altogether. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, at this time, you this is your opportunity to make public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume with the san

francisco housing coalition. you need to consider what will happen to the tenants in this building should you approve the demolition. this is exactly the kind of situation that i was trying to draw your attention to in the earlier item with supervisor mandelman. this is a clear-cut case. tenants are living in this building. increasing density for future residents should not outweigh the perils that this demolition's going to cause to the tenants. the tenants who are living in this unit in the single-family home are just as important, their lives and their residence and where they're going to be ending up at is just as important as creating density. our situation, as we have repeatedly brought to your

attention, is an affordability crisis. it's not just the number of units. there are many units in this town that could be purchased by the people of money. but you need to consider the fate of the tenants. we've been bringing this up over and over again to your various hearings. we've brought it up to the attention of the department, we've brought it up to the attention of the directors, past and present, and we don't see any movement at this point. you need to show that you value the current residents of this city. thank you.

. >> clerk: caller, you can begin speaking now. is anybody there? hello?

we're asking for the light well to be expanded from an actual separation between the buildings to mimic the current light in our unit, and it would also provide additional light in the unit below and the units that are being built, as well. and secondly, airing our concerns about the construction, as well, especially the impacts to the construction, those are all in our written comments, and that's it. >> my name is jonathan randall. i just wanted to point out that 1.5 years ago, there was a project at 378 eighth avenue that brought up the issue of a van accessible parking space, and that's why they only did one unit rather than two units, so it's good that this project

is able to do three # units rather than just one unit, but this is something that the planning commission and d.b.i. should look into is trying to be practical of how you fit a 17-foot-wide van accessible parking spot on a 25-foot wide lot. this basically forces us to not have parking at all if they are going to have four more units. so i think we should have a way of waiving the d.b.i. requirement of the vacuum accessible parking space. and to ozzie reaume's concern, i think we need to make sure that s.b. 340 is being followed here, which is any rent controlled tenants get relocation benefits. but other than that, we should be allowed demolition as long

as s.b. 330s being followed. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is now closed, and commissioners, the item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: -- you can speak to that, please? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you were muted at the beginning of your statement. >> vice president moore: my question was for mr. may. could you speak briefly to the units and the tenants currently living there? >> sure. as stated in the draft motion, the rent control status of the single-family dwelling is not

under the purview of the planning department but the purview of the rent board. >> vice president moore: thank you. my second question is to mr. hennessy. mr. hennessy, i read the letter from one of the adjoining neighbors regarding the first version of your plan and the one we are seeing today, that the light well has shifted, is that correct? we're almost in the same situation as we were then? >> the light well has always been in the same spot. that has not shifted. >> vice president moore: okay. thank you very much. those are all of my questions. thank you. >> president koppel: before i call on commissioners, i just want to say that i am generally in support of the project.

commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i know that s.b. 350 provides some protections in addition to protections that we have here. in this case, the demolition is resulted in [inaudible] or owner occupied units at the end, so the right to return to that unit would disappear, can you explain what protections would be applied to each tenant and how s.b. 350 would apply to this project? >> again, that's under the rent control board, not under the planning department, so i'm not sure how [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: well, i'm just hoping that we can get up to date on that phase of the issue. >> thanks, commissioner tanner. that's a wonderful question. s.b. 330 for the demolition and

looking at the replacement and relocation provisions, it doesn't apply when it's a single-family home. it's only protected units as referred to under the law, so it's only a certain number of units. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, miss cano. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner tanner. i was going to ask about that s.b. 330. so particularly on this, we were voting on a -- we are voting on a c.u.a. for demolition, and as of now, it appears that the existing units appears to be in a different phase and planning condition. in what way is this an important for demolition?

looking to the dwelling unit removal findings [inaudible] qualifies for really a demolition. >> i'm sorry. is that a question directed at staff? >> commissioner imperial: yes, sorry about that. can you explain the dwelling unit removal findings? >> it's a criteria that the planning commission is asked to take into consideration. there's no direct question as to whether the condition of the building should be good or bad, it's just something that the planning commission should consider at the beginning of the project. >> commissioner imperial: and are they going to have any kind of demolition criteria, in emergency room its of what constitutes a single-family

home, per se, like, that needs to be demolished, like, we don't have that kind of ability, so how do we verify that this building is actually qualified for demolition? >> that's a discretionary action of the planning commission. there's no -- again, there's no specific criteria about the soundness of the building as it relates to the building. it's just something that the commission is asked to consider. >> commissioner imperial: i see. it's kind of like tenant protections with demolition, and we know that the planning department has no purview on the rent board decisions, but at the same time, it allows for evictions for tenants themselves, and they are either going to the rent board or

sometimes may not know their tenant protections, too, so, you know, this is something i think that has been bungled with the planning commission for the last few years now and we haven't really [inaudible] when it comes to single-family tenant protections. but in this kind of cases, we may need to have more guidance as to whether this building needs to have a proper demolition. >> director hillis: just to add, do you think that's part of what's before you? you know, like, considering all those factors, the fact that it's a single-family home,

right as miss connor indicated, and it kicked it out of protections of s.b. 330. also, the price controlled portion of the rent ordinance would not apply to this, so it's -- some of the controls of the rent board ordinance do not apply to this because it's a single-family home. and then, they're adding units to the project where it was a single-family home, so i think those are all the factors that are before you to consider when granting or not granting the c.u. >> commissioner imperial: in that case, i will not grant the approval for the c.u. in that there is lack of tenant protection for this demolition, yes, and -- and that it still -- for the building unit removal, i think this is in a different safe condition

that -- you know, we are in the position of doing the tenant protection or adding more units, and for me, this is not a good reason for a demolition. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i think somebody may have mentioned this, but i didn't see the community standards in the c.u.a. presentation. i don't know if you read that into the record. i couldn't hear it. >> i did not read it into the record, but i do have that conditional approval ready, and we can add that standard conditional approval, absolutely. >> commissioner diamond: so i am willing to go with staff's recommendation, and i would move to approve this project subject to the addition of the community -- the standard language for the community liaison commission. >> vice president moore: second. >> president koppel:

commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: my questions were answered. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: just had a question to the project sponsor, and i share some of commissioner imperial's concerns about the tenant protections. single-family home or not, there's still someone living there and renting there, and that's their home. can the project sponsor explain any interaction that he's had with the tenant, discussions of these plans, any planned relocation or any other situations that would have been discussed with the tenant, if at all. >> yes, i can -- i can -- i can speak with that. we have spoken with the tenants and have explained to them the situation -- can you hear me? >> commissioner tanner: yes, we can. >> being on. we have explained that to them, and this project will not start until they have voluntarily left the premises. >> commissioner tanner: okay and is there any written

agreement with them or is it a verbal contract. >> it's verbal. we told them that we were very kind for their situation. basically, it's four young professionals living there now, and basically, we have told them that we would kind of decide, you know, when they would, you know, like to vacate the property, and we would not start the project until then. >> commissioner tanner: okay. that you're willing to state that on the record, but that's between you and the tenant or tenancy. >> yes. >> commissioner tanner: thank you very much. >> president koppel: mr. may, did you need to add anything? >> no, i just wanted to add that this was subject to the housing accountability, so i was just going to remind the commission of that. >> clerk: and if there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there has been a motion that was seconded to

approve with conditions, including the addition of the community liaison condition of approval. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes 5-1, with imperial against. thank you, commissioners. this will take us onto items number 13-a and b for case number 2017-015648-cua-var at 925 carolina street. this is a request for a conditional use authorization and variance. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> good afternoon, president

koppel and members of the planning commission. michael christiansen, planning department staff. the existing dwelling unit would also mostly be relocated into this addition. the site is located at 9512 carolina street within the rh-2

district. in total, the project increases the number of units from one to two, the number of off street auto parking spaces from zero to one, the total square footage of residential use on the lot from 630 to 3,297, and the total number of storage on front street from one to three. the proposed project designed is preferred by the department because it removed the nonhistoric earthquake shack on the site, allowing for a new dwelling unit on the site, maximizing the density of the parcel. the project requires a planning code set back as it relocates the existing home on the site approximately 3 feet to the north, maintaining it on the

same site as currently exists. at time of publication, the department had received no correspondence on the proposed project. since publication, we have received two letters. one letter was received from the existing tenant from the existing unit, confirming they have been fully aware of the project since october 2015 and have an agreement for any extended period of intent to vacation tenancy. as the project is designed to retain the existing historic value of the site while maximizing the residential density of the parcel, the department finds it necessary and desirable and recommends approval as proposed. additionally, i would like to note for the record that on page 11 of the draft motion, section 101-g findings must be

corrected to read that the project site does contain a building that has been identified as a historic resource, and the project preserves the historic resource by only removing nonhistoric portions of the building and maintaining the historic resource at the street wall. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. the project architect also does not have a presentation but does have a brief speech for the commission. >> clerk: project sponsor, your line has been unmuted and you are welcome to make your statement. >> you can see from the date mentioned in the tenant's letter that this has been very long in coming to get this hearing. we're very happy that we've worked everything out with the

department and pleased with the staff report and recommendation. i am not going to bore you with any more details, but if you have any questions about the project, feel free to ask, and [indiscernible] thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now open this item up for public comment. members of the public, if you would like to comment on this item, please press star, three to get into the queue.

seeing that there's no public commenters on the line, public comment is closed. >> president koppel: i just wanted to make it known that i'm in support of the project. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: [indiscernible] just what your communications have been and what your plans are regarding the tenancy of that individual or family? >> clerk: you'll need to mute -- >> yeah, i'm sorry. at the time the architect was brought into this late in the game because the previous

architects had a lot of health issues and in a sense retired, i'm not completely aware of every communication that has happened, but in discussions with the owner and in getting this letter from the tenant and in speaking briefly to the tenant myself when we were posting the property and also checking some dimensions, when the crops bought the property, they told the tenant their plan was to develop the property, and they would keep him apprised in how things were going with the city and they would give him time to relocation in the event they voted to construct, so beyond that, i'm not sure what else i can tell you at this point. >> commissioner tanner: thank

you. i appreciate that. >> sure. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question of curiosity to staff. [inaudible] >> commissioner fung: is that echo coming from my -- >> clerk: no, it was from the project sponsor. i just remuted. >> commissioner fung: okay. i was just curious if you could just provide a very brief history of the earthquake shack. there was nothing in the preservation report. [please stand by]

>> okay. if there's no other comments from commissions, i'm prepared to move and grant the conditional use. >> commissioner: second. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i wanted to ask normally this project is

that a correct interpretation on my part? >>. >> there's bike parking that occurs inside the earthquake shack if you look on sheet a1. and um, as to the roof deck, it's an amenity that we've gone back and forthwith staff. we'd like to think of the roof deck as for the upper unit and the back yard is for the lower

unit essentially. so i think there's a great need for this condition. >> commissioner: the picture that i have may be faded and light grey. >> the bikes are light grey. i will admit that for sure. the treasure enclosures are also. but there's a lot of bike parking. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. appreciate it. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. if there's no further comment, there has been a motion that has been seconded to approve with modifications. on that motion, [roll call]

that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner imperial against and acting zoning administrator, would you like to weigh in on the variance? >> yes. thank you. closed public hearing with the request grant that it preserves the existing historic resource and relocates it on the property even though it's dedicated to the structure. >> secretary: very good. thank you. this now takes us to item number 14. case number 2019-019901cua at 1068 florida street. this is a request for a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> secretary: great. >> good afternoon, again, president koppel and the rest of the planning commission. michael christianson, department staff. it's also a conditional use authorization pursuant to

planning code section 209.1, 303, and 317 for a project that proposes so legalize and complete the unpermitted demolition of an existing two-story residential building and to construct a new four-story accessory unit and two off street auto parking spaces. in total, the project increases the number of units on site from two to three. the number of offstreet auto parking spaces from 0 to two. from 2, 240 and the total on the street from two to four. the project began with the filing of a demolition permit

with the department of building inspection in 2016 when the applicant attempted to file the application proposing to demolish the existing structure. the building permit application was never formally accepted and no fees were paid. in june of 2018, a construction crew began to demolish the building using hand tools which resulted in a top work order and a case opened by the department of building inspection and the planning department. the property owner their general property owner brought in a subcontractor of a different property on 28th street and that began the demolition of this property instead of the site they were brought in to and enforcement

be remedied through the authorization of the actual demolition through approval of conditional use authorization and a building permit. the project's request the condition to use authorization and the replacement structure. under sb 330, the housing crisis act of 2019, the project is required to replace any protected units on the site. as the existing units were rent controlled, they are protected units and must be replaced in the new buildings as rent controlled units. after publication, the department had received one general e-mail expressing the concern with the overall scale of the project. since publication, we have also been contacted by adjacent neighbors expressing a hope for the project to proceed expeditiously so this deconstructed building can be remedieded. we also received for more clarification on the replacement unit and rental

rates. since the units are required to be rent controlled, they will be subject to the city standard rent stabilization ordinance. this does include vacancy controls that can be set by the property owner. if there was a tenant identified who was the last tenant within the last five years and had income levels of a certain band, sb330 could have required a replacement unit be offered at a similar rental level. however, no tenants were identified for this project. department finds it necessary and desirable and recommends approval as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. and the project sponsor also has a visual presentation for the commission.

>> secretary: your line has been unmuted and through the chair you will have five minutes for your presentation as well. >> can you hear me now? >> secretary: yeah. >> good afternoon commissioners. john lin on behalf of the project sponsor. construction of a new three-unit building if we can go to the next slide. >> i apologize, for some reason. >> i'll keep talking since it will be on the slide for a minute or two. this project has the unfortunate caught up with the engineer with respect to the permitting and construction work throughout the city. we have provided details of the engineer and demolition contractor's involvement in the unpermitted demolition of the second floor of this building and the project sponsor is here to answer any questions as they

come up. a couple things i wanted to highlight. the project sponsor engageded the engineer in december of 2016, two years prior to any allegations being made by the engineer. so had no understanding of any indication of this type of behavior at that time. immediately after the unpermitted demolition of june of 2018, the demolition contractor immediately filed a letter with d.b.i. stating that the demolition was their fault and they intended to demolish a different building nearby and you guys have seen that letter. the demolition contractors confirmed in a deposition that the project sponsor never authorized demolition of the building and the project sponsor wasn't aware of the demolition until several days after it took place. if you can go to the next slide. finally, the project sponsor and demolition contractor have come to a settlement for a

significant sum of money based on their fault in this case. one last point that should be made absolutely clear, there's no ongoing relationship between the engineer or demolition contractor with this project. they are not associated with this project in any way now. so next slide, please. as for the project, the proposed building is pretty straight forward. it maximizes the density by providing two units plus an a.d.u. the units are modest sized. all of the units will be rent controlled because, of course, the a.d.u. unit is required to be rent controlled as well. as you look at the front elevation, the building would be shorter than ittings right neighbor and only two and a half feet taller than its left neighbor. the floors are 9' tall to keep

the building height low and as you can see the roof deck railing is set back 20' from the facade so it will not be visible from the street. next slide, please. at the rear, the building extends the same length as the adjacent two buildings. it has a pop-out with 5' setbacks on both sides and both adjacent buildings go the entire height of the building and the project pop-out is only boeing to be provided at the lower two floors. next slide, please. from above, you can see the project is providing a matching lightwell about three times the size of the right neighbor. the roof deck that's provided which provides the only open space to the top unit is set back on all sides and is accessed via roof hatch. trying to keep that open space is limited and nonimpactful as

possible. next slide. so we have been in touch with the owners on to the right of the project. the general sense is that folks really want to get this project moving forward and a building built there as you saw in that previous picture. it's in a pretty bad state right now and it's been frozen because of all of this background and so we're working as much as we can with the neighbors to kind of keep it moving forward. i think we'll be trying to seek a full demolition permit sooner rather than later just to clean up this site because as you can imagine, it tracks a lot of garbage and other dumping there. you know, in closing, commissioners, this is not the first project you have considereded under these circumstances. it won't be the last. it's fully expected that the commission needs to review each of these projects to determine the appropriate conclusion depending on the facts of the case. in this case, we have a project sponsor that is the victim of

engineer and demolition contractors. this is has been underscored by the contractor's own words and the legal settlements between the parties. residential design guidelines and department policy is encouraged at this site, this is exactly what we want maximizing density. and so all of that is taken care of and it serves no purpose to treat this case any more harshly than it is a typical project. approve the creation of these three new rent controlled modified that's completely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. thank you and we're here for any questions. >> secretary: thank you. we can now open public comment. members of the public, please press star three to get into the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to speak. through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> hello, this is jonathan

randolph. i want to repeat a comment that i made a year ago which is that the planning commission previously handled permitted by attempting to punish property owners and forced to reduce the size of the building or to build a monument to this mistake or build by confession plaque in one case which i believe was counter productive because delaying and reducing the scale of the development only exacerbated the housing crisis. and the point is not supposed to be in the game of meeting out punishments. you're not a judge. the other reminder, the zoning administrator already has the authority to refer the contractor to the city attorney and the district attorney under planning code section 176. you can ask they may refer it to the district attorney and the city attorney and that's your job but it's not your job by forcing them to reduce the intensity of the development

the. so for the purpose of land use, let's regulate the use not the contractor and approve the project on what's the best use for this location. thank you. >> this is nancy kauffman, 34-year resident. this proposal will greatly impact our family, our neighbors, all living creatures. note that since the pandemic, a majority of surrounding neighbors also work at home all day. i urgently request that the owner and the city put in place measures to ensure a transparent smooth and safe process for all and if the commission adds these conditions. right now, what we need is for the existing nonfunctional tarps to be removed and replaced in order for the garbage and shredded tarps to stop blowing around.

we need cleaning and proper disposal of shredded bar gaj in this adjacent neighbor's yard. the owner must conduct weekly inspections at the front and the back of the building and clean the garbage as well as garbage dumped in front of the building and weeds. before at least a month before demolition and construction, the owner must designate and planning commission require regularly accessible on site who will post notify and conduct a public meeting at a convenient time for neighbors who are working people and make sure tenants at each not just owners are informed. at a public meeting, the liaison should outline the process. an estimated time line for each part and work schedule allowing neighbors to adjust their schedules as soon as possible. we must understand exactly what safety protocol will be followed at each stage in the process. there must be time for

questions, input, and for how to communicate moving forward. the liaison during the project must be easily accessible for questions or concerns that arise and make a best faith effort to respond immediately or during that day and mitigate any problems within 24 hours. any changes to the outlined timeline, work or stoppage should be communicated in writing in consideration for all. owner masse miller -- >> secretary: thank you, caller. that concludes your time. >> oh, hi. it's georgia shootis. i didn't realize about this that it was an sb30 project. that had two condos and an adu and then it was sold. but i think that still raises the question for this is this project sponsor who seems to

i'll put it crudely screwed supposedly by the contractor, is he going to manage this is he going to manage these rent controlled units or is he going to sell this? it seems there's been a a lot of hands-off with this property which the neighbor just said since even the previous owner, the real estate agent who sold it to this l.l.c. and this is part of a climate speculation. it's mind boggling to me that either the owner or the architect or someone involved did not keep track of the fact that a permit was sort of applied for and never followed through on and i think this is worrisome going forward with the project. is he going to control these units or is he going to sell it once he gets it. and i looked at the pictures for the last seven years on google earth and there have

been cars parked in the driveway in 2016 and 2017 along with the trash around the thing. so was there someone there? was it used for short-term rental. i saw four different automobiles parked there over two years. so those are just my questions. obviously, you're going to have to approve building something there. but i think based on what i just heard from the neighbor, they need a lot of consideration and these questions i'm raising about is this llc that seemed to have been negligent. sorry. it's true even though mr. kevlin wrote a nice letter defending them. are they going to take care of their property they've owned since 2016. take care. thanks a lot. >> secretary: last call for public comment, please press star three if you wish to speak on this item.

seeing no additional speakers. public comment is now closed and commission item is now before you. >> president: again, i'll be supporting staff recommendation in support for the project. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. generally in support of the project. i was a little concerned about the caller who implied that there are some sounds like trash, weeds, debris, i heard mention of a tarp, garbage at the site and it sounded like really trying to understand how they could have good communication with the project

sponsor which certainly. we're trying to do which is to get it on a violation of free pass. so if you speak to the condition of the project site as it is today? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. john kevler here. let me mention that nancy and i were on the phone earlier this week talking about how we can move forward and best maintain good communication and make sure these types of issues are taken care of as quickly as possible moving forward. one thing that is important to know about this site is you can see it on google street view, it's very challenging to access the rear of this site because the mound of remaining building and building materials is actually blocking easy access to the rear yard. so there was quite a bit of effort put in early on when d.b.i. directed the project

sponsor to tarp over the area. as nancy mentioned, it's kind of had a rough going over the years and it's been several years now. and then, of course, with a kind of open construction site with that been happening, it's inviting of dumping of other building materials and other things going on. so long story short, though, what you just asked, we're in complete agreement with. you know, we've already been coordinating with nancy about getting that first meeting together very quickly starting to get everyone on the same page in terms officer what the next steps are. we do have a permit process ahead. the construction project's not going to be happening until tomorrow and what can we do in the meantime so we don't have further hearings unnecessarily and get this done as quickly as possible. >> commissioner: to staff, i would wonder, mr. christianson, if you can advise, i would imagine securing the site so that further debris is not dumped and, you know, keeping

it in an orderly and well-kept manner is not prohibited by the lack of this permit. so i'm a little bit -- i want to be empathetic to the issue at hand and i'm also disappointed to hear the site is in poor condition. if they can address that without issuance of this entitlement. >> hi, commissioner tanner. just to quickly get to that point as well. we have advised the caller, nancy, that we believe the most expeditious way to get a resolution to the current state of the property is by contacting the d.b.i. code enforcement inspector. given that we already have an active enforcement case, d.b.i. date of order that they did order these tarps to be installed on the property. so if they are in sub standard condition, they do need to be remedied. we will continue to work with her and our own enforcement staff to try to get that contact. i do believe that would be the

quickest way to get a resolution of the issue. >> commissioner: okay. i mean, like i said, i don't know that i would of effect this entitlement today and i know there's already a commission for a community liaison. and there's been some discussion with community members, but it is pretty disappointing to hear that despite the challenges that this project sponsor suffered from the person that he had contracted with for this job that the sponsor is not maintaining the site in an attractive manner and it's becoming a nuisance and some of that can't be help because it's construction debris and other things, but it's pretty disappointing. so i hope you can relay that information. i hope that the caller nancy continues to be vigilant and i'd hate to have that vigilancy on the part of the neighbor instead of the city. more proactively monitoring the condition of the site. so that's my comments.

>> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: i have a question to the project sponsor just echoing on one of the public comments that we received. again, what kind of units are these and who's going to manage this building? >> thank you, commissioner imperial. just to put this into the larger context, the project sponsor purchased the site in 2015 and first attempted to start the permit process in 2016. so we're five years in at this point. he's also just wrapping up litigation with the demolition contractor. this all to provide the context which is -- it is unclear as to what -- how the property is going to be managed. i think the key is right now is getting the permit in particular, the demo permit to clean the site, to clear this site and to get construction under way. but the project sponsor hasn't

decided yet whether they're going to, you know, manage this long-term or sell it. so that is still in the air and obviously, you know, it depends on when this comes online which is probably still two to three years away now due to permitting and construction timelines. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. and, also, are you aware whether this will be rental or condo? >> to answer that, that is still in the air as well. it has not been determined. yeah. >> commissioner: okay. thank you for those question -- for those answers. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: the project in a long line of similar projects becomes difficult because its history again and i

what is of concern to me here is that way back in 2015 as the architect and the property owner are the same people who filed permits and actually, mr. smith, this architect also at least in d.b.i. records identified as for demo although it was to a subcontractor who mysteriously showed up on some weekend. all of those things are disturbing in light of the fact that we are creating an ever increasing project where we really don't have a clear project in front of us. we are proving something past the fact and while i can support not looking at the history of the project for the particular situation, three equally sized units.

compatible massing form-based in the context of where it is, i am troubled by the fact that we are again and again being asked to approve something which nobody else wants to touch. i just want to leave that as a comment hanging in the room and i'm curious what other commissioners have to say. >> president: if there are no comments, i would entertain a motion. commissioner fung. >> commissioner: given it's consorted history, i feel the need to move this on and i'm

acceptive of the expe additions to date and we need to see this cleaneded up and completed. so i'm prepared to grant a conditional use. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: commissioners, if there's no further discussion, there was a motion that was seconded to approve the project with conditions. on that motion, [roll call] that motion passes 4-2 with commissioner imperial and moore against. thank you. this will move us on to our last item of the evening. case number 15. item number 15 case number

2021-004901cua at 1111 california street. this is a request for a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentations? >> yes, laura. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. department staff. this before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to install a new mobile macro wireless telecommunications facility at 1111 california street. the project consists of the installation of six new antennas, eight new radio units and other antenna equipment. it will be screened within one f.r.p. enclosure which is going to be painted. the facility replaces the existing microwireless telecommunication facility that consisted of one only antenna. on february 9th, 2021, the planning commission continued this item to today's date of

september 23rd, 2021. the project is located on the second level roof top of the auditorium. to date, the department has received one later in support and more than 25 letters from the public in opposition of the project. much of the opposition expressed the screening of the equipment. as of september 22nd, 2021, based on community feedback and recommendations from the planning commissioners, the applicant has proposed to increase the screening of the proposed wireless facility on all sides. the proposed screening will be maneuvered to ensure adequate ventilation while reducing visual impact. staff notes that the summary in the commission packet mentioned that the project was a part of the mission area plan. the text will be corrected

accordingly. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization in planning code section 209.2 and 303 within the district. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the wireless telecommunications services facility siting guidelines and policies of the general plan. it will enhance to protect life and property to protect from fire or natural disaster. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to persons or adjacent property within the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i'm open for any questions. the applicant does not have a application, but it also available to speak. thank you. >> secretary: thank you very

much. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on the item if you wish to provide comment, please press star three. when you hear that your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> hi, my name is phillip woods. i live in the tower located at 777 california street. it's a mixed use tower located to the auditorium. i was responsible for repairing a lot of. this letter was endorsed at 16 property owners. first, i would like to say that the board had mentioned there was a neighborhood meeting that was on april 29th. i so note that our h.o.a. tower owners did not receive a meeting invitation and therefore property owners did not attend this meeting. the proposed location was sited without any input from our

neighborhood towers. basically, it sounds like tonight there was some additional increasing of the screen for this equipment. that's some of the concern we had. being right adjacent to this is what was proposed was 16' by 16' wide and a 9' high. this had actually -- this facility is located 30' away from the tower. residential units located on the seventh through nineth floors and also would have impact from 17 floors to 18 floors. in addition to the view of the aesthetic impacts, there's other issues identified. one being the masonic temple, the category a historic structure. the structure is not well integrated with the architecture of the building. the roof line is very strong element and so the additional kind of enclosures on top of this roof provides more of

aesthetic and view issues. this equipment's going to be very visible from both grace cathedral steps and huntington park right across the street. we find it's not consistent with the historic establishment of the neighborhood. the masonic auditorium is a really large structure. there might be other options for it to be located on the site that meet the requirements for at&t. as staff tend to move forward with the a different location would be integrated with the design taken in consideration of use of aesthetics to the adjacent building. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes your time. and last call for public comment. any additional speakers wishing to speak on this item, please press star three. seeing no additional speakers,

public comment is now closed and, commission, this item is now before you. >> laura, we didn't get the project sponsor. >> secretary: the project sponsor doesn't have a presentation, chan. thank you though. >> president: i'll be supporting staff recommendation and supporting the project. anybody else? commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: yes. is the project sponsor available for questions? >> secretary: i can unmute their line right now, just give

me one moment. and project sponsor, you are now unmuted. >> actually, this is came blackstone, the director of external affairs for at&t and eric lents is our project manager and he can give you -- he'll be probably the best person for the project itself. but i'm here as well. >> secretary: this is the number listed for the project sponsor. >> yes. go ahead, eric. >> hi, this is eric lents. i have came blackstone with at&t as she mentioned and we also have raj mathers with hammon edison who concurred the r.o. study so we are all here to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioner: my question is that it appeared from some of the comments that were in the written correspondence that

there was a request to consider other locations on the roof that might have less of an impact, an aesthetic impact on the neighbors. did you consider other locations and are there ewe locations on the roof that are feasible? >> so other locations -- so we've only considered this roof top at this time. it's a -- >> commissioner: let me be clear. i'm not asking you to consider other buildings. i'm asking if you considered i believe one of the comments said it's a large roof. i'm asking if you're set on this particular location on the roof or if it's possible to move it to other places on this roof? >> yeah. i can answer that question. so the existing antennas, the new antennas are being proposed where the existing antennas are. and so at&t has not looked at other parts of the roof top to

relocate prior to sending in the application. we did receive the comments from the neighbors that were concerned about the letter that say the visibility concerns looking down upon the equipment and if i can sort of describe the roof top here. there's many levels and i do have a power point that i not a presentation, but just some photos to kind of demonstrate slide number four. so there's three roof tops here. there's a lower roof top. there's a second level roof top where the antennas currently are and a third level roof top and there's actually just kind of off the second level roof top, there's a roof top -- i'm kind of calling the solar panel roof because it's covered in solar panels. the lower level roof top would be too low to meet our objectives.

the equipment i should mention, the base station equipment is next -- go to the next the fourth slide, the next one so you can kind of see what i'm talking about here. you can see the blue squares where -- that's where the existing antenna is. the equipment, the bay equipment is way over by where that solar panel is and at&t has an existing cable to it. you can see these radio units on the wall just behind the blue square. so that's where the radio units are located and they go out to the antenna from there. so in speaking with at&t, that lower roof top level would be too low and would not cover the objective and then also that third level, the top floor would be way too high and so because this is an existing tate facility, this is a legacy

site. so they're trying to continue the existing coverage that they have between neighboring sites and so in doing so, they're trying to remain the same location. so if we were to move these antennas let's say to the east more towards that solar panel roof on this second level roof, the issue you have is i kind of identified, these are really rough measurements because the question about sort of -- let me just back up a second. the distance if you see where these antennas are located right now is roughly in between sort of that part that fronts california street and it's about 105' away and 100' away you have the routed wall that sticks out where the solar panel is. the further you move that

direction, the more that solar panel roof how it sticks out becomes a big shadow for the antennas. in talking with at&t, they can push it over 10' to 15', but the farther more you go to that direction, you essentially eliminate the sector that points east down california street and if you hopped on to that solar panel roof, you have even bigger issues because then you have issues where the antennas are interacting with the solar panels. there's a lot of metal going on. solar panels and metal don't get along very well. if you go on the far east side all the way towards the huntington, then you're just way too far away from the coverage objective facing west back up california street. so i guess to make a long story short, these antennas were placed here about 20 years ago

and the modification of the site to go from their existing antennas to the new antennas is really just a continuation of that historical legacy that this site has in connection with all the other cell sites they would have in this community. >> commissioner: so to summarize, you're on the goldie locks level. the top one's too high and the bottom one's too low. and you want to stay on the level you're on. you could shift a little to the east, but not all the way to where the solar panels are because of the interference of the shadows. is that right? >> the person who lives who spoke, could you get back on the line, i have a question for you.

>> secretary: caller, your line has been unmuted. >> hi. this is phillip. >> commissioner: yes. does it help you at all to move 15' to the east? >> definitely. if we can move 15' that'd definitely help more for views. that'd be great. >> commissioner: okay. so at&t, is 15' the max you can move? what i'd like to propose is you move as far east as you possibly can, but still have the effectiveness level that you're looking for with your coverage. i'm questioning whether it's exactly 15'. would you be willing to move it, you know, at least 15' and if you can go farther east, you will. >> yeah. so i initially had looked at between 10' to 15'. the 15' would be on that kind of high end.

we can definitely move it as far as exactly how far we can go, i would need to run it by our engineer. but definitely we can move it over. i could push for up to 15'. anymore than that i know it's not going to work. it just wouldn't. the antennas wouldn't work if they're too far over. >> commissioner: okay. then i would be willing to approve this project subject to your moving the antennas over 10' to 15', you know, i'd like to hear how all the other commissioners feel about this. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: is that a motion, commissioner diamond? >> commissioner: sure. i'll make that a motion. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you commissioners. if there's no additional comment, commissioner diamond, i just wanted to clarify your

motion. is your motion to approve with condition and making one of the conditions to move the location of the antennas 10' to 15' or to explore moving it up to 15'? >> commissioner: what i heard them say is they can move it 10' to 15'. 15' was the max, but they thought they could do 10'. if they can get up to 15' that's great. but 10' to 15' is the range that should be part of the condition. >> secretary: okay. thank you. and, on that motion to approve with condition including to move the antennas 10' to 15', on that motion that has been seconded -- >> commissioner: just to be clear, it's 10' to 15' to the east. [ laughter ]. >> secretary: great catch. thank you. that would be very helpful for the motion. thank you. on that motion, [roll call]

very good. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and that concludes your calendar for today. thank you all for your patience and time and i will see you all soon. >> president: we're adjourned. >> great job.

>> 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. [♪♪♪] >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language]

[♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]

this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure for tuesday, september 21, 2021. i'd like to welcome members of the public who are streaming or listening, and staff and other commissioners will be participating in today's meeting. following the guidelines set forth by local officials, members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone, including members of the public. thank you, all for joining us this afternoon. madame secretary, please call the first item. >> the first order of business is item 1, roll call. commission members, please respond. >> commissioner bycer: here. >> commissioner ransom-scott: here.

>> vice chair rosales: here. >> chair bustos: here. >> commission brackett is absent, all others are present. the next is announcements. the next meeting will be held on tuesday, october 5, 2021. please be advised a member of the public has up to three minutes to make comments on each agenda item. during each public comment period, viewers on line will be instructed to dial 1-415-655-0001 and to access code which is 2481 925 4684. you'll be asked to press the pound sign and the pound sign again to begin the call. when you dial star 3, you'll hearing the following message.

you've raised your hand to ask a question, please wait to speak. when you hear your line has been unmuted, this is your time to provide public comment. please speak clearly and slowly and you'll be placed on mute. you can stay on line to listen to the meeting or hang up. if you're providing public comment on any items, it's recommended that the call the public comment line on the agenda now. today's meeting materials are available on our website. under commission, then the public meetings tab. the next order of business is item 3, report and actions taken at previously closed session. there are no reportable actions. the next order of business is item 4, matters of unfinished business. there are no matters of

unfinished business. the next is item 5, consisting of consent. first is the consent agenda. a, approval of minutes, regular meeting of august 17, 2021. b, authorizing pursuant to the transbay implementation agreement a fourth amendment to the memorandum of understanding with the sustained county of san francisco acting through its department of public works to stepped the term of the m.o.u. from september 17, 2020 until cement 30, 2024 to complete post construction administrative activities for the transbay folsom street project, resolution number, 30-2021. mr. chair. >> chair bustos: do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to provide

public comment should call 1-415-655-0001, enter access code, 2481 925 4684. press the pound sign and then the pound sign again. then press star 3 to submit your request to speak. >> if you're listening to us by phone and would like to comment on the consent item, press star 3. we'll allow a few moments for the members to respond. mr. chair, it does not appear there are no members of the public. >> chair bustos: i will close public comment. commissioners, may i get a motion for these two items on the consent agenda? >> mr. chair, i move that the items on the agenda be accepted.

>> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner scott. may i get a second motion? madame secretary, please take roll. >> secretary: please announce your vote. brackett is absent. >> commissioner bycer: aye. >> commissioner ransom-scott: aye. >> vice chair rosales: yes. >> chair bustos: yes. four ayes, one absent. >> chair bustos: motion carries. thank you, commissioners. call the next item. >> next is the regular agenda, 5c, authorizing a fourth amendment to the option agreement with f4 transbay partners l.l.c., a company for the purchase of transbay block 4, transbay redevelopment project area discussion and action, resolution number 31-2021.

>> thank you, madame secretary. we last brought the project before you when the commission approved a short-term extension to our option agreement with the development team for the transbay block 4 project. in order for staff to fully evaluate the proposed program for this mixed income housing project. since that time the staff and the development team have completed a thorough evaluation of the project and have agreed on a proposed program for the next phase of the option agreement, which is the appraisal process. our housing team will present the staff recommendation on the program and terms of this fourth amendment to the agreement and she is joined by staff and developer representatives to answer any questions you might have. kim? >> thank you very much. good afternoon members of the commission. i'm a development specialist with the ocii housing team.

the request before you is authorization to enter into a fourth amendment to the option agreement with f4 transbay partners for block 4. the amendment would provide a good faith time frame of 45 days, to replace exhibit c, the 2018 term sheet with the current proposed program for appraisal. extend the outside date to march 31, 2022 to work through the process to determine the land price. and provide the executive director authorization for a further extension of three months if needed to prepare the d.d.a., schematic design and related documents for consideration. quick overview of the presentation. i'll provide a brief background and update. describe the housing program,

community serving commercial and the proposed enhanced certificate of preference or c.o.p. holder strategies and then talk through the proposed action and next steps. just a quick reminder, regarding the site location. block 4 is on the northern portion of the site of the former temporary transbay term unanimous. it's bounded by howard, main, beale and the planned extension of ta calma. a bit of background, block 4 was sole sourced to f4 transbay partners who is heinz, goldman sachs as a j.p.a. sale of parcel to the same entity. the option agreement established that the affordable housing obligation would be satisfied through the construction of offsite or below market rate block 4. that was modified this year and

paid in-lieu fee for affordable housing. proceeds from that fee then will be used to fund the mid rise affordable project as block 4, through an ocii loan. overall, block 4 is planned or a mixed use project. it's important to note that ocii will ensure that minimum of 35% of all development units are affordable to low and moderate income households. it has long been intended that block 4 would provide affordability at a rate sufficient to meet the obligation. a little history on the option agreement. as noted, the option was initially approved in 2016 and there have since been amendments and extensions. most recently in june the commission provided a short-term extension to allow staff to review a proposed housing program. the option currently expires at

the end of month. the option establishes a land price of $45 million, but acknowledges that the final price will be based on established evaluation process. once final. the 2016 option established a housing program at 45% affordable. negotiation from the d.d.a. to date has been based on the nonbinding term sheet approved in 2018. these deal points included increasing the tower height, a substantial affordable housing program at 49% affordable which is based on the percentage to meet the obligation at the time and the community benefits package. the project is currently proposed would provide 681 units split between 100% affordable mid rise project, mixed income tower rental units, condominiums and town home.

in addition, it includes ground floor retail, a large to be community-serving. vehicle and bicycle parking in an underground garage. streetscape improvements on all four sides as well as building out the extension of thomas street between block 4 and future block 3. this march, the developer shared a financial model for the project and stated that the 49% affordability is not financially feasible and presented a housing program with 39% of affordable units and no payment for the land. at the direction of the commission, rejected the proposal at 39% affordability and sought affordability in accordance with the 2018 term sheet. the developer submitted a revised proposal on june 4 with total affordability at 40%. this is a program that was presented at the june 15

commission meeting. the program before you today increases affordability to 45%. ocii economic consultant century urban conducted review of the financial model. they reviewed and verified key assumptions including returns required to procure prospective lenders and investors and ongoing project expenses. the consultant found that with a modification of the program to convert the top two floors of apartment rentals from market rate to for-sale condominiums and adjustment to either assumptions regarding economic occupancy, the project can support up it 45% of affordable units. the developer has agreed to adopt the recommendation to modify rental floors to condos and has agreed to take the land sale price, the valuation process established in the option agreement, under this

revised program. however, the developer does not represent that the project at 45% affordable is financially feasible. this diagram provides an overview of the housing program as currently proposed. the shorter building bracketted in blue is the 100% affordable mid rise project. there is no change to this project since the june preparation. the portions in the orange bracketts are market rate condominiums units and in the town home style bar along ta hama. this table provides a comparison

over the overall housing program and the current program at 45% affordable. the key changes since the june proposal are a four-unit reduction in the overall unit count from 685 to 681. a reduction in tower rental units and increase in tower b.m.r. from 73 to 105. the b.m.r. units in the tower rental portion of the project are moderate income, serving households at 100% to 120% of the median income. the changes have most significantly impacted these tower b.m.r. units. studio units have been introduced and number of three-bedroom units reduced.

in addition, the allocation of b.m.r. shifted to an even split across each income tier to higher allocation at 120% b.m.i. it's subject to further review as part of the design review process and to review by our partners to ensure compliance with the city's inclusionary policies. the current program includes approximately 6,000 square feet, designated as community-serving retail at the bid of the mid rise affordable project. mercy housing will take the lead in managing the space. commercial rents to be at or below 50% of the commercial market rate. this is intended to provide opportunities for local businesses and non-profit organizations who might otherwise struggle with the high commercial rents in the neighborhood. in the 2018 term sheet, and in the current program for

appraisal, the developer has committed to preparing and implementing a plan for c.o.p. outreach that is beyond the early outreach and marketing plans. they have provided a draft plan and noted that mercy would lead the effort for the mid rise and that heinz will lead the effort for the tower. the preliminary plan identifies commitment to a diverse -- teams formed early in the lease process and held in place to provide continuity and communication to tenants. in-person and backup tours. in-person and virtual neighborhood tours. presentations held near the project site and out in communities. dedicated websites and targeted outreach to those c.o.p. holder who may have applied for housing but were not able to secure housing.

staff recommends approval of the fourth amendment to the option agreement to extend the outside exercise dates of march 31, 2022, with an additional optional three-month extension at the discretion of the executive director. staff will use this period to work with developer to resolve key d.d.a. and schematic design items within 45 days and pursue the process set forth in the option agreement to establish the land price. staff will return to commission to seek approval of the d.d.a., schematic design and related documents prior to the extended outside date of june 30, 2022. that concludes the staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. i want to introduce representatives. from hines, we have dan, ellie

and legal counsel. and from mercy, we have william, barbara. and ocii economic consultant is also on the call from century urban. thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you. do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comment. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 1-415-655-0001, enter access code, 2481 925 4684, press the pound sign twice, then press star 3 to submit your request to speak. if you're already on the phone with us and would like to provide public comment, please press star 3. or the raise hand feature. i'll allow a few moments for the members of the public to enter

their request. mr. chair, it does not appear there are any members of the public wishing to comment on this item. >> chair bustos: all right. i will close public comments. now i turn to fellow commissioners for questions or comments they may have. i'd like to start with vice chair rosales. if you have any questions or comments? >> vice chair rosales: thank you, chair, and thank you to the staff for the presentation. my only comment, i appreciate the due diligence and i have no concerns about the requested extension. >> chair bustos: thank you.

commissioner scott? >> commissioner ransom-scott: thank you, mr. chair. kim, thank you so very much for just slowly going through so i could follow and the comprehensive presentation just wonderful. my heart kind of leaps whenever i see, you know, just that increase in commissioner bycer was the one along with us for more affordable and just i'm appreciating our team. i'm appreciating you and thank you, kim, because you go through with not just a reading, but a knowledge in it. it felt like you cared about what you're doing and that means a lot, kim. it means a lot, thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you. >> commissioner bycer: thank you, mr. chair. kim, thank you for that great presentation.

definitely provided, i think, a very clear delineation between the various proposals we've seen. and i'm glad to see many more affordable units and a higher percentage of affordable. i guess a couple of questions. did century urban make any statements regarding the financial feasibility of 45%? >> yes. century urban's finding was that a development program at up to 45% is financially viable. and certainly, we can let them speak to that directly. brian, did you want to make a comment on that? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm brian sparkman. thank you, kim. i'm managing principle at century urban and pleased to be here with you all today. we have spent a significant amount of time working with kim along with ocii staff on this

project. our goal is to, one, validate the project economics. two, to make sure as acting as a fiduciary to ocii that we're pushing for the highest level of on site inclusionary that is feasible and supportable by the project. my colleague is on the line with me today. ms. blackburn, the vice president. we have spent a very large amount of time to review the economics. we believe that the project today when you kind of combine a convergence of the top two floors from rental units to residential condominium units is a credit to the overall project returns, meaning that is beneficial. we also know a lot of hard work has gone into the project by the commissioners and staff and hines to work through the $47.6

million parcel loan. and third, i think indicated to us, they're looking at this as a kind of build to core asset. and what that means is, this is a long-term hold. generally, that built core owner has a lower return profile. based on our professional opinion and review of the economics, we believe the project is feasible at 45% on site inclusionary housing. we believe that is a defensible number and one that can be supported by the commission and staff. i'd also like just to serve this opportunity, my colleague, ms. blackburn, if there is anything you would like to share? >> hello. yes, i think you summarized it pretty well.

essentially, we've been working on this project in earnest since march of this year, spending a lot of time working with the developer in reviewing the pro forma, understanding their proposed program, you know, recognizing that, you know, we are kind of in a very unique market right now with covid, however, we do look at this project as a long-term project. in which it would be developed in a more normal market where rents and condo sales prices would return to pre-pandemic levels. so we do view this project as being feasible based on our extensive review of assumptions, the revisions to the program and sort of looking at this project as more of a long-term hold. >> chair bustos: great thank you. any other questions?

>> commissioner bycer: so there was a line in kim's presentation that went out of its way to explain the developer does not -- is not disagreeing, but not agreeing on the financial feasibility statement. i'm curious to why that may be and what are different assumptions that are behind that key difference between the consultant and the developer? >> thank you, yes, that's correct. hines has informed ocii that they do not agree that 45 -- or represent that 45% affordability is feasible, but they are prepared to move forward with the program to seek out the land price. dan, if you wouldn't mind speaking to hines' position on that, that would be helpful, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. hines in san francisco.

wanted to echo your words. this project was referenced in our letter to staff and in the presentation. we are still concerned about the feasibility of the project here, not definitive in any sense, but just noting that this is an exceptionally ambitious project, you know, program atticly and in the time we find ourselves. both the project and the program are unprecedented in terms of the amount of inclusionary housing they're attempting to are produce in san francisco. and there continues to be ongoing uncertainty both in the cost environment as well as in the, you know, rent and condo pricing environment that has yet

to play itself out. we wanted to be clear here, we see the appraisal process as an important part of advancing the work we've already been doing here in the last few months and the last five years before that, but we cannot and do not want to stand here today and, you know, represent to you that we are sure that the project is feasible at this ambitious program level. >> commissioner bycer: so i'm clear, when you say it's not feasible, is it the 45% and the $47 million price that has been discussed before, or just on the 45% affordable regardless of land price? >> i think it is a cumulative assessment around everything in the program, which is, you know, there are many other elements of the program that are, you know, that detract from feasibility even though they're important to

things like delivering the community benefits program, other benefits to the city and other entities within san francisco. you know, at this stage, most of the analysis was done at an assumption of the minimum land price that might come out of a process like this at zero. that being the assumption at the time. it does factor in, you know, in the century urban team and ocii staff can confirm their analysis factored in the structure that is in place with parcel f and the sort of down payment structure that is coming from parcel f to support the units. >> commissioner bycer: when we will expect to see a feasibility -- after the appraisal we get to see the feasibility at this program level? when do we get that information? >> it would certainly be our

intention to confirm as part of moving forward from that point that we believe in that and we're willing to move forward and we're going to advance the project to construction. >> commissioner bycer: got it. all right. thank you for answering my questions. that's all i have right now. i thank you again for all the great work on this. >> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner bycer. so, i mean i have tons of questions that i'll -- i think will probably be answered when we do the appraisal. but as we do the appraisal and look at the feasibility of this project, i think we need to go beyond looking at just the value of the price now. at some point during this dance that we've been having, 49% was feasible. and when i think of 49%, i don't just think of the number of units, but i think of the future

of san francisco and the ability of this city to grow its low and middle class. to grow diversity in a city that was when i grew up was very diverse. i think we need to keep in mind that beyond the money, it's about the future of this city and the future generations and families that will benefit from the amount of inclusionary housing we put on this piece of property. so, for some it may just be a shift of percentage point or two or maybe five in this case, but if we look at it in terms of number of families, that's a lot of people. and i think every single one of those families and members of those communities have work -- [indiscernible] i'm anxious to see the results of the appraisal. but i hope everyone here knows

at least from my point of view, i'm still not going to be settling for less. because at one point, it was feasible at 49%. so, we're going to bounce back. we are a resilient city. we learned that in 1906 and we learned that in 89, the recession of 2008, we are a resilient city. i hope we don't become shortsighted partners in this and i hope we look at the long-term view. so, with that, commissioners, may i get a motion for this item? >> mr. chair, if i could just sort of bounce off of your comments and commissioner bycer as well. dan, i want to commend you all for in spite of you thinking it

not to be feasible for deciding to go forward. and as we said, we're standing our ground that this is what is needed and as dr. king once said, out of a mountain of despair, a stone of hope. the hope comes in on you saying we're going to go forward and so are we. and we're looking at the resilience. -- for our city, our family, the future of our people and they deserve every chance to just recover and grow and develop into what this city is moving towards. a great diverse city, strong, and united. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner scott. may i get a motion for item

number 5c? >> thank you, vice chair. may have a second motion. >> i second that motion. >> thank you. >> commission members, please announce your vote for item 5c when i call your name. commission brackett is absent. >> commissioner bycer: yes. >> commissioner ransom-scott: yes. >> vice chair rosales: yes. >> chair bustos: yes. >> mr. chair, the vote is four ayes, one absent. >> chair bustos: motion carries. look forward to what we come up with. madame secretary, please call the next item. >> next is agenda item 5d, workshop on amendment to

2021-2022 recognized obligation payment schedule for january 1, 2022 to june 30, 2022. discussion. madame interim director? >> thank you, madame secretary. as you're aware, oci submits the raps and since the agencies are given an opportunity to request amendments to any lines by october 1st of each year. so this year we need to request amendments to two line items. and you from the finance team will walk us through before we submit to the statement department of finance. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm budget and product financial minister for ocii. we sent you an updated memo

yesterday to reflect an invoice we received restoring the planning process. and that was for a long-term plan establishment for the fiscal year 2022-23 and 2023-24. we just revised it with the most up to date spend information on this presentation. so this provides legislative program on the rops. authorized the board to amend the rops in a 12-month period. so, reminder of where we are in the schedule. we scheduled the original rops before you in january. we received approval in april. we presented this workshop to the oversight board last week. we are presenting this to you

today. we'll be back before the board next week for the action item. and then we'll submit our rops amendment on the 30th. so another refresher. a reminder of the five different funding. we have the bond proceeds which includes prior and anticipated. we have our reserve which is unspend -- unexpended. we have our administrative allowance. this table shows two amendments before you and this table shows the amendments on our sources. you can see in the bottom line, the total change is $1.7 million change for a .3% from the

approved rops 21-22. this table shows those changes by the specific project area. we have a $582,000 change in our hunter point shipyard and $1.1 million in transbay for a total of 1.7. next slide, please. so our first amendment is related to our building 101 and hunter point shipyard. it's studios and auditorium. we entered into a contract with public works. as part of this grant, we're required to provide a 10% match. so following the rops planning process for 21-22, during construction, public works informed us that less fund than anticipated were going to be

expended in 2021 because of long lead times for procurement and fabrication of fire suppression system. these delays resulted in invoicing less grant funds than anticipated and the amendment before you today is to carry forward authority for those unexpended grant funds. currently, all of the materials are now procured. fabrication is under way and will be invoiced in the next year. the total contracted amount doesn't actually change and the project is anticipated to be completed by february of 2022. next slide, please. so the second amendment before you is regarding our folsom project. the transbay redevelopment plan includes revitalization of folsom street to serve as a main boulevard along zone line and the transbay project area. so we entered into a contract

with public works to manage the implementation of this project following the planning of our 21-22 rops during construction of the folsom improvement project. project was delayed because of fewer funds anticipated were going to be expended in 2021 due to long lead times for procurement of the traffic poles and signals. so this story resulted in d.p.w. being able to invoice less than anticipated. so that amendment is to carry forward authority for those unextended proceeds into the current fiscal year. and d.p.w. completed construction on the project in february of this year and will soon be invoicing ocii for the completed work. the total contracted amount for this project does not increase. so the amendment is minimal to the taxing entities.

as i mentioned, there is a 10% grant match for the grant, that is about $58,000 and less than a percent of the request in 21-22. we also don't have any budget and adjustments necessary because it's part of the annual continuing budget, so this carries forward from the prior year's approved budget. again, the next steps. we have the workshop before you. we'll incorporate comments and feedback. present the action item before the work oversight board next week and then submit to the department of finance. i'm happy to take any questions. we also have the project teams online and we have our public works representative. we have raphael gutierrez for the grant and someone for the

folsom street project for any questions. thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you for that. madame secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide comment? >> secretary: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call 1-415-655-0001, enter access code, 2481 925 4684. press the pound sign twice and press star 3 to submit your request to speak. if you have already joined us by phone and would like to provide public comment on this item, please press star 3 on your touch tone device. again, we'll provide -- we'll allow a few moments for the callers to make that request.

it does not appear there are no members of the public. >> chair bustos: hearing no request to speak, i'll close public comment. i would like to start with commissioner bycer. >> commissioner bycer: no comments or questions, thank you very much for the presentation. >> chair bustos: commissioner scott? >> commissioner ransom-scott: thank you for your presentation. i don't have any questions. only comment, i just kind of smiled when you said and as i was reading, there will be no budget necessary [laughter]. it just gave me a smile. but thank you for your presentation. very well done. >> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner scott. >> vice chair rosales: no questions, thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you. i don't have any questions as well. i really appreciate staff's due

diligence on this topic. and the presentation. so, let's see. since this was a workshop, we won't be taking any action. so please call the next item. >> item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. mr. chair? >> chair bustos: is there anyone from the public who wishes to provide public comment? >> members of the public who wish to provide comment on non-agenda items, please call 1-415-655-0001. enter access code 2481 925 4684. press the pound sign twice and press star 3.

we'll allow to moment. -- a moment. there are no members of the public wishing to comment. >> chair bustos: i'll close public comment. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 7, report of the chair. mr. chair? >> chair bustos: thank you. i don't have much to report, but i just want to remind folks that the process for the search for a new director is under way. the search firm has published the job description, so i just want to share with the commission that it is moving. so silence doesn't mean nothing is happening, but it is happening. so just wanted people to know about that. >> mr. chair, you said it is published now? >> chair bustos: yes. madame secretary, please call the next item. >> the next order of business is

item 8, report of the executive director. madame interim director? >> thank you, madame secretary. commissioners, just want to call your attention to two informational memos in the packets. the first was related to the machination going on in the bus site in transbay. we provided you a status update on how that is going. the east cut landing partners, the entities elected to activate the site have begun a soft opening the weekend before last with food, beverage and activities and they plan on having a larger public opening in early october. and we'll keep you apprised of that. so we'll continue to keep you updated on their progress as the full activation unfurls. and also wanted to call your attention to an item to inform you that on our affordable housing project that recently completed in mission bay, block 6 west, the developer mercy housing has proposed naming this

project after their longtime c.e.o. who, unfortunately, passed away in 2019, sister lillian murphy and they propose naming it the sister lillian murphy community. they've engaged in the community process and have received feedback about that. we wanted to keep you updated on the project naming. lastly, i wanted to let you know that earlier this month on september 1, the school district published a notice of availability on the draft environmental impact report on the mission bay school project and the school district will be accepting comments on the draft eir through october 19. commissioners, members of the public, you're invited to review the eir and make comments. staff is reviewing the document and we'll notify the commission if we have any comments that we're going to be submitting and we'll forward you the link where you can find the draft eir online. that concludes my report.

>> chair bustos: thank you. commissioners, are there any questions related to the executive director report? i just want to say, i'm actually excited they're naming it after sister lillian. she was a force to be reckoned with and a big promoter of affordable housing for people. so, in her own right, she was a sister of mercy, but also a community-builder. and so i'm delighted they're doing that. madame interim director, do we have a time frame in which we'll be able to hold these commission meetings in person at city hall? have we heard anything from our mayor's office? >> we don't have any specific date yet. i think they are still working through the logistics of how that would work and allow the public to participate as well as commissions and staff in a safe manner, but we expect to hear something soon and we'll keep the commission updated. >> chair bustos: thank you.

madame secretary, please call the next item. >> item 9, commissioners' questions and matters. >> chair bustos: commissioners, any questions or matters? hearing none -- >> mr. chair, is it appropriate to invite those that have not rsvp to rsvp if they are interested in attending the gala event? >> chair bustos: is it oci? >> is it appropriate or should i do it another way? >> chair bustos: if it's not ocii, it may not be. >> very good. >> chair bustos: but please bring it up. >> no comment, sir. >> chair bustos: thank you. madame secretary, call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 10, closed session. there are no closed session

items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. mr. chair? >> chair bustos: fellow commissioners, i need a motion to adjourn. >> mr. chair, i move that the meeting be adjourned. >> thank you, commissioner scott. is there a second? >> second. >> chair bustos: thank you commissioner bycer. thank you, commissioners, for your time. thank you staff and thank you to the members of the public. meeting adjourned. 1:49. >> thank you.

>> one more statement. we are the one. that is our first single that we made. that is our opinion. >> i can't argue with you. >> you are responsible please do not know his exact. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> i had a break when i was on a

major label for my musical career. i took a seven year break. and then i came back. i worked in the library for a long time. when i started working the san francisco history centre, i noticed they had the hippie collection. i thought, if they have a hippie collection, they really need to have a punk collection as well. so i talked to the city archivist who is my boss. she was very interested. one of the things that i wanted to get to the library was the avengers collection. this is definitely a valuable poster. because it is petty bone. it has that weird look because it was framed. it had something acid on it and something not acid framing it. we had to bring all of this stuff that had been piling up in my life here and make sure that the important parts of it got archived. it wasn't a big stretch for them

to start collecting in the area of punk. we have a lot of great photos and flyers from that area and that. that i could donate myself. from they're, i decided, you know, why not pursue other people and other bands and get them to donate as well? the historic moments in san francisco, punk history, is the sex pistols concert which was at winterland. [♪♪♪] it brought all of the punks on the web -- west coast to san francisco to see this show. the sex pistols played the east coast and then they play texas and a few places in the south and then they came directly to san francisco. they skipped l.a. and they skipped most of the media centres. san francisco was really the biggest show for them pick it was their biggest show ever. their tour manager was interested in managing the adventures, my band. we were asked to open to support the pistols way to that show. and the nuns were also asked to open the show.

it was certainly the biggest crowd that we had ever played to. it was kind of terrifying but it did bring people all the way from vancouver, tee seattle, portland, san diego, all up and down the coast, and l.a., obviously. to san francisco to see this show. there are a lot of people who say that after they saw this show they thought they would start their own band. it was a great jumping off point for a lot of west coast punk. it was also, the pistols' last show. in a way, it was the end of one era of punk and the beginning of a new one. the city of san francisco didn't necessarily support punk rock. [♪♪♪] >> last, but certainly not least is a jell-o be opera. they are the punk rock candidate of the lead singer called the dead kennedys. >> if we are blaming anybody in

san francisco, we will just blame the dead kennedys. >> there you go. >> we had situations where concerts were cancelled due to flyers, obscene flyers that the city was thought -- that he thought was obscene that had been put up. the city of san francisco has come around to embrace it's musicians. when they have the centennial for city hall, they brought in all kinds of local musicians and i got to perform at that. that was, at -- in a way, and appreciation from the city of san francisco for the musical legends. i feel like a lot of people in san francisco don't realize what resources there are at the library. we had a film series, the s.f. punk film series that i put together. it was nearly sold out every single night. people were so appreciative that someone was bringing this for them. it is free. everything in the library is free. >> it it is also a film producer who has a film coming out.

maybe in 2018 about crime. what is the title of it? >> it is called san francisco first and only rock 'n' roll movie. crime, 1978. [laughter] >> when i first went to the art institute before the adventures were formed in 77, i was going to be a painter. i did not know i would turn into a punk singer. i got back into painting and i mostly do portraiture and figurative painting. one of the things about this job here is i discovered some great resources for images for my painting. i was looking through these mug shot books that we have here that are from the 1920s. i did a whole series of a mug shot paintings from those books. they are in the san francisco history centre's s.f. police department records. there are so many different things that the library provides for san franciscans that i feel

like a lot of people are like, oh, i don't have a library card. i've never been there. they need to come down and check it out and find out what we have. the people who are hiding stuff in their sellers and wondering what to do with these old photos or old junk, whether it is hippie stuff or punk stuff, or stuff from their grandparents, if they bring it here to us, we can preserve it and archive it and make it available to the public in the future. women's n sustainable future . women's n >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did

new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks

program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that

everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community

pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org >> this meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 20, 2021 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by vice chair preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the committee clerk today. we would like to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. do you have any announcements, madam clerk?