now one of the guest speakers in that particular class at city college. i love growing up here. i love what san francisco represents. the idea of leaving has never occurred to me. but it's a place that i need to fight for to bring it back to what it used to be, to allow all of those little kids that come from really unsafe environments to move somewhere safe. what i've done with my life is work to make all of those situations better, to bring a little bit of light to all those kind of issues that we're still having, hoping to expand into a little bit more of a resource center, and this resource center would be more those new parents who have gotten that diagnosis, and we want to be this one centralized place that allows parents to breathe for a second. i would love to empower from the bottom up, from the kid level, and from the top down, from the teacher level. so many things that i would love to do that are all about changing people's minds about certain chunts, like the

transgender community or the autistic community. i would like my daughter to know there's no wrong way to go through life. everybody experiences pain and grief and sadness, and that all of those things are temporary.

>> mr. chair, are you there? >> chairman: good morning. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the april 15 isth, 2021, regular meeting of the government audits and oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am supervisor dean preston, and joined by connie chan and raphael mandelman mand. .and thank you to sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you