>> welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, july 29, 2021. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and 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 146-489-3774. when we reach the item you are interested in commenting on, please press star then three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your

indication to begin speaking. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime, indicating that your time is almost up. when your time is concluded, i will take the next person to speak. best practices are to state your name, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down volume on your t.v. or computer. i'd like to call roll. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. we do anticipate commissioner chan to be absent today. first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance.

we should open this up for public comment, members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on items to be continued. members of the public, public comment on items to be continued is closed, and they are now before you. >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items as proposed. >> vice president moore: thank you -- second. >> clerk: thank you. on the motion to continue the items as proposed -- [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes 6-0 and will place us on your consent calendar. these matters under your consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted on by a single vote of the commission unless a member of the public or staff so requests, in which case, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and heard separately. members of the public, this is your opportunity to remove an item from the consent calendar

to be heard at the end of today's agenda. seeing no public comment, commissioners, public comment on your consent calendar is closed, and it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i would move to approve the consent calendar as proposed. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you. on the motion to approve the consent calendar as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us on commission matters. consideration of adoption of draft minutes for july 15, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star then three. seeing no requests from members

of the public, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to adopt the minutes. >> commissioner tanner: second. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes of july 15, 2021 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us under item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i just want to give a shoutout to project genesis, and this

summer, they've partnered with a real estate partner to provide an opportunity for high school and some early college students in the bay area, so thank you to department staff for helping to make that project available. staff worked on a project, and they were very impressive for the proposal in a codevelopment in the city, and it was really inspiring to see all the things they wanted to put into the project, and i think if they got the chance to develop more buildings, it might be more fun, so again, thank you to department staff for helping make that possible and thanks to project genesis staff for all the work that they've done. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you may be muted.

>> vice president moore: i am muted here. i want to thank staff for sending us the invitation for the final presentation for the [inaudible] program on august 5. i hope that everybody is around to dial in and see what happened. thank you for the program. i very much look forward participating on the 5th. >> clerk: okay. if there are no further comments from members of the commission, we can move onto department matters. item 6, director's announcements. >> director hillis: thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. just one announcement. i want to thank our clinic team for their on going work getting the permit center up and fully operational at 49 south van ness.

d.b.i. and planning are expanding electronic permit review with our team, so i just want to give them a shoutout and thank them for all their work, and that's my report. >> clerk: okay. thank you. item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors. i don't have a report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. mr. starr? >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, office of commission affairs. two items were recommended to the full board as a committee report. at the full board this week, the mayor's small business recovery act and the planning commission's code correction ordinance and supervisor mar's chinese cultural district in the sunset all passed their

second reading. the big item at the board this week was an appeal of the planning commission's denial of the c.u. authorization at 5 leland for a cannabis retail store. the project includes the establishment of a 2200 square foot cannabis retail use with no on-site smoking or use within the ground floor retail space. this board heard this matter on may 27 of this year and voted 4-3 to approve. in their brief, the appellants claimed that there was not an overconcentration in the neighborhood, that the project was matched with community support, and that there was 100% ownership by an equity applicant. there was organized opposition by the appeal made up from representatives from the

neighborhood. their main claim was the planning commission got this one right, and the concentration of cannabis in the neighborhood because another dispensary is 68 feet away. the hearing lasted from about 3:00 to 6:30, with public comment taking up most of the time. the public comment was like what this commission heard during their hearing. those in favor of the appeals spoke of their long association with san francisco and the neighborhood, the fact that there was an equity applicant, that there was a need for more marijuana applicants. the opposition spoke how this would impact children, and they also wanted better restaurants and stores in the neighborhood and also were concerned about concentration. at the end of the neighborhood, supervisor walton spoke with sympathy to the neighborhood but said he wanted to accept

the appeal. supervisor melgar said this was a difficult decision of the planning department given the 4-3 split, but ultimately this item should have been approved. there were two another hearings, one for 249 texas street, and that was continued to october 19, and an appeal for 5801 mission street, which was continued to september 21. the initiation of the two landmark designations, and the board is now in recess for the month of august. have a great hearing, and thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there are no questions for mr. starr, we can move onto public comment. memory -- onto general public

comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, you will have two minutes to speak, and when you hear your line unmuted, that's when you may again speaking. >> eileen bogen, coalition of san francisco neighborhood, speaking on my own behalf. in hearings at the state legislature, shirley chisolm village is being touted as an example of an s.b. 33 project.

planning department staff has [inaudible] in the misrepresentation. the context is that s.b. 330, sponsored by nancy skinner, was passed in 2019 with an effective date of january 1, 2025. the bill currently in process is s.b. 8, also by skinner, seeks to extend the s.b. 330 sunset date until january 1, 2030. at the assembly housing and community development committee hearing on s.b. 8, both senator skinner and page o'dell val says s.b. 330 was a [inaudible] project.

-- shirley chisolm village was an s.b. 330 project. i'm asking the commission submit a letter to the state legislature stating that shirley chisolm village is not an s.b. 330 project. i am strongly urging that the letter be submitted prior to the state legislature's hearing on august 16. thank you. >> linda chapman. well, i'm speaking for residents of nob hill who are currently just shoved out of the process. and i have to mention that as long as these remote hearings are happening, and we have no access to files, what do we do? you know, when the system doesn't work in, may, to me, it

was extremely, it was extremely important what was happening at the grub stake fight, and i was prevented from participating at all, and at the next hearing, i was seconds away from being prevented from participating. i haven't been able to get documents. i'm going to mention again the height limits. you know, those height limits for nob hill were established in a series of rezoning applications that got unanimous support at the board of supervisors. sometimes it's not always unanimous sponsorship, and they have been completely discarded. now i am still communicating with scott sanchez and the director about the fact that i have not gotten copies of the substitute maps or corrections

other than 22 lots. we're talking about wide areas, and also reduced 65 feet period. other areas were reduced to 80 feet, so why am i seeing buildings 130 feet built, for example, or proposed, 80 or 90 feet? nob hill neighbors submitted 5,000 signatures to cover the entire area where you're building high-rises at 65 feet. now, with the covid situation, we have not been able to have a meeting again. is that my time? >> clerk: indeed, it is, miss

chapman. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. good afternoon, it's georgia schiutish. i sent a bunch of pictures up on the screen, and i think it shows what's going on in the local neighborhoods. first one was laurel, and the second and third slide are the project during the demo, and there are no democalcs for it, and the fourth slide shows it for sale basically at a monster asking price of 4.8 million with an expanded master plan, and i want to point out that it was a three-bedroom home on a single level before it was expanded. the fifth was a c.u.a. approved in 2019 by the skmigs.

it's in noe valley. the house that was there was knocked down, and then, the last four slides are a project on the 400 block of duncan street, and already, 300 -- excuse me, 30 dump trucks have come and gone already, and they're not even halfway dug out, and they're digging out because they're going to excavate and put a unit below ground, below the garage, subterranean unit, and i think, is this really necessary? halfway done, and actually had seven trucks in the picture this week come like that. it's a unit that's got bad exposure, mediocre egress, and questionable availability. so these are all issues that

you're facing in the residential neighborhood, and we're all facing in the neighborhood. have a great break, enjoy your august, and see you in september, like the song. bye. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for general public comment. you need to press star then three. all right. commissioners, seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar for items 8-a, b, c, d, and e for 469 stephenson, that you will first consider the impact of the environmental impact report, and then project findings, downtown use authorization and conditional use authorization if the e.i.r.

is certified. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. jennie, you are a bit faint, so i don't know if you can get closer to your mic or whatnot. okay. the floor is yours. >> can you see my slide? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> good afternoon, president koppel and planning commission. [inaudible]. >> commissioner diamond: i'm

going to interrupt because i can't hear what you're saying. can you speak closer to the microphone because i can't hear your presentation? >> yes. can you hear me now? better? item today is final certification for the e.i.r., and as having been prepared in accordance with the california environmental quality act or ceqa, and chapter one of the administrative code. the project site is an approximately 28,790 square foot through lot in the soma neighborhood. it is on the block between fifth and sixth street. the project is also currently developed with a 176 space service parking lot, a project

that is also within the soma filipinas cultural district. the proposal is to construct an approximately 575,000 square foot 75 foot tall building, with 4,000 square foot of retail use on the ground floor, and 20,000 square feet of project and open space. 27 class two bicycle parking spaces would be installed on the sidewalk, and stepping back the ground floor of the building.

the project sponsor proposed to use individual state density bonus to provide individual dwelling units on-site. the final e.i.r. concluded that [inaudible] this was determined to be a project level of significant and unavoidable impacts with no feasible mitigation. there are, the commission will need to adopt a statement of overriding consideration pursuant to ceqa should the commission choose to approve the project. the final e.i.r. also concluded that impacts to pedestrian level wind would be significant and impacts to air quality would be significant but could be mitigated to a less than significant level. as described in the final e.i.r., all other impacts from the proposed project are found to be less than significant or

would result in no impact. the final e.i.r. analyzed three project alternatives including the finding by ceqa. under the planning code compliant alternative, the project site would be developed with an approximately 160 foot building with 346 dwelling units, 150 vehicle parking spaces, and two vehicle loading spaces. [please stand by]

>> this would require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts of cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, noise, and air quality to less than significant levels. the department solicited an incorporated public comment on the environmental analysis throughout the environmental review process and held a public review. this graph represents key dates

in the process. in 2017 there was a draft of the e.i.r. and availability of the initial study. there was comments on the initial study taken from october 3, 2019, through november 1, 2019. comments received were published in the draft e.i.r. [indiscernible] -- and the public comment of the draft e.i.r. was included on may 11, 2020. there were public comments included in the [indiscernible] on may 26, 2021, there were comments received on the draft e.i.r. this included concerns about the design of the project and the project impact on transportation

circulation, the rounding of cultural districts, shadows on open spaces, wind impacts on the family use districts and the proposed alternatives. the department also received several comments about the socio-economic effects. while this is currently required under cqua. the purpose of this project-specific setting [indiscernible] -- overall, the study concluded that market rate housing production such as this project is not likely to cause an increase in the nearby housing movements and there is no argument to suggest this will cause gentrification or

replacement. [indiscernible] -- the responses to the document includes a copy of all comments in the draft e.i.r., the city's responses to those comments and any necessary revisions to the draft e.i.r. the draft e.i.r. comprises the final e.i.r. in the publication to the responses to the document [indiscernible] from 178 to 166.

this change would not affect the analysis of the final e.i.r. and would not trigger the need to circulate the draft e.i.r. parking in and of itself should not be considered a significant effect on the environment and the current proposed is an urban install project. [indiscernible] does not raise any new issues in response to the common factors. the department doesn't expect to address those issues, however, the planning commission has questions on this and if there are any questions on letters, we are happy to answer them. the planning department prepared the final e.i.r. in chapter 31 of the [indiscernible] and department planning policies.

on this basis, planning staff requests the planning commission to adopt the e.i.r. certification motion before you. the motion does not approve the project but makes sure the project complies with ceqa. this concludes my presentation of the e.i.r. certification. i will be available for questions and i will turn over to my colleague. associated with this project. >> good afternoon, president and members of the planning commission. nick foster here with planning department staff. before you now are the entitlements for the proposed project at 469 stevenson street. this is a new residential

building reaching 274 feet. this project would contain a total gross floor area of approximately 426,000 residential square feet and just about 4,000 square feet of commercial. there would be 495 dwelling units with a mix of studios and one and two-bedrooms. 73 units are provided as affordable. the province includes 166 off-street parking spaces which has a rate of 12.4. it would have class one and class two bike parking. this project is utilizing the law as provided under california government codes that pertain to

the project. in accordance with the policies [indiscernible] the project sponsor has provided the department with a base density project with a total of 347 units. invoking the state law there is 48.5% bonus. there are six waivers of the following development standards, maximum floor area ratio, rear yard, how to use the open space, dwelling unit exposure, ground level occurrence and wind. the project is required to provide 13% or 45 units of the base project as affordable to the households for those at 50% of the a.m.i. the balance of the affordable units would include 4% of 14 units provided with 80% a.m.i.

tier and also 14 units provided at the 110% a.m.i. tier as provided by the planning section. 73 units will be provided as affordable. that equates to 33 studios, 19 one-bedrooms, 13 two-bedrooms, and seven three-bedrooms, as well as one five-bedroom units. as a result of the 70% of the total required affordable housing obligation, the remainder of the requirement shall pay the fee at the applicable rate of 30%. it is expected to be approximately $8.3 million. the project is requesting conditional use authorization pursuant to [indiscernible] to

provide more space for the permanent on-site dwelling units. as the site would provide more units, they will exempt about 56,000 square feet of floor area to affordable unit [indiscernible] resulting in a loss of about 56 dwelling units. regarding public comment not reached, the project sponsor has extensive community outreach to stakeholders and community organizations. the community has had four letters of support. they have praised the goal of the affordable housing [indiscernible] traffic and construction impacts as well as possible direct and indirect socio-economic impacts

attributable to the project. a few housekeeping items for your consideration. first on june 23 i submitted to the commission two recommendations. those have been added to number 9 of the draft authorization notification. secondly, i sent you an update to the findings, section 6 (a) referencing the project sponsor's voluntary in-kind contribution towards the landscaping and the general maintenance of the plaza. actually, in your draft conditional use authorization on 7, after finding 7(a) iv, the text should read that there is private and common-use space that partially but not totally [indiscernible] as outlined in

the motion before you as amended by staff. the department finds this necessary is necessary or desirable for the width. it is on balance consistent with objectives, policies, and goals and the balance on area plan. this project includes 495 units adding existing housing to a place occupied by a parking lot. it is in distance of transit and substantial goods and services. there are 73 affordable housing units for rent which would meet the city's affordable housing goals [indiscernible] -- that concludes my presentation [indiscernible] -- thanks so much. >> thank you, nick. project sponsor, through the chair you'll be provided with seven minutes. are you with us? >> i am. can you hear me?

>> we can. >> can you see me? >> well, no, we can't see you. nick, are you going to share the sponsor's slides? very good. here they come. mr. vasquet, you have seven minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your attention today [indiscernible] -- i first of all want to start by thanking the neighborhood for its long-time participation with this partnership for creating this project in its current form. i want to thank you for bringing this to fruition. i would like to thank the planning staff for their efforts

in helping us in this complex project. thanks a lot. this project has been in the works for a long time. our outreach to the community started four years ago. when we had our first application when we started meeting with the community. we had a 35-storey unit proposed. we reduced that height to 27 storeys. the current 27 storeys is 495 units shown today. we've run a community-based, community-focused outreach program. while we've had moments of controversy, the discussions have been mostly almost all productive and forward-looking.

while we may not have had total agreement, we certainly have a consensus of community members that are in favor of the project moving forward and are convinced that the merits of this project outweigh the impacts that it may have. next slide, please. you've seen already the metrics of the project, the parking lot. we've proposed 495 homes, 73 which would be onsite affordable. we've had 100-plus stakeholder meetings involving 200-plus individuals and we are providing 4,000 ground floor [indiscernible] which i'll go into later. >> this is a great infill site in the heart of our city.

currently this is just a parking lot so we're not displacing anyone with this project. early on we knew this project would be shaped by the environment. we got to the wins early and worked hard to make sure there were no impacts. this largely dictated the location of the tower on the site and brought the massive building towards the jessie street side of the project. in conjunction with, the other environmental is shadow, obviously a key concern in san francisco. so we worked backwards from the shadow envelope to make sure we could really minimize the impact particularly on the park. we also worked a lot with planning staff on the design. in particular, we heard when the town was pulled towards jessie street, there was a concern that we should have a wall on

stevenson. we took inspiration around the brick buildings to create a sense of a street wall on this edge and to provide a lot of transparency and pedestrian access at the ground level. when we were thinking about the materiality of the tower, again we grew inspiration from some of those warm brick materials that are in the neighborhood and we looked for a way of integrating that into the tower so it's not just a glass tower. in this case we are choosing copper tone to be a contrast in material and partially inspired by the community. the tower really acts as an articulation from a single storey to a taller order that

responds to the timeline. this is obviously quite high. this is a midblock site. here you can see it logical in the skyline. this is a quintessential transit-oriented project. we have significant -- we had this project opportunity that we turned a 160-space parking lot into a vibrant residential neighborhood. being in the center of an existing vibrant neighborhood, we wanted to foster as much

inclusion as possible. to that extent, we have our affordable onsite units. we'll try to direct our fees to nearby [indiscernible] to capitalize on additional affordable units. but we are contributing a nbc space. we have a ground floor community space, about 400 square feet which we have agreed to provide to the neighborhood at reduced rent. we've also agreed to a $50,000

per year inkind or contribution to the plaza and we've been able to lease and finance the improvements of the hotel in the tenderloin. in the end we're taking a decrepit parking lot and turning it into a [indiscernible]. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your opportunity to address members of the commission by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you will each have two minutes. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking.

>> good afternoon, president and fellow commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak today. i am speaking in favor of this project. there is a commitment to use a general contractor. this project has many benefits for our community. there will be 495 homes and an affordable housing package of 73 on site. this is in a transit-rich location and a five-minute walk for thousands of workers. this also provides hundreds of union jobs as well. this will provide the necessary benefit and income for my family to continue living and working in san francisco. it will build a bright future

for our community. i am full support and ask that the commission support the development of this project. thank you for your time. >> hi, i'm speaking on behalf of the bay area council representing over 360 members of the bay area community. this is an example of the type of housing we need to be building in our economic center that is near transit and jobs. it not only addresses joint housing, but also helps to get to our climate goals [indiscernible] 94 will be

affordable. [indiscernible] -- furthermore, the shortage in housing was disproportionately impact low-income communities and people of color. now is the time to approve a project like this. we hope you will approve this project and thank you for your time and consideration. >> hi. thank you for the opportunity to make a public comment. i am in support of the project. i spent my working hours at 54 mint street. it is a historic building adjacent to the mint plaza public space. every morning i can see how this project can provide a positive contribution to the plaza and support to local businesses by improving neighborhood safety and encouraging community development. for these reasons, i encourage

the commission to support this much-needed residential development. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am the board president for [indiscernible] -- i'm here to speak [indiscernible] development. as part of the agreement to create this plaza, the city requires that the plaza retain sole responsibility for the purpose of [indiscernible] -- as a result the plaza's stream is [indiscernible] -- yet we are

only able to provide baseline maintenance and repairs and extremely limited programming. we are here today to focus on [indiscernible] 1,000-plus users will use the plaza with an increase in traffic and use [indiscernible] -- while this is a starting point, we urge [indiscernible] -- urges the

commission to deny the application before you today and to consider the proposed project impact [indiscernible] contributions to help support this impact and improve the use and vibrancy of the plaza. >> good afternoon, president and members of the planning commission. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. my name is daniel greg. i'm the lead field representative at carpenters 22 in san francisco. i represent 4,000 carpenters in the city of san francisco. as a representative of the local, i'm happy to lend my support to the long-time partner building. they not only have a history of working collaboratively with the northern california xarps, they

have a track record of building their projects once approved. housing has become unaffordable. there is a 26-storey residential building that will replace a parking lot with a much-needed 495 units, 73 of which will be inclusionary. right now we are facing an uncertain environment. this development has the potential to create hundreds of county construction jobs. additionally, the building has committed to the use of a carpenter. these partnerships between labor and development are what allow us to retain an essential workforce of trained, skilled construction workers here in the city of san francisco. the repurposing of a large

surface parking lot into 500 new homes with hundreds of construction jobs is a win for the city, community, and labor. the carpenters union supports this development and we ask that the planning commission support it as well. thank you for your support in moving this frontage forward. >> we get some short-term and long-term benefits for the

inclusionary requirements. with the recently passed somo plan and the abundance of jobs created in this area, it's really crucial that we are adding these homes so that employees can commute to work without putting cars on the road without further contributing to the greenhouse gases. [indiscernible] well over 100 people. if you want to read a few of their individual comments, alex, a residential resident who supports the project, he [indiscernible] strongly supports turning this parking lot into much-needed housing, saying this is a perfect

location for more density. [indiscernible] -- we need less parking and more housing in this area. amy is supportive saying san francisco desperately needs more housing that this is a good addition to the city. and my personal favorite. this is cool that the planning commission really need [indiscernible] please continue to move the planning project forward today. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm on the board of san francisco heritage and the friends of mint plaza. we support housing in the city. however, the proposed project at 469 stevenson as currently envisioned is problematic. we oppose the project primarily with regard to the project's

scale and overall combined effect, direct and indirect impacts on the cultural resources in the area. the proposed project is incompatible with the setting and the environment is located in a highly sensitive cultural heritage context surrounded by dozens historical buildings, many listed on the national register. in addition to many identified districts, including the mint conservation district and the filipino conservation district. the proposed tower would be situated half a block west of 1874, a national landmark and a city-owned building that deserves to be fully activated and have every advantage possible give to it. the analysis indicates that shadow impacts on mint and mint plaza cannot be mitigated.

mint plaza is a great community amenity. it has the potential to do so much more, but it cannot support additional stresses and adverse impacts of this project such as shadow and pedestrian impact on plaza, the traffic impacts on stevenson and jessie streets. we urge the commission not to certify the project and move it forward. thank you. >> this project is the greatest threat [indiscernible] -- i could not believe my ears when i

heard the staff say that the e.i.r. analysis was that this [indiscernible] -- what planet do they live on? i promise you, we will tear that argument apart. the mall is between the 5 m. project that is almost finished and this project [indiscernible] -- >> clerk: we're going to pause your time. i don't know if you can find a quieter place.

it's hard to hear you. >> i'm at the ball game. i didn't move. we ask the developer to turn this [indiscernible] no cost repeatedly and they have turned us down repeatedly. they are affordable housing instead of market housing, but their profit is more important than [indiscernible] -- thank you. >> clerk: giants game 4-0 over the dodgers. excellent. >> hi, i'm speaking in opposition to the project as it stands right now. i'm a 12-year resident of mint plaza. i look down on the plaza every day. i go down sometimes when it's

really messy and clean it myself and pick up the condoms and the trash. we need your help. half the time the plaza is a garbage dump. there are crazy screaming people threatening those who would have a nice time there. when it is freshly cleaned, it's the impressive place on the planet. where are these people at 369 going to want to go when they go on the town? a good start will be down jessie and through the mall to the cinema. we are your front yard. but right now we are underfunded, underserviced and unable to support ourselves in mint plaza.

we want it to be more concrete. i'll stop talking here. this is a community. we are part of your new community, plooes you're putting here, we should be working together. thanks. >> my name is jeremy linden. i'm a homeowner and i've lived in western soma for 10 years and don't live that far from the project. i want to speak in support. it's not good to have this land used as a surface parking lot. we have the worst housing shortage in the country and almost 500 new homes will make an impact. we need many, many more of these projects all around the city.

it's great to be streamlined and to have these market neighborhoods to have the amenities and the residents of the area will make it better. they'll provide a base for people shopping and all the bars in the area. most of you know, those need a lot of support now. i urge you to move this along and get it going as quickly as possible. >> [indiscernible] -- >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> sorry, am i unmuted? >> you are. >> [indiscernible] -- finds the proposed project at this location to be appropriate for this location and [indiscernible] -- an

appropriate location for development near transit and infrastructure and not on a greenfield site. this is close to frequent buses that connect to e-transit and other transportation. 469 stevenson provides an appropriate use of land uses, calculus 495 residential units, residential retail and public and private open space. this contributes to the city's housing stock, fosters economic development and provides services to the surrounding community. the project is also sufficiently dense. this project creates a good space for people [indiscernible] we also like the sponsor's plan to work with the property owner

to improve landscape and the space between buildings. it would be very exciting to see an active development in this particularly challenging location. this is a challenging project and we appreciate the affordable housing project approach. thank you very much for your time. >> hi, i'm a member of midmarket coalition, south market residents and [indiscernible] -- i appreciate the fact the build has been working with the community on a lot of issues. the sticking point for me is the affordable housing is only at

14.9% which is the minimum and also the fact that it -- the b.m.r. starts at 50%, a.m.i. and goes up to 120%. that's going to bring a lot of people from out of the area, but not help those in the area. saying that, i won't oppose it, but i think the inclusionary housing should be reassessed. thank you for your time, commissioners. >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> my name is david woo with the filipino heritage district. as it is currently proposed we cannot support this project.

the current project contains some affordable housing and brings with it the [indiscernible] logic of trickle-down economics and the notion that building luxury housing will working those low-income residents and workers. [indiscernible] -- in this area and the larger south of market. how can this city claim to support social equity when these are put forward and approved.

[indiscernible] accompanied with all the uber, lyft, amazon and doordash companies. there is a disconnection from reality on the rents, evictions and rent pressure that results from market development. there is a lack of accurate analysis of the e.i.r. we ask that you do not support this project. thank you. >> clerk: okay, commissioners that concludes public comment of

this item. it is now before you. just procedurally, you should take up the certification of the environmental impact report first before you move on to the project entitlements. >> so let me start by saying definitely in support of staff's recommendation. i think that the e.i.r. has been properly done and adequate and i'm in support of it today. >> thank you so much. i generally agree. i did want to have a few questions for staff about some of the comments that we heard and things that i think were adjusted in the e.i.r., but i think it might be good to eliminate that here. we heard some comments in oral

testimony today regarding the potential impacts that this could have around the historic building and the historic districts. can you talk about what the e.i.r. found when they looked at historical and cultural resource s in the area. >> they analyzed the adjacent and historic district, including the district referenced today [indiscernible] -- historic structures such that their historic significance would be affected.

[indiscernible] also described how the planning department is considered the cultural district for the projects within in the analysis of whether or not the project site itself [indiscernible] impact to the adjacent historic district. and in addition, my colleague, is also available for all technical aspects of the analysis. >> thank you. if you could help us a little bit to understand what the draft e.i.r. is considered and the conclusions drawn. that would be great. >> yes, obviously as we all know, the project site is currently a parking lot. this parking lot is not in any identified historic district. it is surrounded by many

historic districts. that includes many conservation districts, the national register [indiscernible] this sits in between all of those. so we looked at all of those adjacent historic districts and the nearby historic districts [indiscernible] and what we determined is that while this building is quite large, it would not cause a setting impact that it would materially impact any of those resources. many of the districts front on the larger streets surrounding this midblock sites, that would be mission and market. most of these are particular groupings lining those streets nearby and back on to those

alleyways. the property would be distinguished from those districts even though it is surrounded by these districts. that's why we decided it would not as a result in that. we would agree that there are many historic districts, but we did not find the impact in that regard. >> thank you very much. one other comment [indiscernible] -- would be constructed and whether or not there would be sufficient tiles or whether the construction would be safe and secure is how i interpreted the comment. i wonder if you could respond on how the department looks at

that. maybe it is the building department's development. could you comment on that? >> i would say we do look at whether or not there are vibration impacts. we do have standards for basically how much vibration can be caused by the construction in relation to the work resources. then we have an understanding about the type of material the resources are constructed from, we have an understanding of how fragile they are. what's the level of vibration that would cause damage to resources and as the project caused impact on the analysis of the project. we did that analysis and found that it would not cause vibration impact to the

resources. that's the main one that i'm involved with. i'm hemoglobin defer to making as. >> maybe the project sponsor might want to speak to the planning and if they have any comments about whether or not there needs to be tiles as part of this project construction or whether or not because they were not concluded, if that's not real. i don't know, mr. vasquez, if you would want to comment on that. >> actually, in response to this particular comment, i had a conversation with colleague in which i pointed out to him that i did not do any planning. it's too early in the project

[indiscernible] for that we used engineers and arctic ark s architects to figure out what is the best way to build this. we undergo a peer review on whatever design we do. the city of san francisco is diligent about understanding these systems and making sure they are compatible with the site. and obviously we want to build a safe building. it's too early in the process about what the foundation would be. >> thank you very much for that response. i appreciate it.

i will give the remainder of my time to others for reflection. >> i have a question to ms. de luma. in your presentation -- and thank you for the presentation. i think you presented well in terms of what is a proposed project and you presented the alternative project. the proposed project will have vehicle loading and two service vehicle loading. the alternative project will have two right locations. i'm assuming the vehicle loading spaces will be call for clients on what the city usually asks

for. >> [indiscernible] -- in the c3 projects like this can request a [indiscernible] from the code. there are two standard size loading areas which only count as one. if you bear with me, if you have another question, i'll look it up in the draft motions. >> thank you. i think it's more of where the proposed project has one side

loading and the other project has two side loading. this is a [indiscernible] where it is a one-way street. so it's a narrow area where it may require two spaces. this is not a question to the project sponsor about why is there only one side loading space proposed here. my other question is in terms of the traffic, i know that we always use the measurement of the [indiscernible] -- again this is around the downtown where the ride-sharing uses are all reduced. again, in terms of of stevenson, these are small alleys where

they are on one-way streets. please explain the traffic impact when it comes to ride sharing and could you look into the peak hours and the frequency. i mean, this is the downtown area. can you elaborate more and talk about this. again, from my experience being downtown, the ride-sharing services are always available. you can have more explanation on the traffic impact. >> the transportation study that was prepared for the project evaluated that the different modes that would be traveling to

the site [indiscernible] -- so any travels to the area would be most impactful. at that time there would be 55 vehicle trips, including some of those being taxis. the proposed project is providing on-street passenger loading spaces so that t.n.t.s can pull over to let passengers go without blocking through traffic behind their street. >> will there be traffic measures? again, whether done by ssnpa in

terms of fines or are there any mitigation measures? again, i am not disputing that, but at the same time, the experience that i have sometimes i feel like it's not matching what the studies say. >> analysis considered [indiscernible] -- if this project would be constructed. one s thing is pedestrian safety which would include left turns going south bound on the proposed project. there are safety improvements on that project that would limit through traffic that are coming

through. the idea is by improving the safety improvements around the project bay so that there is improvement around the project site so that all the trips coming to the site are going [indiscernible]. >> mr. foster. >> thank you so much, commissioner. i'm just looking at the draft motion. this is compliant with the variant. there is one standard size, a 35-foot one for larger service vehicles. that is the stevenson service

access, when you go one grade lower that works with vans being able to ma vancouver below grade, whereas the larger vehicle [indiscernible] -- >> and i have another portion in terms of of the environmental sustainability. there was some participation i remember back then, anticipating sea level rise and i know that the planning department is working on the southeast side of the city. there are also potential impacts

in the southern markets or in the downtown in general. does this project include environmental sustainability and what measures are being done? >> [indiscernible] -- sea level rise? >> yes. >> the proposed project would have to be constructed -- can you give me a moment? >> sure. i guess this is more a director to director hillis whether other aspects or areas of the city of san francisco are being also studied in terms of the sea level rise, whether in a downtown park area of the city,

in a northern part area of the city. so i know there were -- there was a study produced on that side and i believe that that might be something that perhaps the planning department should start also looking into as well. >> [indiscernible] -- >> but for this particular project there is nothing yet? are we operating some sort of mitigation measure? >> i believe that's correct. >> thank you.

>> just to confirm what the director said, there is no project impact on the sea level rise, but is being addressed on a city level and there is no specific measure given for this project. >> one last question. in terms of the socio-economic impact and i read the study by l.a.h. urban and i find it quite interesting on how they come up with their studies on the socio-economic, whether the proper values will be affected by it, surrounding areas of it, and again the sixth street is a very -- you see the split of sixth street and fifth street. on sixth street you see

[indiscernible] -- i'm wondering how did we choose the a.l.h. or urban study [indiscernible] we do acknowledge [indiscernible] -- >> [indiscernible] -- familiar with the material around this topic. there is an acknowledgement that [indiscernible] whether or not market race housing and specifically mostly -- market

rate housing project was gentrification [indiscernible] -- the findings in the report. >> thank you so much for your

questions. i believe jenny did a great job summarizing the findings. when we did our study, we looked for all available research findings that we could locate that addressed the questions about as jenny mentioned, market place housing and the impact on displacement and gentrification. almost across the board on those two studies on this topic in a serious academic fashion, the study findings indicated that market rate housing does not in itself cause an increase in other housing costs, which would often be a catalyst for

displacement. and in fact many of the studies found that housing rate market housing suppressed lower prices of housing nearby. those were the study findings that we relied upon in our analysis and conclusions about displacement. some of them used san francisco as some of their case studies and there was somewhat older or a little bit older research specific to san francisco as well looking at the impact of new housing developments and all generally across the board found limited to no impacts on rents, and hence displacement. the gentrification is more

complicated, but still there was little causation found between the market rate housing unit and gentrification. it's not displacement, hence gentrification. and there are many factors going into increasing gentrification. we tried to find as much literature on that as we could. that predates the literature on displacement. so it was all of those things rolled together. >> thank you for the clarification. those are all my questions.

>> first-time procedural question. did you just want comments on the adequacy of the e.i.r. or comments on the remainder of the entitlement? i know we're acting on this motion, but i didn't know if you wanted us to provide comments on the e.i.r. >> clerk: commissioner, i think that's entirely up to you and how you choose to deliberate. either way, you need to certify the e.i.r. before you can take up the other entitlements. i would suggest you deliberate on the e.i.r. and if that is certified to move on. >> commissioner, i did the same as well.

i just limited my comments just to the e.i.r. >> well, i do have a number of comments relating to the other comments. i have no comments on this. >> great. >> i have concerns about the e.i.r. and related ceqa findings. the response to comments is not really adequately addressing questions raised. i find the written and illustrated description of the districts insufficient to the things asked and so is the illustration on the analysis.

i continue to be amazed about the incompatible scale of the proposed tower in a setting that is comprised of not just simply one, but a number of districts and i listed those districts in my commissioner's comments when we first heard the draft e.i.r. in april. [indiscernible] -- and we are at the border of the social heritage special youth district with properties within the filipino cultural district which

may qualify as a historic resource and for that very reason it may have to be included to be evaluated. there is a concern to me about the compatibility of the mapping height, the significant impact of shadow on the open space and most of the shadows on mint plaza and the mint itself. this eloquently describes those impacts and described the concerns and impressing my support for how these impacts were described. i have concerns about the materiality of the building as it relates to the building and

the nuance and relatability of the building in this setting. i would like to ask the staff in this context that i'm surprised that you did not have any answer about the structural system, where this morning the architect clearly answered what things are being employed. and the questions that were underlying [indiscernible] modular crux, which in its sense has a different structure from the traditionally built building which has piles systems which have a lot of construction activities at low grade. perhaps you could answer that question because we do not know

exactly why you would not be able to answer that question. [indiscernible] -- >> commissioner -- >> here i am. thanks for the question. yes, we've analyzed several structural systems. it will be a concrete building with a concrete core. it's not a modular building. i was mostly speaking to the foundation system, which frankly we don't know if piers will be required. so that is a decision that comes

with the design of the foundation that hasn't been done. we will use piers depending on what is appropriate for the building. not only will we use engineers and architects and the geotech consultants, we will also be peer reviewed on all of these structural elements. have no fear, it will be a structurally sound building. >> thank you for answering that. i think you created clarity particularly around the modular construction. the only issue i wanted to bring up is the impact and the amount of the low-grade parking that's being suggested for this project which in this part of the city,

i question whether it's the right move and i question the impact of everything that's around it is significant. [indiscernible] -- >> i don't have any questions on the environmental. i have questions on the subsequent entitlements of the e.i.r. >> very well. i would entertain a motion that [indiscernible] -- >> i move to approve certification of the e.i.r. >> second. >> clerk: very good commissioners. there is there a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact of that

report. [ roll call ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-2. so for my part in regards to the rest of the project, again, like the developer has spoken about, i think this is where the housing belongs. it's close to the commercial. it's close to transit. ideally people will be walking to and from work and back and forth and again, similar to the

project we heard earlier, this will just liven the neighborhood. i think downtown during coffee time and lunch times more recently and there is more activity on the street, which is a really positive uplifting thing to see more activity and commercial, more of the small businesses are starting to open and that trend will continue and hopefully if this project is approved that will continue to happen. >> my concerns have to do with the overriding characterization that we are required to adopt due to the significant impact on mint plaza. the shadow is significant and it's in a plaza that is a valuable asset to the community.

we have received two letters today and e-mails, one that came in today that the project sponsor is making in-kind contributions. i wonder if mr. vasquet could clarify what the the amount they're agreeing to. >> we would contribute $50,000 annually to the improvement and maintenance of mint plaza and agree with you that it is an asset and we do believe that

still having 1,000 residents within this half a block will greatly contribute to the vitality of that plaza and help in that way to financing further to maintain and improve the plaza. >> thank you very much for that clarification. now a question for mr. foster. you circulated yesterday revisions to the downtown project authorization that address this in-kind contribution. i'm wondering if we should make two in-kind amendments. on page 12 of the motion you referenced the in-kind contribution. i'm wondering if we could add a sentence for a subordinate clause that references the second letter we got today.

would that be acceptable? >> absolutely. you can read whatever you wish into the record. if you agree, i would ask the directors if we get to that point to then clarify anything as necessary. >> where it says the project sponsor is providing in-kind contribution but consistent with the attached letter -- maybe we should attach the letter so it's clear which one we received. on page 33 of the same motion is where you list the actual overriding. the benefits that allow us to make the statement of overriding benefits. when that was made, we didn't know that we would make this

in-kind contribution. i would like a bullet point that references the in-kind contribution. is that okay with you? >> yes, this is in ceqa [indiscernible] -- >> okay -- >> 33? >> okay. i'm looking at the -- so the first comment i made was the p.rj. file, which is the downtown project authorization. >> it's the d.m.x., but it makes sense for both places. >> why don't we put it in both places. commissioner moore, can you tell me about the concern that we can work this out. >> i believe that the contribution is extremely valuable as a project

authorization in the manner that it pertains to the physicality of the plaza and impacts the residents. however, it doesn't anything to the ceqa impact of the sunlight on the plaza. the two things are not tied together to intent and mitigation. i do not want to support that $50,000 can mitigating shadow on an important public space. >> i agree with you that it does not mitigate the impact, certainly not to a level of insignificance, but it is one of the benefits that i would consider in adopting a statement of overriding consideration which is why i would put it out there. it is one of many benefits that

i'm taking into account. >> i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say. >> then the second comment i want to make is really a question to the director and commissioner. we received at 12:15 today a 12-page legal letter from the project sponsor's attorney addressing numerous aspects of the project. it could be that there are new issues in that letter. in light of the fact that we have been in hearings since 10:00 this morning, i think it's unreasonable for project sponsors or opponents to submit detailed letters like that at the last second and expect us to have thoroughly read and analyzed them and take them into

account in our analysis. i think it is not reasonable when we get a letter at the last second submitted when we were already in a hearing with parks and rec to have thoroughly adjusted those points. i don't believe, correct me if i'm wrong, that there is anything in our procedures that precludes the submission of letters at the last second, but given that we are in the midst of adopting our procedures and have not adopted them, we had a hearing and decided on the adoption until i think it's the end of august or beginning of september, i think we need to add to those rules.

they deal with this particular situation so that commissioners are not faced with trying to digest a detailed, complex letter at the same time as trying to hear testimony on these projects. it's also not up to the city attorney to digest that. mr. ionis, is that something you can look at? >> we can look at it. certainly you hear public testimony that could be complicated or new information and you could get information from different parties.

we know you can't always consider it. it's critical to confer consideration. you can ask the project sponsor about this submission, but it's tough to analyze things on days when you get it. we'll continue to make that point stronger that you should get it to staff to make it available to you. >> in furtherance of that, when i briefed the letter as fast as i could, i noticed a reference to the housing accountability act. i wanted to ask the city attorney whether this is a housing accountability project and what the implications are in

terms of of this and the number of hearings we've had and any implications that came up. please let us know if there is something in that letter related to the housing accountability act that would have an impact on our deliberations today. >> i'm going to defer to my colleague about why it's not a housing accountability manner. i'm going to say for the record because it is not a housing accountability manner, we do not have the restrictions that people are aware of, but i'm going to now defer to kate. >> thank you. we do not believe that this project as designed is subject to the housing accountability act because the project sponsor is asking for a discretionary approval to receive objective

criteria, namely the exemption that is before you to [indiscernible] floor area to be subject to the housing accountability act, the project must meet all criteria and in this case there is an authorization to accommodate the affordable units. >> thank you very much. those are my comments. i want to hear what the other commissioners have to say. i'll put forward a motion to combroov the remaining items with the amendments i had previously proposed. >> second.

>> i have a question. you mentioned about the benefits that you were talking about that you were still? discussion with the community. the $8.3 million that is going to go to a nearby project and then you're talking about the offsite coordination and you're also -- you also talked about the improvements [indiscernible] -- can you elaborate what's going on in the discussion with the communities? >> yes, i can. we have a letter of intent. it's out with the midmark coalition.

we have an agreement circulating. we did not [indiscernible] -- all of those points are in the agreement that you mentioned in some detail. >> thank you. however, i wish it's also part of our packet, so it's hard to look into those details. i do share the sentiment with commissioner diamond that when this is again quite a complicated project and then at the same time we're receiving this new information at the very last minute, it doesn't take us really into conversation of what we're voting to.

in terms of the -- there is that aspect for me that i wish i had more details of what is going on in terms of the housing and the development agreement that sounds like for me it's still underway and not finalized and si still have not seen it. my other comment as well is on commissioner diamond regarding the $50 in-kind for the plaza. i believe that that should be part of the downtown project authorization that it was going to be toward the entitle municipality. these projects are not going to happen until the projects are entitled. the ceqa projects are different from the entitlement benefits. so i do believe that it should be part of the downtown project

authorization. so regarding that this is not subject to the downtown housing accountability act, this means that it can be continued, there was nop consideration for 5. if that is the case, i would be more inclined to have this if the benefits, if it's part of the benefit, to be outlined to the commission. i'm not sure if other commissioners will be. as it stands, i will vote no. >> clerk: commissioners, apologies to interject. we have a very late request to speak from the public. can we take that person now?

>> i am with the midmarket coalition and the tenderloin people's congress. i'm with the environmental justice committee and i'm the executive director of the gardens. the people we work with and for are residents in the neighborhood surrounding the project in consideration, as am i. we want this c.m.a. to help mitigate the impact of the project. based on this, we believe that the building can be a good neighbor to some m.t.l.s but one of the sticking points we've had after much agreement that city

policy on inclusionary below-market-rate housing is out of depth with the already dense housing needs. we would ask the commissioners working for cohesive neighborhoods to incentivize homes for people already here, rather than as it can appear sometimes to improve the tax base at the expense of the existing neighborhoods. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners -- hello? hello? >> clerk: yes, sir, go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with midmarket coalition

[indiscernible] i'm here and calling in because [indiscernible] -- >> clerk: sir, are you still with me? >> yeah, somebody called me. my phone was, you know. since last year september 20202020, we've been talking and negotiating. we're happy that we've been doing that with this project and after many months, nine to 10 months we agreed on the community benefits. there are some sticky points that there are able to be.

we have a [indiscernible] not yet signed because the coalition lawyers [indiscernible] -- we believe that this agreement will be beneficial to the project. we have organizations like the demonstration garden. the non-profits like filipino community [indiscernible] -- are . >> clerk: thank you, sir. that's your time.

apologies for that interruption, commissioners, for the late request to comment. there are no additional comments from the public. >> commissioner, were you in the middle of making a motion for continue entans and is that further enforced by the just heard? >> i think it is important for us in the planning commission that before we approve entitlements that discussions or benefits are being discussed in the community and they are also not in the burden of the community. i think it's also beneficial for the community as well to ask

about those before we approve those entitlements. that is my comment and the alternative motion is for the continuance of this project. >> i would support that motion partially because even the detail that came in from at 1:35 regarding the contribution to the mint plaza, it would be really helpful to understand how it is being used and how to apply it at the motion. there are lots of things happening all at once and last minute. i would like to look at this last minute [indiscernible] --

>> clerk: commissioner imperial, that was a motion? >> yes. >> clerk: very good. >> [indiscernible] i've seen since i've been on this commission. this project is the densest in terms of area that it has maximized through the various state ordinances.

we had a preliminary presentation of this project where comments were made by the various commissioners. obviously they weren't listened to at all, which is -- i could accept that. however, when i look at the rate of entitlements here, especially the conditional use, i'm not sure that they have conformed to all of the criteria of a traditional use process. whether i will vote for this project i think is primarily

based on the density constraints. i feel the constraints of that density program that it will affect how i vote on this particular case. >> i did want to dig into one topic to commissioner fung's point to come up with the informational hearing and that is addressed on page 27 of the packet around the common use open space overall provided. so there's a note that alternatively private balcoies should be added to units [indiscernible] -- what that

means and how the balconies if they were provided, what else would be needed. then i would like to hear [indiscernible] -- and i wonder if there is a [indiscernible] -- >> with nooerl 500 units, there will be a high

[indiscernible] -- with projects like this and the extra location, this was referenced. the extra location of the extra space does matter. we don't want it subordinate. the code is specific that this be located in front of an open space or street. the code was very mindful of that requirement and that's why it aligns with the planning code. you have similar language. that is the backdrop. in conversations on this very

topic, we absolutely could support more balconies easily placed. we may run into the same issues where say 50 or 100 or more balconies could be placed with a modified design. they may not meet the strict requirements of the code. in effect, they would still require the same code. that might be small fry to you, but in terms of real impact and open space to a future tenant, they would like to have a place where they can step up with the planners. i would just make clear that it

may not meet the strict requirements. >> even if some balcony or private open space were provided because of the requirements, they may not count until they need 10,000 or 9,000 ways to fee even though there is additional footage required for the counts, for what counts as standard open space? >> yeah, we would obviously work with them. >> right. and certainly pick the point that even if it's substandard, in terms of the experience, someone could still enjoy the space. i wonder if the project sponsor could speak to that. i'm interested to hear what kind of i guess review the design team went through when looking

at these balconies. is this something that was discussed before? i would love to see more even if it does not rise to the level [indiscernible] -- if you can think about this and why or why not they were concluded or not. >> we've reviewed this issue and we believe that we can provide 100-plus additional balconies. they will not meet the minimum requirements. there will be open space.

additionally there are a couple of other moves we can make in the building to free up more commonly open space. one caveat i would have is that the wind is critical here. and so any alterations that we make on the exterior of the building will have an effect down the line. these are bright factors that come into play. we are trying to add more open space. >> thank you. is this another issue that will be mitigated? mr. foster, do we have any plans on file that represent this,

additional balconies or open space? i think while i do not really want to continue this project, i'm also concerned about having things conceived of and agreed upon, but not documented. can you help us understand where we are? >> thank you for the question. rest assured, any project where you request the design modifications, you absolutely earn the right to request that the staff works with the project sponsor. obviously an increase in [indiscernible] -- i would suggest not touching the code language and with your guidance

we could work with the sponsor. >> thank you. just on that point, requiring the additional balcony space and that it doesn't exacerbate the impacts. again, i know that we have another motion to consider, but we would be interested in your thoughts on that. >> absolutely. i fully agree and support the point. >> in light of the fact that the public has a lot of critical questions about this project, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to let the entire audience participate in a slight tweak to the project and see what else

can be adjusted so this project becomes more acceptable? i think it would be acceptable because the voices against the project have been quite significant. i would strongly recommends that we give the applicant and the architect time to spend a little bit more time in finalizing the community agreements and do a quick schedule of what the balconies and where and how they affect the appearance of the building. i think this would be in the interest of all that this is being done with the public having the ability to watch it.

>> clerk: i'm just letting you know our calendars are quite full through september. >> and october looks like this could be put in, instead? >> yes. october you're quite open and the first hearing is october 7. >> yes, perhaps that's something i could ask the project sponsor.

are you okay in october? >> we would prefer not to continue this item. we have been continued three times now. i'm sorry for the lateness of these comments. >> clerk: that's not the question. october 7 or 14, do those dates work for you? >> let's do october 7. >> very good then, commissioners, although i do see commissioner tanner requesting to speak again. >> clerk: there is a motion to continue this matter to october

7. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: that motion fails 2-4. shall i call the motion to approve? >> yes, please. >> you have to call the ceqa motion first. >> clerk: which ceqa motion would that be? >> clerk: [all talking at once] -- >> we have line a. >> clerk: we've already certified the environmental impact report. >> the environment impact report is for motion 8. 9 (a) is the statement of overriding considerations.

>> clerk: that is generally wrapped up at the entitlement of the motions. is there a request that i call these motions all separately? okay, if there is none, then there is a motion. >> i had a question to the maker of the motion on the overall project. we've given staff direction and a memo wrapping up what occurred. staff worked with the sponsor so i wonder if that might come back so we can see how the final space and balcony design wrapped up and whether that could be part of that memo if that's amenable. >> clerk: is the maker of the

motion amenable? >> that's an update. >> clerk: just for clarity, the additional balcony consideration for the project sponsor to continue working with staff on that amenable to the maker of the motion and to the seconder? then there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. with the amendment to the finding lifting the community benefits agreement for overriding consideration to be consistent with the letter that will be attached as noted by commissioner diamond that was received at 1:35 p.m. to the downtown project authorization

and the ceqa findings motion as well as direction to the project motion to continue working with staff on the additional balcony space as well as an update memo from staff. on that motion. [ roll call ] >> clerk: that will place us, commissioners, on item 10 this

is on 770 wool as he street for consideration. staff, are you prepared to make your comment? >> [indiscernible] -- >> good afternoon, again, president and commissioner [indiscernible] -- the item

before you is [indiscernible].

[indiscernible] [indiscernible] now, i'd like to provide you with a brief summary of the draft e.i.r. this included the [indiscernible] -- retention of

[indiscernible] on the site

[indiscernible] -- would be significant but could be mitigated to a lesser amount. [indiscernible] -- the project would be developed to [indiscernible] parking spaces and 1.45 acres of publicly accessible open space. [indiscernible]

the publicly accessible open space [indiscernible] -- [ please stand by ]

and like the projects results being impacted and same as mitigation but like the project in impacts the main significant amount avoidable. in addition, the partial alternative is is the same mitigation measures as the proposed project to reduce other impacts. and it would be manage similar to that understand the project. historic preservation commission was viewed at a hearing on july 7th, 2021. it prepared a comment letter transmitted to the planning commission and in summary the division commission found the analysis of historic resources in the draft e.i.r. analyzed and range of preservation alternatives. today the planning department is making comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information

contained in the draft d.i.r., for members of the public who wish to provide verbal comments, state your name for the record. please speak slowly and clearly, there's a court reporter make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not sure to respond to comments today. comments will be trans described and respond today in writing in responses to [indiscernible] which is all relevant, verbal and written comments during the public comment period and make provisions to the draft e.i.r. the draft e.i.r. is published on june 23rd, 2020, and the public reviews hearings january on june 24th, 2021 -- sorry, june 23rd, 2021 and those who are interested in commenting on the drift d.i.r. in writing may submit their comments to me. or mail them to 49 south van

ness avenue suite 1400, san francisco, california, 94103. by 5:00 p.m. on 2021 from the public comment period closes. if you wish to receive a hard copy of the draft d.i.r. or a copy of the written responses to your comments, please provide your contact information either e-mail or mailing address to jenny. or call (628)652-7568 and leave a message. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes staff's presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your comments related to the draft d.i.r. by pressing star 3, when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. you have two minutes.

>> caller: hi, i'm carole miller, a long-time portola community member. speaking to oppose the 770 woolsey project and the draft d.i.r. i want to echo comments that we are not opposed to new housing and the need for it. there are many developments planned and currently underway in our neighborhood as well as the surrounding communities. we just don't want this site developed but would rather have it reserved in an agriculture community asset. what this developer document shows is non affordable housing. it is 62 units of high-end, luxury condos and 13 units that are below market rate. the real estate speculators are bragging that the affordable units are these condos for these condos are affordable to many.

this may be true to a rich real estate speculators but these units will be an fort able to the average teacher, firefighters, working class in this city. it's a lottery to get one of those 13 units with hundreds participating. these developers don't care about actually providing affordable housing, they're only providing the bear minimum they have to and trying to make themselves sound like they're solving the city's housing crisis. this proposed development won't make a dent but destroying this piece of portola will cause. they want to make a ton of cash in the portola and leave us with the problems, their luxury condos, development will create.

it's tired to being the city's dump and run for things like pollution, gentrification, traffic and congestion. they're making empty promise to apiece the neighborhood and the little corner. >> that's your time. thank you, ma'am. that's your time. >> caller: hi, i'm ray, i live on the top of hanson looking down at this project. i want to let you know that we have a lot of projects going around the neighborhood. we have two large projects to the east of us, two blocks, and bruno has a couple projects. very poorly supervised. we got bayview and lenox point and we have a lot of projects there and they all look the same. i mean, i can drive from sunnyvale, non view on he will l

amino and they all look the same. we're looking san francisco. the uniqueness. i know this is a joke. this global warning, it's supposed to alleviate the energy consumption and water, it's libeling we're playing for the ice age. well, i know it's about money. i get it. i know it's about the tax base. for the working class neighborhoods we have, there's no historic preservation. this is a great place. this is a working class farm. historic. and i know my remarks really won't change your minds, but i kind of want to ask you, if you live where i lived in the for portola, would you rather have

more units that not going to make a debt in-housing or would you like a beautiful and use it for generations after generations. we're talking about an environment, impact report. now that would be a good environment. thank you. >> clerk: members of the public, last call for public comment on the draft d.i.r. press star and then 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on the draft d.i.r. is closed. commissioners, it is now before you.

>> i do not have any comments to add. >> i think it's a very well-put-together assessment of the site and i'm very comfortable with seeing, thoughtel, elaborate and i saw the historic overview fascinating to read. we do forget what long histories this part of town sass and it's spell binding and i read it from the beginning to end, actually twice. thank you and i'm very comfortable with where you are and command you for the fairness of your report. thank you. >> clerk: if there's no other request to speak, members of the commission, on the draft environmental impact report, there's no action for you today. you can certainly submit your

comments in writing. we'll move on to item 11. case number 2016-01067cua at 809 sacramento street. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, thank you so much. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. nick foster with you. it's a very different project than the projects brought to you this morning and just recently. i'll keep my comments brief. this project is proposing a two-storey vertical addition to an existing two-storey over commercial basement building containing an institutional use actually. the ground, second and basement floors, there are no existing residential uses on the site. the project would net us one three-bedroom unit occupying the two-storey vertical addition. as it were, this project is completely co compliant you might ask yourself, why is it in

front of you because planning code section 254, which like 253 of the code inserted a discretionary action for the commission to safe above a certain height, we will automatically be in front of the planning commission and so for section 254, which does apply to the chinatown mixed use zoning districts, we are in front of the commission with 30 feet. this is a height of 50 feet, which doesn't fully confirm to the underlying directing which is beyond that it has the rear yard requirements, setback as required of ceqa and preservation standpoint and department stands fully behind this project and i'll make measure self available for any questions you have. the project sponsor is hopefully on the line to answer questions as well. so thank you. >> mr. foster, i do not see

the project sponsor joining us by their name or their phone number. at least the one provided to me. i'm looking for florence fang with the phone number provided to me and neither are visible in the list of attendees. therefore, commission, i suggest we go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. by press are star then 3. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed. and i'll be sure to let you know if anyone comes up late. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. >> in a context that is slow and old this is a sensitive addition

setback from the street and it would be hardly noticeable and i'm in support and move to approve. >> >> second. >> i was just going to second. >> thank you. >> commission tanner. >> aye [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 12, case number 201946020818ahv at 5012 third street. staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am.

good afternoon. planning department staff. the item before you is a home sf project authorization planning code section 206.3, 328 and 737. using the home as a program, the project is receiving development bonuses to allow form based density and two additional stores of height in exchange for providing 30% onset of affordable dwelling units and receiving zoning modifications from the rear yard and open space requirement. the project is located on a vacant a lot along third street which is a transit street and does not permit any new cuts. it's located in the african american arts and cultural directing and the new construction of a six-storey residential building with 29 dwelling units on the grouped floor commercial space. the project includes a total of 32 class 1 and four class 2

bicycle parking spaces and there will be no automobile parking spaces proposed. in terms of outreach, according to the project team, they have host multiple meetings within the community. it's required to free up meetings that were completed and the project was presented to the bayview hunters point and in december of 2020 and january of 2021. in addition, the project sponsor has been in close communication with the office regarding the project updates and several meetings were held individually with adjacent property owners. to date, the department has received correspondence from gardens initiative and nine individual persons in opposition to the proposed project which concerns planning center on the related impacts to the existing street parking situation. given the project pro voids no off street parking spaces. in addition, the department received one letter of support

from the bayview which is included as part of the commission packet. in summary it's on exist ant with policy of general plan and meets all applicable requirements of planning code. the project will maximize the youth of a vacant lot and construct a new six--storey residential building for a total of dwelling units nine of which will be designated as on site affordable dwelling units. the project will be designed and constructed to conform the structural and safety requirements of the building code as such, it will improve the property's ability to withstand an earthquake. it's adjacent to muni light rail and bus lines. the proposal will provide 32 weather protected bicycle parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces for its residents and guests to encourage bicycling. the project sponsor team is here

and this is staff's recommendation and i am open for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. project sponsor are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time and hearing for our project and thank you for the presentation. we are the architect actual in front of you. next slide, please. located on third street at vacant lot. it was i four-storey new construction with nine residential condo units and eight parking stalls. with the planning policy of not allowing any cuts to be proposed

along the third street corridor the feasibility was in question. the core of the project took a turn with the sense tee bonus program. the targeting goal is to increase our density to tier 3 with two-storey and a commitment to provide 30% of the units at the low market rate. we're now able to provide a far more diversified unit made for residents from various backgrounds including three three-bedroom units. such design unit makes from chair 3 qualified a range of price points that these units can be required at while the b.m.r. program multiply the diverse a sane ability of the project and it makes so much sense to us, that supporter for urban design programs designed around the city today. to address the lack of parking concerns, we're research and the available resources within this transit risk corridor, by

referencing similar policy found in all major cities today. our proposed structure will be built to the property lines, which two light and ventilation to the center of the building. the full time stack up to floor 6, and next. design comments from planning have been addressed in our current version of our design.

our support from community groups are addressing in the next slide. next. next. next. next. to summarize, we believe that there's a now opportunity to develop a lot and we have an experienced team to support this design process and a project sponsor who will handle the construction and seeing the project all the way through and more importantly a density bonus program that improved the over all performance for the project without any exception that work against us.

i would now like to you introduce to our project sponsor to provide a closing statement for this presentation. >> thank you for having us. for the bay area for the last 45 years and i'm very excited to be working with my close friend and contractor we have adopted the whole idea of the home san francisco vision and it turned around the ideas about the scope of the project so you crunch the numbers and we looked at tier 3 and we think with this project, we can win housing and through this community and we tried to

work with the community local non profits to see their input and we're just excited that we're going to [indiscernible] and i know it's unfortunate that it's always there's no conflict between what neighbors might need and want for their needs and i think that the vision going forward of getting people out of their cars and increasing (inaudible) is something that we have to work for the future towards and we support that and we try to show our support by cooperating with the planning commission division. >> clerk: thank you, that's your time. commissioners may have additional questions for you later. for now, public comment. this is the chance to address

and commissioners, we have no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. i will certainly advise you if anyone does request to speak. for now, public comment is closed. this item is before you. >> thank you, jonas. >> i'm in full support of the project. i just have one quick question for architect chan if he wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. >> yes, i'm here. >> thank you so much. it may be unoversight, it may be leaving a note on a drawing that shouldn't be there, but on drawing 8.1.1, you are noting in both your light wells, that there would be accounting for common open space on the 100 square feet each. since these open spaces primarily serve for bringing light into the bedroom, these open spaces are not open spaces because they're not accessible. is that a note that you just

left in or how do i understand that? >> that note should be corrected. >> it does not subtract from having open space? >> bev 1790 square foot on the rooftop and another bulk of 400 square feet in the yard. >> thank you for clarifying that. because the project is definitely convincingly documented and i kind of thought it was an error and i'm calling it out. thank you so much. i'm in full support of the project and move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the commission there's a motion and a second to approve with conditions on that motion -- [roll call]

that passes 6-0. placing us on item 13. 159 south street. this is a downtown project authorization. mr. guy, are you prepared to make your presentation? i do not see mr. guy. i saw him earlier. i don't see him now, commissioners. >> can we go to the project sponsor, just jump into the presentation? >> clerk: we can do that if you don't feel staff presentation is warranted here. we could certainly do that.

mr. gibson, you have five minutes. mr. gibson, are you with us? >> so anything strategy wise you guys want to talk about. >> mr. gibson, your line is unmuted? are you prepared to make your presentation? he muted himself. mr. gibson, would you like to make your presentation? >> you have five minutes. >> you guys should probably, i'm

going to turn the sound back on here so i'm watching the presentation so maybe i'll -- >> clerk: your line is unmuted. >> mr. gibson, do you care to make a presentation. your line has been unmuted and you have five minutes. >> thank you k you hear me? >> now and before we did, yes. go ahead. >> we can hear you and also joan a. i see kevin was able to come back on and he was having some technical issues. could you give him the ball in case he has some presentation materials to put up. >> thank you, claudene. i have materials. i apologize.

>> clerk: mr. gibson, were you going to make a presentation? maybe which should jump to the next item, and let these people figure out what they need to do. >> great idea. >> clerk: ok. so we're going to call item 14 out of order for case number 2016-002728coa-02 at 2525 van ness avenue and unconditional use authorization. staff be prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> thank you, chris. >> good afternoon president koppel and members of the commission, chris mei of

planning department staff. you have a chris for conditional use authorization to permit a residential off street parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit in the rc3 zoning districts. on may containing 28 dwelling units, 2,000 retail space and 28 class one bicycle parking spaces and 14 off street below grade parking spaces and the unit mixed with provides after the planning commission approval, to include six three-bedroom units. [please stand by]

>> the department finds a project would not be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood and maybe detrimental to persons or other properties within the neighborhood. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> thank you, chris. miss pelosi, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> you have five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. i am alexis pelosi here on behalf of the project sponsor. the project is seeking a conditional use authorization to increase the number of parking spaces and it is an increase of seven spaces. as you heard, staff is recommending denial. typically we would not proceed without staff report, but we have no other choice given the financial constraints facing the project. we respect the position of staff

but believe age conditional use authorization should be warranted. approval of it can be supported by findings and will encourage families to occupy the units and is consistent with other by -- other nearby recently approved projects. in addition to the changes that chris mentioned, the project has been revised to make all of the units one level, eliminating the multilevel architecture and making it small family friendly. with regards to the changes in the basement, and when my client purchased the project and went through the construction drawings, they recognize there was additional space in the basement that could be captured by additional excavation. a year after they received the approval the -- the approval for the additional excavation, something had changed. originally they intended that space to be for storage, and a year later when it was approved, the changes and construction costs and other financial issues that i will talk about, resulted in the project being converted

to parking which is the proposal before you today. regarding why it should be approved, there are several very strong reasons. the units are very large family size units. they are nearly double the size. the range from 1200-1900 square feet. every unit has at a minimum, two bathrooms. they are family-friendly and are single stories. features like this are important for attracting and retaining families. that is the distinction that will make this building so different is the large size of the units and the design of it being family-friendly. not only will 90% of the units be over two bedrooms, with the smallest unit is 1200 square feet. if these units are going to be attractive to families, they need parking. there is a direct correlation in the marketplace between bedroom count, unit size, and parking. the planning code allows increase parking size and configuration in certain districts.

the rationale is to attract families because families need parking. ironically, if the parking were in a different district, there would be 26 parking spaces permitted, not the 21 spaces we need. families need parking. it is important for those with little kids. families need to take kids to daycare, doctors appointments, parks, and much more. public transit does not meet all the needs of families. families also may not want to take their kids on public transit because they cannot be vaccinated. the families occupy these units will rely on rideshare. they have to circle the block and search for street spaces. this does not reduce greenhouse gases. there is no way to guarantee the same units that will be occupied by families. it is not something we can do. we can do is provide additional

parking and guarantee the likelihood that they will. because without them, we are guaranteeing that the likelihood of the families occupying the units is significantly reduced. this is not unique. other units on the street have adequate parking. i mentioned at the beginning that the additional seven spaces was critical to the financial viability of the project. because these large units, which are intended for families, need parking. without it, the unit will sit on the market, will not sell, or sell for less. given the high cost of materials, the parking -- [indiscernible] the risk of financing the project without the additional parking is too great to move forward. that's where the lenders and investors are calling my client every few days asking about

parking and making clear the financial investment of the product -- project may hinge on getting parking. the additional parking spaces and overall risk to the project is great and it may not have the financial backing to move forward. the amount of new parking spaces is minimal. it can be accommodated within the existing curb cut and will not reduce -- will not have huge effect on other pedestrians. this request for seven additional spaces as recorded by the neighborhood and we have received 70 letters of support. thank you for this consideration. if you have any other questions, please let us know. >> great. thank you. we appreciate you being prepared. commissioners, we should go to public comment. this is your opportunity to

address the commission on the item oppressing star then three. you will have two minutes. when you hear your line has been on muted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> commissioners, hello. i'm calling to support the request for additional parking spots at 2525 then ness. i live in the neighborhood and we don't have parking available in our building. is a constant struggle to find parking with the construction on van ness and with the commercial corridor so close by. we love living here but we don't have parking. this -- this does not mean we don't own a car. we own a car and we constantly struggle with parking. my partner and i plan to have kids soon. if we can't make the logistics work now, how will they work when we really need a car? there's no reason to not let the developer build more spots underground. no one will know except it will help some of us who actually live here. thank you for your time and please vote to approve the

additional parking spots. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am calling on behalf of some upper pole neighbors who requested that i give a call to oppose the parking. let's be clear. this is a project right on the event ness br tea. additional cars mean additional bike pedestrian conflicts and additional delays for transit and ultimately, it means more drawing away from the transit system. i think it is absolutely ludicrous to say that in one of the most transit rich districts of san francisco, family cannot make do without parking. there are plenty of families who do it. we see it all the time. i urge you to support the staff recommendation. thank you. >> hi, everyone.

i live on pole, and filbert, nearby the property. i would like to point out it is nearly impossible to get many laces in the city on one bus line. i cannot imagine taking my 11 month old boy to all the appointments, daycare, and more, all while having to take up to three buses. it's nice -- if we do not allow for parking, people will take the bus. the bus is not safe. there is a pandemic, tens of street crime and it is truly inconvenient. this commission has more important issues to discuss and this should be an easy approval. we have heard a lot of supporting facts for the building being built with families in mind and families need parking spaces. thank you for your time. >> hi. my name is danny torres and i live very close to this building on filbert and franklin. there are times that i've

struggled for parking for over an hour. so i'm sitting on this call and i learned that the plan will illuminate so many parking spots. i know that this isn't the right place to discuss this, but we need more parking in general under buildings and on the streets. we have been living with a crazy amount of construction on van ness. just to learn that this will lead us with under -- over 100 parking spots on the street. please approve the request for more parking and help us live and stay in san francisco. thank you so much. >> good afternoon. i'm calling to support the request for more parking at this building. i live around the corner from the project on union street. there is no data to support the fact that seven more parking spots will increase traffic on van ness avenue. the things that increase traffic are the construction we see on van ness avenue in order to

remove hundreds of parking spots, only making the neighborhood more unbearable. please look into the stats and science and let the project sponsor add more parking. thank you. >> hello, everyone. my name is brian. i am also a resident. i'm here to also encourage the commission to approve a request made by the project sponsor. first, i definitely want to say thank you to the developer who wanted to build this multiunit building that caters to families. i'm sure they could have built more units had they been smaller, but they made the choice that helps try to keep families in the city, which is so important during this time. a building with this many units needs parking. let's say it's obvious. through the stats that have been shared today, there's no reason to decline this request. families used cars.

they need cars. i am one of those. we shouldn't pretend that because people live in the city that they do not need a car. specifically for me, i commute every day. and living here, parking is very, very limited. parking saves me time in my daily routine, which is so important to me and my family. so to recap, we need more parking. thank you so much for your time and hopefully we can approve this. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is stefani. i'm a single mother of two teenagers who are born and raised in san francisco and current residents. my family moved to san francisco in 1983. we lived in a condo with one-bedroom unit parking. my sister and her family's three children live in the condo now. i'm very familiar with the issue we are discussing.

it would be very difficult to live in san francisco without a car and a parking space, especially families with infants and younger children. and especially as a single parent. i want to bring in another issue. i have an elderly stepmother who needs to be driven to many appointments during the week to see doctors and social activities. she is not tech savvy, has a weakened immune system and is not operable with what -- rideshare services or public transportation. with the recent attack on asian-american elderly, were not comfortable with her standing on the street corner and waiting for a ride chair or walking to and from alone. she has never lived with me with a designated parking space where she can safely get in and out of a vehicle in a secure location. if we want to keep families in san francisco, especially those with elderly relatives, please approve this. thank you.

>> hi, commissioners. my name is gonzalez. i have lived in the neighborhood for almost five years now. i'm calling to request to support the project sponsor for additional parking. i currently work as a waiter in the city and i commute across the town from work. i do it because, to be honest, there is no direct route to the restaurant i work at. when it come home late from a shift on friday or saturday night, sometimes i have to spend over 45 minutes circling the area looking for street parking. if this building has additional space for more parking, why wouldn't we approve the request without any question? these units will bring in more cars whether the project sponsor provides more parking or not. please make living in san francisco easier for all of us and approve the request for additional parking. thank you so much.

>> hello, planning commissioners. my name is martha. i am a longtime resident of the area. i'm calling into support this project. we need to make it easier to add units of all shapes and sizes to our housing. if we don't add larger and family size units to the city, families will continue to leave san francisco. please approve the request from the developer to help keep families in san francisco. i hope to raise kids here someday, but it will make life more difficult for families and continue to ignore these requests. there is no reason to decline. thank you for your time. >> hello. my name is daniel. i live two blocks away from the project. i have a family of four, plus two dogs. we are under pressure to leave san francisco every day.

they're a good school options. and it takes forever to find parking in the neighborhood. high housing prices and safety issues make it difficult for families to stay in san francisco. please stop pushing families to the suburbs. there's no reason not to allow one parking spot for every unit added if the building has space for it. i heard that neighboring buildings have better parking ratios than this one. i don't know what it accomplishes by not accepting this request. why aren't you allowing for parking for each unit? this is what families need and want. please listen to our cries for help and reprove this request. -- and approve this request. ,. >> okay. i guess that last color decided not to submit their testimony. last call for public comment on

this item. you need to press star then three to be added to the cue. seeing no additional requests, public comment is closed. this item is now before you, commissioners i apologize, but there is a late request. go ahead, caller. >> hello. my name is alice and i live in the neighborhood. my car was broken into three times in the last six months because i don't have parking in my building. my partner and i have been considering leaving the neighborhood just because of that. if you don't have parking for large units, you're forcing these families to go find another space to live in. it could attract families to leave the city. their people with roommates and even more cars in the neighborhood. i want the commissioners to pay

attention to how difficult san francisco has been with crime and difficulty for street parking. you need to have assigned parking. we won't even be able to see the parking spots with them under the building. please accept this simple request. >> okay, commissioners. with that, public comment is closed and this item is before you. commissioner diamond? >> thank you. this is a tough policy decision because on one hand, we have all these policies that support reduction of parking, but on the other hand, i believe that the arguments that have been expressed by many members of the public about the need to attract and retain families are really legitimate. i looked carefully at the findings and the staff's report,

and the findings that -- the alternative findings that were submitted by the project sponsor. although it appears that staff might have been involved in preparing those as well. i will get to that in a moment. i find the project sponsor's argument much more persuasive in this particular case. someone who raised three children in this city, i loved being a parent and raising a family in this city. it's just incredibly challenging to rely on public transportation when you were bussing children to doctors appointments, activities, sporting events, schools, and the numerous other activities that they engage in. particularly hard for single parents, two income earner families, families with older adult caregivers care for all the reasons mentioned by the speakers. it is, one day i hope we are at

the point where public transportation comes frequently enough and covers enough territory that it would be realistic to assume that we really don't need parking. and of course, many, many families do not have parking and have families who make do. in this instance, i am persuaded that adding seven more spaces, which still is less than 1-1, and is similar to neighboring properties and is supported by many of the people in the neighborhood, and add snowmass to the building, is the right way to go. i do have a question for staff. did you participate in the drafting of the alternative findings? it seems like they were on staff letterhead. i just wanted to make sure that if the commission were inclined to adopt those findings, that you have reviewed them and found them to meet city standards and are adequate. >> yes. i did not draft them myself.

i have reviewed the project sponsor's findings, and they used our templates as a basis for their motion. >> okay. i will say, one other point that leads me to believe that the project sponsor's request is the one i want to go with here is that the units, as redesigned, i believe they would be attractive to families. having all of the bedrooms on one floor, having bathtubs included, having storage for all the paraphernalia that kids need like strollers and car seats, that these units would be attractive to families. there's no guarantee that families will live there, three separate unit -- roommates or sickle person, -- single person,

but i think these units are well-designed to be attractive to families and that the addition of parking makes a great deal of sense. i would move to approve the alternative motion. thank you. >> second. >> commissioner fong? >> question for staff. do you have a response to the appellant's brief related to the two projects nearby, which i am familiar with, which were fairly recent, and they were allowed a parking ratio that is greater. do you have any response to that? >> i'm not sure of the exact addresses of those and the dates they were approved, or the zoning, for that matter. it may have allowed for more parking. it may have been approved prior to the parking controls being increased. i'm not sure.

>> okay. >> okay. i see commissioner tanner requesting to speak, but she also seconded the motion. >> i did have a question. more out of curiosity than anything, can you explain a little bit about the financing issues that are being faced and what the industry has been telling you about the viability of these units without the parking ratio. >> great. thank you so much, commissioner tanner. i also have the project sponsor on the line who can speak to this. in general, my understanding is that because of the large size of the units, in order for them to be financially viable, they do need the parking because they attract families and they attract people who are looking for that additional parking.

so if you want to unmute and describe more about the lenders are telling you and some of the research you have done. >> absolutely. when we started underwriting this project, it was january 2020. at the time we did not have any data on 1515 union street, which is a stone's throw from our project. we're talking about a 50 feet distance from the street building. the main lender at centennial bank, at the time when we started the conversation, did not have data on the sales of 1515 union street. it became evident post covid and during covid that 1515 union street condos, and those without parking, are selling at discounts and they are selling at a much slower pace. that could have worked without the increased construction costs, but the absorption has

been slower, the cost being weaker, in the construction costs being higher, all the same time, is what is concerning the lender. >> okay. that makes sense to me. we're just shedding light on the changing conditions. i wonder, also, if the staff can talk a little bit about the t.d.m. measures. in particular i noted that mr. pelosi said that there were some changes made and it is meeting the point required. i just want to confirm that and how they are meeting it in the follow-up -- follow-up question is talking about the parking, going back to the sponsor, in understanding the marketing of the unit. maybe staff can respond first. >> yes, commissioner tanner. the project sponsor did circulate a revised t.d.m. plan

that shows that they are providing 10 points where they are required to provide seven, through additional measures, family-friendly amenities -- [indiscernible] -- pickup and drop up areas for packages, and those types of things. they would now meet the goals. >> okay. and back to the project sponsor, with the unbundled parking, is that still part of the plan? >> yes. for projects over 10 units, parking spaces must be unbundled. i am curious if that is something that works with the budget set up as well. >> thank you. alexis pelosi again for the project sponsor. it is. the parking is unbundled and it is first come, first served. the one thing is the units are all generally larger than 1200 square feet.

there are only two one-bedroom units in the project and there's one bedroom units that have two and a half bathrooms and a den. they are all large units. it will be available first-come first-served moving forward. >> last question. i'm sorry if this is in the plant tonight. there are two things to me that are important about our city. and the movement towards decreasing parking. one is congestion. when we have more individuals driving cars, it can cause congestion. uses our scarce resources for cars and instead of other activity. adding more parking spaces and having more cars, we are not addressing congestion by increasing this, but the other part about it is climate change

is challenging for our planet. i am wondering if there will be vehicle charging to the residents. this is something they would have to add in later? can you speak to e.v. charging available for the parking spaces? i'm not sure how easy charging has been. i'm trying to prepare or be prepared for issues in the building. >> i will turn that over to the project sponsor. he can answer those construction specific questions. >> hello, commissioners. thank you. yes, we are planning to have e.v. charges, for least, the very first four or five parking spaces that are not connected to the horizontal stacker system that we have. >> okay. great. thank you very much. i am differently prepared to support the motion. i did want to make sure that the project description has the right mix. i know at the very beginning summary of the stuff report, i

think the mix of units is just a little bit misstated as having 242 bedroom units. but i think it is 63 bedrooms, 22 -- 202 bedrooms and two one-bedroom is. i want to make sure that is clear for the record. >> yes, that correct. -- that is correct. that unit count is correct. >> great. thank you. >> commissioner imperial? >> i have a question for staff. since you mentioned that this is meeting the goals, and in your findings, you keep mentioning that it is inconsistent. so with this updated t.d.m. goals, will this be consistent in our goals? and the general plan? >> yes, commissioner imperial. when staff's draft motion was

prepared, the revised t.d.m. plan had not been submitted. the project was not meeting the t.d.m. goals. the updated version that the project sponsor has provided would meet that. if the commission was inclined to approve the project, the findings would have to be made that yes, the measures are now being met. >> thank you very much. now that i have heard, i am supportive of the changes as well and also supportive of the conditional use authorization. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the alternate motion to approve the project with the appropriate findings. on that motion... [roll call]

>> so moved, commissioners. it passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. let's try this one more time and go back to item 13. 159 fell street. it is a downtown project authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. commissioners, i apologize not being prepared earlier. i had a dropped connection. i had the worst time. i am with current planning staff. the item before you today is project authorization for property located at 159 fell street between van ness avenue and franklin street. they want to demolish the existing two-story building on

the site and construct a seven-story building reaching a height of 805 feet. 2,000 square feet of ground for retail and offstreet parking. in order to approve the project, they must approve the downtown authorization and grant exceptions to the planning code requirements. the project sight is within the boundaries of the hub. an area that was subject of a recent focused planning effort to identify opportunities for increased housing. the immediate context is mixed in character, with residential, institutional, and civic uses. as an infill development on the transit rich opportunity site near the metro station and the bart center, the project is in keeping with the -- objectives for the planning for the hub. they anticipate a subject block as an area transition. [indiscernible]

the project complies with all of the findings of the planning code, aside from the two requested exceptions. first, the project does not comply with requirements -- [indiscernible] eight locations in the vicinity of the project meet the criteria. the project would eliminate one of those exceedances and would create one new exceedances. it would not appreciatively change. because the project would not eliminate all existing exceedances, the commission must grant an exception to approve the project. it also does not comply with planning code limitations for loc coverage. in lieu of traditional we are yard requirements, projects within the van ness and market residential special use district are limited to a maximum block coverage of 80% of all residential levels. the project proposes nearly full lock coverage on all levels. to request an exception is appropriate due to the limited

dimensions of the hub. it would reduce the number of dwelling units sit and significantly complicate services. throughout the market octavia area plan, on blocks with alleys, a strong pattern of building that extends through the primary streets. these buildings also typically cover the vast majority of the lot. the project site has good frontage. the project is compatible with these patterns. staff has received several e-mails regarding the proposed project, including two e-mails in support. two e-mails in opposition to the project, it will cast shadows on adjacent properties in the public realm. in addition, they believe their project is not sufficiently goaded for wind impacts. they express the ground-level retail space was -- within the project should serve a variety of income levels. want would to acknowledge the sheet that was distributed earlier this afternoon. he primarily --

[indiscernible] to diminish potential conflicts between the project and the nightclub on the adjacent property. i'm happy to discuss any of those items in further detail. in conclusion, approval of the project will provide dense residential development and walkable settings. the project includes no parking, so residents would be motivated to favor marking -- walking and transit. staff recommended approval of the project subject to the noted modifications. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. this is jeff gibson. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. thank you for hearing our case. it's a little bit out of order.

i am the principal for hunter gibson architects. an architect for the project. i also have the developer online. he is a local developer who has been working in the area for 10 years. he is quite season. lots of sensitivity to neighborhood context. and then we have our land-use attorney as well. kevin did a great job of describing the project. it is a seven-story multifamily with a lot of two bedroom units. twelve one-bedroom units and two studio units. we have elected to pursue this project with no parking. we have 27 bicycle parking spaces and we are introducing ground for retail space where one doesn't exist today. you can move for the next slide, kevin.

there is a mix of project scales on the block. it's a large, seven-story building. looking in context, zoomed in, it seems like a large building. it is really not. it represents the direction of planning in the district. go to the next slide. with all the projects, we do a lot of community outreach. decide as to the east is a rickshaw stop. there are places of entertainment. we have full support of the owners of the workshop stop in order to make sure that we are not going to disrupt them.

beside them is this restaurant. we have their support for the project. we spoke with the owner on the left and he is also supportive. we are not looking for any variances or waivers. basically every building on our block is a through lot. every building has pretty close to 100% lot coverage. small light wells cut in in some locations. we continued to serve the

pattern appropriately. there is not any midblock open space. the lot coverage was appropriated and was necessary to retain the street wall. we are also requesting an exception on the ground-level wind currents. specifically because we are not eliminating them, as kevin explained. we're not making the situation any worse or any different. it's a tall and then building. not having a lot of impact on the wind in the area. next slide, please. in terms of the project programming, we have active uses of the ground floor. we have a new retail space, as well as the residential lobby. we have a small partial basement for utility function. then we have 24 units on floors two through seven. a mix of 102 bedroom units and then 12 one-bedroom his and two

studios. these units are designed to be relatively modest in size. no automotive parking and a good amount of bicycle parking. it's really well served by transit and is highly walkable. it is very different than the last project. it's a very different context and a very different situation. i thank you will function really well as a building that is transit-oriented. can you go to the next slide, kevin? i wanted to briefly talk about the sustainability goals in the building. we are doing this as an all electric building. there is heating and cooling with outside air filtration. and upgraded efficiency windows. and then the whole building has a reliance on individual automobiles. it has a nice sustainability direction to it. i did want to briefly talk about the design intent of the project as well.

this area has been up zoned to the 805-foot height limit. you end up with a very locked space. and in the diagram on the upper left corner, that is the entire block face with the building shown in blue. there's a variety of heights of buildings. >> thank you. that is your time. >> okay. >> commissioners may have additional questions for you later. but we should open up public comment. this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then three. to the chair, you have two minutes. >> hello. i believe you can hear me. >> yes. >> i am a resident at 77 van ness avenue. my unit will be extremely impacted by this construction. clearly we are not happy about that.

one question i have is that our building, because we are also a retail on ground floor level, we are required to have ground floor area dedicated to being a pogo. i am hoping and wondering if the commissioner -- commissioner has considered that aspect with approval of this building. >> does that conclude your comments, sir? >> sorry. i don't need to interact anymore. i will just stand by and listen. >> thank you. go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon. i am the cone owner at 77 van ness, number 604. unit that looks west towards the

proposed project. for the reasons stated in my comments, i am a co-owner oppose the requested authorization. under the planning code and proposed project, it is limited to a maximum walked coverage of 80% at all residential levels. an exception to this is to be allowed and furthered the purpose of the planning code. it is reflected in section 309-817. the building mass is not sculpted to achieve an elegant and creative tower form that enhances the skyline. prospectively, the project is designed as an undifferentiated block mouse. there's nothing interesting, elegant, creative in the design of the flat walls that we and other owners and residents will look out on. second, the project has not been designed to reduce or minimize potential impacts on the wind. it appears from the draft motion that rejection of building heights has been dismissed simply because it would not maximize density.

maximizing housing density is not the sole purpose of the planning code or the determinant for granting exception. the project has not been designed to reduce or minimize potential -- potential impacts on shadows. there is a map that covers entire lot and the project will cast a long shadow on the buildings. we have given no specific details on how the project will provide ground-floor use and serve a range of income levels. the project is designing housing density on the lot. for these reasons, i urge the planning commission to deny the request for an authorization. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item.

>> i have a question for mr. gibson, please. >> your windows from the third floor up our property line windows. in the event that anybody -- any of your neighbors would decide to also increase the height of the building at a later point, are these reversible for property line windows? with the future mean that these windows could result in the absence of these bedrooms? >> we will file the typical form which includes a recorded notice.

>> it is on the onus of our property owner to remove those windows. we were designed it so those windows are optional. the light and ventilation is borrowed through the living room. the side windows are nice, but not required. they won't open and they will not require ventilation. >> it animates the façade in the meantime until such time that the neighbors build up and block the sidewalls. >> those are mechanically ventilated units from the get-go. the only thing is people love having light and will have a difficult time adjusting should that at any point be reversed. i wanted to have you comment on

it and i appreciate you or acknowledge ink that could happen. i'm interested to hear what other commissioners have to say. thank you. >> i am supportive of staff recommendations today and call on commissioner tanner. >> thank you. if you could elaborate a little bit on why the building could not further mitigate the wind, i do appreciate that. it is not creating a worse condition, but i wonder if there are any opportunities that we could have looked at to improve the condition. it didn't mitigate anything or it was not feasible. >> thank you, commissioner. with respect to the wind criteria and speaking from a -- there is a new building.

is extremely tough for any individual project to do. it is even more complicated by the narrowness and the general smallness in the given context of this building to mitigate those conditions. with the larger building, you have opportunities -- a larger building and a larger sight, opportunities to play with the massing in -- and add various service features and play with the massing and setbacks and things like that to further mitigate the wind. but given how narrow and generally small the lot is, there's not a lot of moves to make in that regard. >> thank you for explaining that. i also am supportive of this project. i would move to approve the project as recommended. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional request from the commission, there is a

motion that has been seconded to approve the commissions. on that motion... [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing as under your discretionary review calendar for item 15. this is a mandatory discretionary review. are you prepared to make a presentation? >> hi, i will be presenting. >> i apologize. i now remember that he made arrangements to have you present. the floor is yours. >> sure. [indiscernible]

also known as active space. the planning commission previously reviewed and recommended approval of the legitimization programme of section 192 in 2019. the permit before the commission today proposes to legalize approximately 2,500 and 60s ground -- ground feet active use within this. the staff report incorrectly identified that there were 16 office suites requiring legitimization. [indiscernible] limited office use upon a limited approval. it will lose its nonconforming status after july 2022.

it will be required to cease operations. these will be required to obtain new permits and meet the land-use requirements at that time. so far, the department receives no public respondents in support or application to the project. the department recommends approval with condition. specifically, appliance -- they have filed to rectify past enforcement issues associated with the building and has filed all appropriate building permits to legalize uses in the subject buildings. they have prepared the presentation of the proposed project. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you.

>> are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> okay. i have three minutes for you. >> jonas, and commissioners, i am here on behalf of active space. it is an existing five story building. [indiscernible] it was completed in 2007. it contains 291 small workshops. the workshops average a hundred 50 square feet. the slide shows a photograph of the building. it was not always consistent with the underlining zoning. some businesses became an active space and they were not allowed in the district.

supervisor ronen represented some legislation. [indiscernible] the 10 year grace period is for personal services, health services, massage and others were for office use. they approve the legislation. active space has submitted a plan. if approved, it will legitimize a total of 113 of the 291 workshops for massage, personal services, and health services. they do not require discretionary review or any other action by the commission. the final permit before you today is to allow 17 of the 291 workshops to continue to be occupied by small office users through july 2022. it's just 60% of the workshops in the building.

in one year, those tenants will need to vacate their workshops and the workshops will revert to different uses. consistent with the planning code, we are requesting the commission not take d.r. and allow the 17 small office tenants to retain their business location through july 2022. this will give small businesses to find a relocation space over the next 12 months. next slide, please. this shows the use of any -- every one of the building's 291 workshops. this remains predominately a p.d.r. building. 161 of the building's 291 workshops are p.d.r. use. [indiscernible]

after 2029, the entire building will be used as principally permitted in the district. thank you, commissioners. i am available to answer any questions. >> thank you. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star then three. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed. this item is now before you, commissioners. >> i am in support of staff recommendation. commissioner tanner? >> my only question is for those affected tenants. what kind of notice or outreach has been done? it's about a year before it looks like they need to meet

that space. it's a tough thing to tell someone who is operating that they can't operate that location anymore. >> can you address that issue and where they are in the programme? [indiscernible] >> supervisor towner was wondering what kind of notice has been given to the office tenants notifying them. they only have one year left on their lease. >> they have often given notification and education about the zoning. we have given them different links supporting them and helping them in their transition

and educating them now so we are not waiting until the last minute. we had a great response from people. some of them plan on making that change naturally. we are looking for ease of that. [indiscernible] >> great. are there any concerns from planning staff regarding the enforcement of this? i don't know if that -- i don't know who might want to address that. >> sure. i'm happy to try to address that. i think we have always acknowledged this is a squarely situation. it will be a challenge. i don't want to sugarcoat that and say it won't be a

challenge. this is not a typical process. we are aware of that and we will plan for that accordingly. we have been in constant engagement with property owners and the project sponsor and the office of small business who has also been very involved with the businesses. they will continue to be involved and engaged with them going forward. we will definitely have a dedicated effort to make sure that process runs as smoothly as possible. >> thank you very much. i am also supportive of the staff recommendation. [please stand by]

>> the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application

2019.120.7775. to construct a 1453 square foot second-storey vertical addition. and you covered deck and bay window. two in existing and one-storey over the basement and single family home. a three-bedroom four-bath home. the site is an irregular wedge-shaped lateral and down-sloping lot, 114 by 107-foot, 10 inches deep. containing an existing one-storey single family home and it's a historic resource due to its location within the eligible forest hill historic district. buildings on this block are two-storey detached stucco clad mediterranean style houses setback with tile gable and

houses are surrounded by heavy landscaped, generous front, side and rear yard set backs. the d.r. tom rocca of 1 ventura avenue, resident of the adjacent property to the north, is concerned that the proposed projects impact on historical resources have not been adequately assessed and that the project does not protect the historic character of the neighborhood. the steep slope and shape of the lot of unique and circumstances that a second story addition will impact privacy and light to the neighboring property and does not comply with several design residential design guidelines related to the scale and form of the building in relation to compatibility with the height and depth of surrounding buildings. a height and depth of the building to be compatible with existing building scale at the street and articulate buildings to minimize impacts on life and privacy. to date, the department has

received two letters in opposition and no letters support of the project. the planning department's review of this proposal confirms support for this code conforming project as it confirms to the residential design guidelines. the project builds on the existing footprint of the house, which maintains greater than a five foot setback, the maximum required at a rh1d zoning for section 133 and the addition maintains the materialality, articulation and the roof form of the mediterranean style house. the windows are sized to be compatible with the house and surrounding context. it is consistent with the size, scale, and massing of the surrounding buildings. the size, location and distance of the project's deck from the neighboring building, do not objectively seem to create exceptional impacts to light or privacy, which are separated by set backs in foal age that would normally provide privacy.

the historic resource is the eligible for a historic directing. not the individual property, so we look at compatible project with the district and based on the analysis in the hre report, 35 ventura avenue is ineligible for individual listing in the california register. in part because it retains a low degree of integrity and the alterations that have been made, although extensive, are generally in keeping with the mediterranean styling of the original cottage or house, and the character of the surrounding directing. the owner plans to construct a second floor level on top of the house that resembles what has been done on the site. the construction of the additional further change the character of the already heavily altered subject property and will not affect the historic district. they have a shadow study which seems to indicate minimal additional shading on it just

adjacent neighbors. therefore, staff teams there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommended not taking discretionary review. this concludes my presentation and i am available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow, mr. patterson, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm tom rocca requesting of the d.r. and my address is 1 ventura a i was hoping not to be here today as i've always been able to reach compromise. we have melt with the sponsor and made compromise proposals and we have not received back to our home and we hope modest compromise will service all parties about it and we're hope you will help with that process. >> good afternoon, commissioners, this is ryan patterson. and if we can please have slide

one. and i'm unable to see it. it looks like, there we go. ok. the cottage was not identified during environmental review and as a result, the historic impacts were not properly mitigate. building may even be individually eligible except for the project sponsor's own substantial unpermitted alterations. these historic features should be restored not ignored in further degraded. this is a series oversight. the cottages height was identified as a character defining feature in the h.r.e. yet the project would increase

the height and mass destroying the charter defining feature and substantially altering the building form. this is clearly inconsistent with the standards for rehabilitation historic buildings. >> commissioners, my name is toby and i'm the architect that helped the roccos in their remodel of the neighboring into their family home. our approach 10 years ago was to model within the existing envelope and for the neighbors. slides four, please. is further exacerbated by this change in grade. slide five, please. additionally, the proposed mass was greatest at the point of this site where the distance was the least. slide six.

more bothersome, is the math in this corner is contained for a covered deck with a history further exacerbating the impact of this propose. slide 7, they have proposed an honest modification putting back the corner of the third floor deck and removing seven feet of the family room. this was significantly reducing the impact and save the tiled roof at this corner. thank you. >> if that concludes the d.r. requesters presentation we should go to the project sponsor. you have three minutes. >> thank you. president koppel, and members of the commission, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to rebut the information provided.

firstly, the hre specifically identified it although the property is in a category a directing and building itself, the home itself is not part of the historic directing and review and 40 years ago, or so, the owner at the time did do all the work pursuant to permit. mr. patterson's comment it was not pursuant to permits is not correct. anything that required a permit received a permit. there are specific architect actual areas of the property that required no per mist that negates now looking back 40 years, the ability to maintain it in a category a directing. i think it's also important to understand that the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitating historic buildings are just guidelines that is not the law, that is

guidelines provided by the secretary and the actual purpose for the interior secretary standards is for tax cuts for as long as possible the historical value of the home. secondly, respectfully, the project sponsor is trying to maintain the privacy of an unpermitted deck. if we can go back to the project sponsor slide number five, it clearly indicates that the deck that is specifically identified as a privacy concern was never permitted and we obtained the permit history we have been in

discussion with the project sponsor in a meeting on march 31st. july the second, and only today did we receive any actual legitimate attempt to compromise and that was about an hour ago. based on the per square footage that was previously presented, more or they interested in now reduce particular 147 feet to provide some sunlight to the unpermitted deck on the project sponsor. i do suggest that there may be some need for light pursuant to the rocca's concern and i had suggested sky lights be placed in the home but i received no comment to that offer. and with that, my presentation

is complete. >> thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star then 3. seeing no request from members of the public to speak at this time, dr requester, you have a one minute rebuttal. >> thank you, this is ryan patterson. on the question of the unpermitted alterations, i would direct the commission to page 7 which discussions this. my client's deck was at grade or within the tolerance for grade when constructed so it did not require a permit. grade was slightly altered after that so it may require a permit now and he is happy to get that and the so that is been

discussed for quite some time. i think we're over a month, maybe two months at this point. and it provides a new more modest compromise proposal, i think two or three hours ago. we would like to find a compromise that reduces some of that massing and towering and this is an unusual corner on a pilot at the top of grade. happy to discuss that option and thank you for your time. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> respectfully, there's no massing as pursuant to the report of this project nor is there any concern of privacy. in deed there's an existing window that has been in

existence in my client's property since 1935 which frankly could be construed as much more intrusive than the particular deck that is going to be presented to be constructed. i think this is truly a issue that for whatever reason, project sponsor was not interested in building up but only built it down into the ground about 10 years ago. if that concludes project sponsor's rebuttal, commissioners, this item is now before you. >> so normally i routinely go with staff's recommendation, i

do, however, on this item, just feel that the deck might be a little too much. i'm interested to hear what the other commissioners may have as ideas for a compromise or what their input is. >> anybody? commissioner fung. >> staff has determined there's

nothing extraordinary and i'm prepared to go with the recommendation. >> is that a motion, commissioner fung? >> that would be my motion. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then to not take d.r. approve the project, commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. and commissioner president koppel. >> no. so moved commissioners. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner president koppel voting against. i would like to congratulate you on a little pass the first half of this calender year. a month past in fact. congratulate you on your future break that you will enjoy no doubtedly for the first few

weeks of august. i know i will enjoy them. today was a long one. >> enjoy the rest of the evening. >> we're done. >> thank you. >> have a great break. >> bye. everyone. >> bye, esh. everybody.

>> after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach out to and i signed up for the below-market rate program. i got my certificate and started applying and won the housing lottery. [♪♪♪] >> the current lottery program began in 2016. but there have been lot rows that have happened for affordable housing in the city for much longer than that. it was -- there was no standard practice. for non-profit organizations that were providing affordable housing with low in the city, they all did their lotteries on

their own. private developers that include in their buildings affordable units, those are the city we've been monitoring for some time since 1992. we did it with something like this. where people were given circus tickets. we game into 291st century in 2016 and started doing electronic lotteries. at the same time, we started electronic applications systems. called dalia. the lottery is completely free. you can apply two ways. you can submit a paper application, which you can download from the listing itself. if you apply online, it will take five minutes. you can make it easier creating an account. to get to dalia, you log on to

housing.sfgov.org. >> i have lived in san francisco for almost 42 years. i was born here in the hayes valley. >> i applied for the san francisco affordable housing lottery three times. >> since 2016, we've had about 265 electronic lotteries and almost 2,000 people have got their home through the lottery system. if you go into the listing, you can actually just press lottery results and you put in your lottery number and it will tell you exactly how you ranked. >> for some people, signing up for it was going to be a challenge. there is a digital divide here and especially when you are trying to help low and very low income people. so we began providing digital assistance for folks to go in and get help.

>> along with the income and the residency requirements, we also required someone who is trying to buy the home to be a first time home buyer and there's also an educational component that consists of an orientation that they need to attend, a first-time home buyer workshop and a one-on-one counseling session with the housing councilor. >> sometimes we have to go through 10 applicants before they shouldn't be discouraged if they have a low lottery number. they still might get a value for an available, affordable housing unit. >> we have a variety of lottery programs. the four that you will most often see are what we call c.o.p., the certificate of preference program, the dthp which is the displaced penance housing preference program.

the neighborhood resident housing program and the live worth preference. >> i moved in my new home february 25th and 2019. the neighborhood preference program really helped me achieve that goal and that dream was with eventually wind up staying in san francisco. >> the next steps, after finding out how well you did in the lottery and especially if you ranked really well you will be contacted by the leasing agent. you have to submit those document and income and asset qualify and you have to pass the credit and rental screening and the background and when you qualify for the unit, you can chose the unit and hopefully sign that lease. all city sponsored affordable housing comes through the system and has an electronic lottery. every week there's a listing on

dalia. something that people can apply for. >> it's a bit hard to predict how long it will take for someone to be able to move into a unit. let's say the lottery has happened. several factors go into that and mainly how many units are in the project, right. and how well you ranked and what preference bucket you were in. >> this particular building was brand new and really this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. in my mind, i was like how am i going to win this? i did and when you get that notice that you won, it's like at first, it's surreal and you don't believe it and it sinks in, yeah, it happened. >> some of our buildings are pretty spectacular. they have key less entry now. they have a court yard where they play movies during the weekends, they have another master kitchen and space where people can throw parties.

>> mayor breed has a plan for over 10,000 new units between now and 2025. we will start construction on about 2,000 new units just in 2020. >> we also have a very big portfolio like over 25,000 units across the city. and life happens to people. people move. so we have a very large number of rerentals and resales of units every year. >> best thing about working for the affordable housing program is that we know that we're making a difference and we actually see that difference on a day-to-day basis. >> being back in the neighborhood i grew up in, it's a wonderful experience. >> it's a long process to get through. well worth it when you get to the other side. i could not be happier.

[♪♪♪]streets.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> i wanted to wish you a best wishes and congratulations the community has shifted a lot of when i was growing up in the 60s and 50's a good portion of chicano-american chinese-american lived in north beach a nob hill community. >> as part the immigrant family is some of the recreation centers are making people have the ability to get together and meet 0 other people if communities in the 60s a 70s and 80s and 90s

saw a move to the richmond the sunset district and more recently out to the excelsior the avenue community as well as the ensuring u bayview so chinese family living all over the city and when he grape it was in this area. >> we're united. >> and growing up in the area that was a big part of the my leave you know playing basketball and mycy took band lessons and grew up.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> allergies welcome to the community fair it kicks off three weeks of celebrations for the year and let's keep everybody safe and celebrate the biggest parade outside of china on february 11th go best wishes and congratulations and 3, 2, 1 happy enough is enough. >> i grew up volley ball education and in media professional contrary as an educator he work with all skids whether or not caucasian hispanic and i african-american cumber a lot of arrest binge kids my philosophy to work with all kids but being here and griping in the chinese

community being a chinese-american is important going to american school during the day but went to chinese school that is community is important working with all the kids and having them exposed to all culture it is important to me. >> it is a mask evening. >> i'd like to thank you a you all to celebrate an installation of the days here in the asian art museum. >> one time has become so many things in the past two centuries because of the different did i licks the immigration officer didn't understand it became no standard chinese marine or cantonese sproupgs it became so many different sounds

this is convenient for the immigration officer this okay your family name so this tells the generations of immigrants where they come from and also many stories behind it too. >> and what a better way to celebrate the enough is enough nuru with the light nothing is more important at an the hope the energy we. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> relative to the current administration it is, it is touching very worrisome for our immigrant frames you know and some of the stability in the

country and i know how this new president is doing you know immigration as well as immigrants (fireworks) later than you think new year the largest holiday no asia and china those of us when my grandparents came over in the 19 hundreds and celebrated in the united states chinese nuru is traditional with a lot of meaning. >> good afternoon my name is carmen chu assessor-recorder i want to wish everything a happy new year thank you for joining us i want to say.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm proud to be a native san franciscan i grew up in the chinatown, north beach community port commission important to come back and work with those that live in the community that i grew up in and that that very, very important to give back to continue to work with the community and hope e help those who may not be as capable in under serving come back and give

>> remote hearings requires everyone's attention. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. public comment is available by calling (415) 655-0001. and entering access code 146 489 3774. when we re