thank you. >> hi. my name's davy kim. i'm a proud nob hill resident, and frankly life here is great, and i'd love for more people to experience life like this. i love living close to downtown and having lots of nice transit options. so i feel that this project is extremely sensible. it appears to be minimally disruptive. it doesn't seem to be out of

the ordinary for normal construction projects, and most importantly, i'm excited that it can contribute to our supply of housing, especially looking forward to a more mixed income or adding to the mixed income character of the neighborhood with below market rate units also planning to be constructed, so really, i just want to express my support for this project. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. members of the public, last call for comment on this matter. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on this item is now closed, and it is now before you, commissioners.

>> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: it is amazing how perceptive the public receives a project. sensibly conceived, fantastic. it is really well conceived when you look at the fact that the architect took the public's comments and shaped the project around a number of constraints. i have battled with other projects on bush and pine street which had an extremely difficult time understanding the context, not only in terms of building size, enjoining strong buildings, but also understanding the type of buildings that are really the sweet spot for this area. the buildings proposed are designed to allow deeper light

wells for more light to come into these panels is just amazing, and i cannot find the proper words to congratulate the architect to show the commission what a well designed project can be. we're dealing with units that really create a sweet spot in terms of possible affordable. these are not oversized, they are comfortably laid out decorated living environment that are not chopped up to maximize units, but they are all grouped up in a manner that they complement a comfortable living arrangement. i would like to support this project and remember the next time that we see a project and we have questions how well a project of this size can be designed. i am in support and congratulate the architect.

i am in support of the project and make a motion to approve. >> president koppel: i trust you so much, commissioner moore, i second the motion, but i would like to hear commissioner diamond's comments, as well. >> commissioner diamond: i, too, support the project, but i think there are six nests bedrooms inside this project. i had a couple of questions about that for the project sponsor and then for staff. i think, as i saw your presentation flash across the screen, that you noted that on each of these nested bedrooms, i think there's one on each floor, that you've got some glass panels. do you have some elevations what those are? i don't know if they're floor-to-ceiling, if they're just transom windows, can you

just explain these bedroom -- bedrooms that have no access -- immediate access to outdoor space? >> yes. hello. can you hear me? >> commissioner diamond: i can hear you. >> okay. i wasn't quite sure. it's my first time on this webex. so yeah, those bedrooms will have full floor-to-ceiling frosted glass panels, facing to natural light sources. sorry if the presentation went quickly. i was trying to squeeze quite a bit in in the five minutes, but these are floor-to-ceiling mechanical glass panels, and there'll be mechanical ventilation to force air into these spaces. >> commissioner diamond: i recognize that you're dealing with numerous challenges here, but clearly, there's a preference for windows, and i'm

wondering what it would have meant if you had to design these with windows as opposed to glass panels? >> yeah, i went through many iterations with this. the issue is, obviously, we've only got limited exposures in the front and rear, but to group more bedrooms towards either the back of the building or on the street facade would have basically killed the living-dining areas, and so the decision was made to include these second bedrooms, nests bedrooms, as you described them, that can be used, you know, as a traditional bedroom, but they can also be used potentially as a nursery or a guest room or home office. essentially, if those rooms

were not in place, those units would become one-bedroom units just based on the site constraint. >> commissioner diamond: so one additional question. so i assume you've reviewed or are familiar enough with the building code, to know that you don't need a second egress out of these rooms. is that correct? >> clerk: mr. leavitt, are you with us? you don't need to mute and unmute yourself. >> i'm sorry. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> i'm sorry, commissioner diamond. i didn't hear your last question. >> commissioner diamond: so i

assume that you're familiar enough with the planning code to know that you don't need a second egress out of these rooms? >> yes. it's all fully code compliant. i've designed numerous of them myself on finished projects that have been built that are code compliant. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so i have a question for staff, which is do we have any policies or guidelines around nested bedrooms separate and apart what the building department requires? do they affect from a liveability perspective? how much frosted glass to they need to have? anything that would give guidance to commissioners when they're reviewing a project like this or anything to

project staff or project sponsors themselves? >> corey, do you want to take a stab at this? >> sure. corey teague, planning department staff. we went through this several years ago in terms of how do we design a bedroom, and that's how we eventually landed on an interpretation that a bedroom is whatever means the building definition of a sleeping room, with one exception. they do allow this kind of bar like nested bedroom configuration, that they require that 50% open to light. that could mean, like, an open wall, where you could have one area of the room not included or a pony wall. so our interpretation is the only additional requirement we placed in the planning code beyond what the building and

housing code requires is that it's fully enclosed, but it still has to meet the minimum light requirements from the building and housing code. separate from the code requirement, we don't have any adopted policy as to kind of when and how much or under what circumstance nested bedrooms are appropriate or inappropriate. that's a case-by-case review, and at the department level, if we have some concerns, we can raise that if we have any concerns. >> director hillis: commissioners, just as a matter of policy, this has come up

before. [indiscernible]. >> vice president moore: director hillis, you are fading in and out. >> director hillis: i think it could be the connection. i think generally, we would prefer, like you, not to have a nested bedroom, but it's a balance of the architecture. as you can see on the plan, given the site constraints, given the number of units and to get a certain percentage of twos and threes, it helps in this case with larger one bedroom units, fewer units or fewer two-bedroom units? so i think, ultimately, it's a bit of a policy call.

you know, less desirable bedrooms because they don't have access to direct light, but you get additional two bedrooms and additional units. >> commissioner diamond: yeah, i'm in favor of approving this project, but i agree with commissioner moore about all of the design comments and all of the trade-offs that were made, and i think this is a project that we should approve. but stepping back, i'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for the department to think about this issue holistically and not additional rules but perhaps guidance? like how wide should the floor-to-ceiling frosted glass be? it seems like it would be helpful if we had some guidelines around this or some understanding how to think

about nested bedrooms in terms of different scenarios because i think we may see an increase in the number of proposals with nested bedrooms. by the time the commission sees it, it's at the very end of the process to say oh, add another light well. i know this issue will probably come up more often as we move forward.

>> director hillis: to some extent, it is based on the site and the configuration of the site. there are light wells in this scenario, but i don't know if there is a policy that can reflect that. certainly, through design review, we discourage nested bedrooms and look for alternatives to that, but in a case like this, there aren't. you concede many alternatives to get there. >> commissioner diamond: i'm interested to hear what the other commissioners have to say about this issue, but i'm heartened to hear that as a starting manner, our policy is to discourage nested bedrooms and to have separate bedrooms

if we can. i'm still in support of this project and move to approve it, but i'm wondering how we handle it? >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: ultimately, it's a matter of understanding which architects really understand through designing bedrooms and who doesn't? the person who originally started designing nested bedrooms is david baker, and he's a skilled architect, designing many buildings with nested bedrooms, and it may be interesting to take some of those nested bedrooms and proportion, proportion, proportion, which distinguishes if a nested bedroom works or

doesn't work. in this particular project, mr. leavitt delivers a quite useable nested bedroom based on the proportions, which is the size of the bedroom, distance to length, and in this particular case, it's well done. i'd be happy to pull out some older projects and string them together, good ones and bad ones, for those of you that are searching for an answer how to look at that. the next time i say that there is a nested bedroom that doesn't work, make a circle around it and i'll talk about it. we had quite a few projects, and we are continuously driven by creating numbers, numbers,

numbers and not looking at quality and liveability, so you bringing forward questions, commissioner diamond, is much appreciated and will allow a much more skillful and sensitive response for the entire commission to have a good eye for what is a good bedroom, a good nested bedroom, and what isn't? so thank you for that, and also, again, this particular project. >> commissioner diamond: you'll just say one more thing here, which is i've seen really bad

examples in new york city, where they are, like tenements, interior bedrooms, and i would never want to approve one of those. i don't want to wait until we get to the commission hearing, but the commission is going to have a lot of trouble.

>> clerk: mr. teague, did you have some more? >> just briefly. i just wanted to speak to the variance and note and discuss the site dealing with a number of constraints and specific context. it's dealing with the existing historic building, which is the zoning and the more, and i think there's sufficient context to support the variance, and overall, the

amount here is not a situation where the variance would be allowing more development and would otherwise be permitted theoretically on the site, so i'm also in support of the project from the perspective of the proposed variance. >> clerk: thank you, zoning administrator. that concludes commission deliberation. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0 -- zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the standard

conditions. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, at that places us on item 16, 2017-015678-cua at 425 broadway. claudine, you are muted. >> how about now? >> clerk: better. >> thank you. i have to end the year on a positive note. good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you is located at 425 broadway, an l-shaped lot located on broadway and montgomery street that requests a conditional use authorization to demolish a garage and instruct two

mixed-use buildings. the building on broadway would be five stories and 56 feet tall, and the montgomery building would be seven stories and 64 feet. the project is utilizing the state density bonus program to achieve a 27.5% density bonus. the project has been continued several times without hearing in order to allow additional community outreach. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization in order to allow the lot size exceeding 4,000 square feet, and the project is

utilizing the state density bonus law and requests waivers for rear yard exposure and bulk. the project requires the adoption of findings for the state density bonus under state code 206.6. since the publication of the staff report, the project has been revised to provide additional setbacks at 401 broadway. the two lightwells on the western facade on the broadway building will be widened to increase the light and air access and will reduce the size of one of the two larger office suites to below the 2,899 square foot threshold such that the density for nonresidential use size is now only needed for one of the office suites.

the draft motion and man, exhibits a and b respectively, will be updated accordingly. staff finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the conditional use criteria, general plan, and objectives and policies of the general plan as stated in the staff report. staff recommends project approval because the project creates 42 new units on a site that is currently a parking garage. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. that is my presentation, and i believe the project sponsor is ready for their presentation. >> we are.

>> clerk: are you with us? >> yes, we need the slides up. >> josephine, would you mind pulling up the slides, please? thank you. >> clerk: give us just a second. i need to make her the presenter. . >> [indiscernible] over the past two months, we met several times with the s.r.o. residents and made several attempts to

meet the residents' concerns, including widening the lightwells and the addition of a laundromat in the building. [indiscernible] next slide, please. we've done extensive research and outreach to other community members. consistent with the broadway m.c.d. zoning, it has a mix of

uses [indiscernible] before turning over the presentation, let me remind the commission that under state density bonus law and [indiscernible] the project is being code compliant, and we would ask for your approval. e.m., please go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. [indiscernible]. >> vice president moore: we can't hear you. >> clerk: yeah.

okay. hold on one second. i'm pausing your time. >> jonas, can you hear me? >> clerk: i can hear you just fine. for some reason, mr. churchill's having difficulty. i'm not seeing your number. i think you're on your phone. >> no, i'm on my -- let's try again. why don't you start again and speak clearly.

[indiscernible]. >> clerk: it's very faint, mr. burchill. mr. burchill, why don't you try again? he's unmuted, but i don't know what we could do at this point. [indiscernible]

. >> can you hear me now, jonas? >> clerk: it's slightly better. why don't you go ahead, if that's as good as we're going

to get. >> ian, why don't you go ahead, start over. ian, why don't you get started? [indiscernible]

. >> jonas, i can go through the slides on his behalf, if that's the only way we can do this. >> clerk: yeah. unfortunately, he's completely inaudible, so why don't you go ahead and take over the presentation and i'll start your time again. >> can we have the next slide? so this is a site plan. you can see how it wraps around the 401 broadway building, and this is the site as originally proposed before we made the modification. next slide. this is the lowest level of the building, whether it's residential parking in the montgomery building and a

below-grade office suite in the montgomery building. next slide. this is the next floor up, which, again, is below grade on broadway. it's underground floor on broadway. you can see that we've added a laundromat in the broadway building with public access access from verity place. [indiscernible] next slide. this is the ground floor at broadway, where two storefronts, including one ground level retail, is located. if i can see on the right on

the lightwell, the southern lightwell has been enlarged and extended. this is the next level up. you can see that we agreed not to put residential units on broadway, so the second floor is an office suite, and the rest is residential.

you can see on the right that the large lightwells extend all the way [indiscernible] the adjoining lightwells -- next slide. >> clerk: that is your time, but commissioners may have some clarification questions for you. let me mute mr. virgil's line. all right. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star, three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is teresa flandrick, and i

am calling about this project that has really been upsetting up until very recently because of the lack of outreach to those most impacted by this project. again, this should have been 100% affordable housing with this project. the lack of real outreach to those most impacted was horrendous, i have to say. total disregard for the community along broadway corridor as well as chinatown north beach area.

s.r.o.s are a particular type of housing, which is quite dominant here, and the maximum of having only one window in their home is very important. this is a matter of health and safety, especially with shelter in place, congregate settings, the virus, and fires where you need to ventilate your entire space as well as possible to get the fire out of these older buildings. the use of the state density bonus as an incentive to build additional office space is just wrong. we've just lost more units without building more affordable units. every bit of under utilized space should be used for

affordable housing. that is what our communities need. from chinatown to fisherman's wharf, we need to house our neighbors, including those who are commuting from hours away -- >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> hello. this is stan hayes. on behalf of t.h.d. and its many hundreds of members and its 67 years of community service, we support affordable housing. as one of the largest sites for affordable housing in north beach, six b.m.r. units out of 42, is that really the best we can do on-site? you have to find the qualifying financial analysis and

documentation have been provided. have you seen that financial analysis and documentation? if not, how can you make this finding? have you asked that the project analysis consider alternatives? you have to conclude that the project would not be detriment to the health, welfare, or general existence of the persons in the area. did you make that finding? what about the next door broadway s.r.o.? the project causes frequent or constant shadowing, blocking

sun light forever in exchange for a laundromat and two extended lightwells. not nearly enough. facing a future of almost certain gentrification from their homes of the poorest among us, we can do better, and we should. do not approve this project as proposed. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is teddy kramer. i am a resident of district 3, and i am a member of the

russian hill and north beach neighbors. i am calling in support of the 425 broadway street project for multiple reasons. as we all know, this current lot is a vacant parking lot that is very underused, and the ability of turning it into 41 new homes in a neighborhood that could urgently use more housing would greatly improve the broadway corridor as well as this important section of district 3. this project is strong in that it encourages alternatives to driving. this project includes only 17 car parking spaces and 53 biking spaces which will encourage much more environmentally friendly forms of transportation. it will also provide market rate homes as well as below market rate homes, and it will contribute 2.5 million in fees to help build more affordable housing in san francisco, and i

think 2.5 million going towards affordable housing is extremely beneficial for our city. in addition to having much needed housing availability, we will see improvement in public space, public art, and the ability to really take a vacant parking lot and improving this community. thank you for taking the time to listen, and i hope you will approve this project. >> hello. my name's milo traut, and i think this project is really good and will be good for the city. the number of homes to parking is the right direction, and it's kind of what the city has been asking for and the planning department has been asking for. they're normally affordable, so they're small and kind of a way

to get housing in the city. somebody talked about the people in the area not being reached. if this project wasn't build, they got the short end of the stick. people in the area are often looking for improvement or another place, and this will change it up and provide that opportunity. it's an affluent neighborhood. this proposal's not displacing anybody. it's a vacant lot, so we should take advantage of this

opportunity and build the homes on this land, and we'll be better off for it. so thanks for your consideration. that's all. [please stand by]

>> i hope this project gets approved. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we had previously ahead of continuances shared our petition in support of the project and looking now, there are 193 signers who have expressed support. a number of things about this project, the parking and the housing. encouraging alternatives to driving. really trying to maximize a transit oriented location, the combination of below-market rate homes. and happy to hear that the

neighbors are supportive of the proposal. similar to the previous comment, i would love to read some of the personalized messages from our petition. they said this would be a perfect place for new housing, new community with shops and stores. tom is a long-term resident of north beach and strongly supporting the proposal. kate lives eight blocks away and is in full support. alex lives a block away and is in 100% support of the proposal. nicholas lives in north beach and says we need more housing. charles means housing means more diverse, more equitable and vibrant cities and protects the

planet from harmful urban sprawl. more people who can support local businesses. more homes for people struggling would be great. kyle wants more housing. even says it's a great niche for the project. more neighbors means more support for our iconic local businesses. we need more ridership for our transit lines. i'm sure you get the vibe. please support the proposal. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, i'm with tri-town community development center. i'm here to show support for the project as we have been able to work things out with the project sponsor. initially we were very hesitant in supporting this, and we are glad that the project sponsor

has been able to listen to the s.r.o. residents next door at 401 broadway. we've been supporting them in the process of trying to negotiate and adjust the plan so they wouldn't be affected as much as they are, mostly mono lingual older adults who have lived in the building next door for a long time. but now that there have been changes made in the light wells and the addition of a facility in the building, the residents now feel more comfortable with 425 broadway moving forward with the revised plans. so, thank you for your time. >> hi, my name is eric kaplan. i live in north beach about half a block away from the project site. i cannot emphasize enough how

much i support this project. i cannot wait for it to be built. i'm disappointed that it's taken this long to even get to the point where i can give comment in support of it. you know, we have on the broadway corridor, we have so many different vacant lots, parking lots, that are all just eyesores that cause conflicts between cars and pedestrians and just generally make our sidewalks less pleasant and less safe. a few years ago they built 88 broadway nearby and now that's the nicest block this side of the broadway tunnel. so i think that this is exactly the kind of project we need. we need more of them. we need them faster. and i just am so excited to see this get approved. please approve it. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is robert. i live in district 5. i'm calling to express my support for this project. i think that we're placing parking with dense multi-family housing, especially with a project that does include three-bedroom units is worth supporting. i'm glad to see an agreement was reached to include a laundromat onsite. i think that's a great amenity for the neighborhood. in district 5, they're an important part of the neighborhood here, too. so i'm happy to see it here.

>> hello, i live in district 11. i support this 425 broadway street project in san francisco's north beach neighborhood. look, i lived in trailers and moved home to home in california, where i grew up with my family most of my early life. being able to see myself in -- i see s.f. residents say 100% affordable housing, that's not attainable in today's landscape. wherever possible, there would be ways to reduce the number of units even though 100% it's technically affordable housing. take the compromise by one particular supervisor. i especially care about affordable housing. this can help with affordable housing homes. this project will help including affordable homes, and parking

spaces, which people like. bike parking spaces which is great. and then these homes are places i can move in and not displace someone else that used to represent how it was when i grew up. over long term, this can filter to other groups long-term, assuming we're having them built across s.f. i support this project. moreover, i hope you're all having a good day and happy holidays. >> hello, my name is christopher roach. i'm principal of studio r architecture in in san francisco. i'm also the chair of the housing action coalition housing review committee. we reviewed this project earlier this year and were -- i'm speaking in support of it because we found it to be a very

excellent project for this neighborhood that has not built a lot of new housing for our residents in recent years. we found it to be a great use of an underutilized piece of property, converting parking into dense urban housing. we found it to be a very creative and innovative urban design in addressing and activating it and making a better customer experience. we're glad to see it's using the state density bonus to get more housing. and, you know, it's a transit-rich area. we're happy to see that it has more than one to one bike parking and a great, you know, opportunity for transit demand management strategies so that it is very much oriented towards

the kind of transit oriented development that we'd like to see. we think it's going to be a positive impact on the community. we like to see that the kind of mix of uses with office space and community space. it all creates a great project, so please support this project. >> okay, last call for public comment on the item. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> this is sue hester. the last speaker talked about how the happ was contacted by the project sponsor earlier this year and they support the project. the project sponsor didn't call the people who lived in the -- next to the project, surrounded by the project in the s.r.o.

they didn't contact chinatown until the past two months when i raised raucous. this is a site for 100% affordable housing. pushing office space into broadway in this area is one of the concerns that has been a concern of chinatown, because it's going right up to chinatown. what is the excuse for the developer not contacting anyone in chinatown or anyone in the building that the building literally surrounds until they're forced to do it? there is supposed to be social equity in the planning department. what kind of social equity is it when you don't contact low-income people and the organizations that represent them. that is a thing that the planning commission really should struggle with.

i don't think the planning commission has a project right now before it that has had the luxury of a time with input from affordable housing community. four s.r.o.s on the four corners of this lot. pardon me, this intersection has four sros on the four corners and there are lots of s.o.s on broadway. thank you, good night. >> okay, commissioners, that concludes public comment on this item. i take it back -- late request to speak. anybody else who would like to speak on this matter, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. go ahead, caller. >> hello? >> jonas: yes. >> i just like to talk to this

number 16. >> jonas: go ahead, sir, your time is running. >> excuse me? >> jonas: go ahead, sir, your time is running. >> yeah. i am business owner of next to this project 435. and this one is going to be just what this business district needs because this is an empty lot which has problems. and this one is just great -- >> jonas: sir, you need to mute your computer or television. >> yeah, i'm supporting this kind of project 100% because that would be the best for this

district. and we've received numerous correspondence and we responded positively, so i don't know who those people are talking about. that's all. i'm supporting 100% for this particular -- thank you. >> jonas: thank you. okay, commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> so i do think that the project sponsor did request a couple of continuances between now and when we were previously supposed to hear them. so, i think that was an honest move to get more community outreach and i'm supporting the project today. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a

couple of questions. mr. vettel, are you around? >> yes. >> commissioner moore: thank you. since this laundry business is coming actually pretty late, i'd like to ask a couple of qualifying questions just for the commission to hear. who operates laundry? who owns it? and who will be responsible for maintaining it? >> the project sponsor will build the laundry facility and probably solicit a laundromat operator to operate the facilities. it will be operated like other public laundromats in the city. >> the only different, this is in a building, retrofitting a building. the safety of the building, are you concerned that this is publicly accessible through a

back alley. how do you ensure safety for the residents that are using it? >> it will be accessible during business owners. it requires members of the public to access through the alley or the public street. that will be approved as a pedestrian street with lighting and landscaping. so it will be an attractive area. >> commissioner moore: so other people can use it, too? it will not be just for the benefit of --? >> that's correct. >> commissioner moore: my next question. is the building you're proposing, are they going to be rental or ownership buildings? >> this is ownership project. >> for both buildings? >> both buildings are ownership buildings, right. >> commissioner moore: which means as we go into years and years of operating laundry,

h.o.a. will be footing the bill for maintaining and operating the laundry. >> this will be -- this is a mixed use building so there will be 42 members of a residential association and then a project sponsor or buyer will own the commercial space and have a separate association. and that commercial condominium will be the one that is responsible for the common-area expenses of the commercial space. about 23,000 -- 22,000 square feet of commercial space in the building including the laundromat. >> usually offices does not operate laundry. i'm curious, you have to -- there are a number of logistics

questions, because i have a hard time believing that a residential h.o.a. will want to take on the financial responsibility and the insurance responsibility for a publicly operated laundry. safety concerns and other issues make it very difficult for the residential portion to do so. i also question that it's realistic for the commercial to take on a laundry. i think it's the -- of land use, sharing the responsibility and cost i feel needs to be further worked out and better described in order to make this a really -- a real win-win for everybody. for example, machines. who will replaces the machines? after how many years will the entity responsible say i don't want to be in the laundry business and basically close it off? we have seen that all along.

and this could happen here as well. i think there are certain legal and institutional questions that i would like to see clearly spelled out while i like the idea overall, i think the number of gaps in how this is being brought forward today. what made you determine the number of four washers and five dryers or five washers and four dryers. i see nine, i don't know what is what. can you explain that? >> what we're committed to is 360 square feet of retail space that will be dedicated to a coin-operated laundromat. we haven't got into the details of how it's designed. i think it needs to be designed in consultation with the laundromat operator. they've taken on the responsibility and the obligation to make sure that a laundry operator does lease this space and does operate the

facility as a public la laundromat. this will be a retail space, not an office space. there are three other retail spaces in the building. it will be managed the same way the other three spaces. >> commissioner moore: i'm just reacting to what normally commercial laundry facilities have a back room where cleaning equipment is kept. i see here nine machines. that's just a sketch, just a suggestion. i think we all have the right to go out if this really works. so thank you for your response. i will first listen to what the other commissioners have to say with regard to the project. thank you. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner moore. i am -- i do have questions in

terms of the -- i think my biggest issue here is, one, what commissioner moore raised, the implementation of the laundromat service. what i just learned it's going to be a retail space, not just for the residents, but to the other community members in that area as well. however, it looks like the -- in terms of like the nine machines and who is going to be the operator, i hope that's something that was already discussed or negotiated. i mean that would be helpful for me as a commissioner to look into the details of the laundromat. we do recognize here at the planning commission, you know, the need for more laundromat services. as to how it's going to be implemented here is another question. another issue that i have is the

office spaces in this building. i do reiterate what was mentioned, that through the years, the office space has been issue around -- especially when it's going toward chinatown, because of, again, we don't want it to be an extension of the financial district. and so this is my question to the staff. as we are looking into the, again, to the racial social equity and this issue has been raised before, you know, in this particular broadway neighborhood, is that something that we don't consider in terms of like, you know, this kind of issues are always brought up. so instead, again, this is the

issue of office space, you know, so if someone missed -- if someone could explain or perhaps give us a background on these office spaces in this building, for this first building. >> thank you for the question, commissioner imperial. these are designed professional office spaces, so they're not general office spaces. and the project -- these are principally permitted, so they're allowed. the only thing that is unusual and needs a cu and the concession is the supply, because it's exceeding 2099 square feet. so basically these are just land uses that are principally permitted. so, therefore, i mean, you know, in terms of the racial social equity as we're trying to push for this, you know, i'm

wondering how we can have this kind of conversation with developers in terms of the -- this has come up before. and it's always repetitive. so i understand that it is principally permitted, but i wish we could be more intentional in terms of the racial and social equity. and i think that is the main issue for me here is the design office spaces that is around this area. and thank you for answering that question. this is what i -- i am not approval of the concession for the office space and at the same time, too, i do believe that this should be -- as we have heard from last week in terms of automobile services, again, reiterating, we need land in

terms of building multi-family buildings, affordable multi-family buildings and this would be the right place, or this right area. like, i wish there could be more community facilities, more child care and senior care in the surrounding areas. there is school and other community services around, too. and more of a commercial space rather than an office space. i mean this is what i would like to see for this particular building. even though it's a parking lot and it's not really displacing anyone, but, again, being intentional in how we're looking to the land use. and reminding ourselves about the racial social equity framework we've been trying to push. so that's my comments. thank you.

>> >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i'm in favor of this as much needed housing, including six onsite bmrs. i think the design changes worked out with the neighbors are helpful. i like the changes to the light wells. i think the inclusion of the onsite laundry is an important community benefit. i think the details that relate to the location of the laundry can be worked out after. they don't need to be done before our approval of this project. so, i am making a motion to approve the project. >> second and i will call on commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you, president koppel. i have a few questions and comments. i'm glad to hear the agreement was reached with the neighbors, particularly the residents. one thing i could ask if they could include in the findings

that the laundromat would be accessible to the residents of the surrounding community. i think having it in the findings, which i think will help make this more explicit is what we understand in the commission as heard today. i have a question for the architect or the project sponsor. so from reading the public letters, the residents have their fire escape and given there might be an unfortunate incident such as a fire, i'm wondering if the project sponsor or the architect can talk about if they've checked with the fire department to make sure that fire accessibility safety won't be impacted here? >> this is the architect. >> yes, i can hear you. it's a little faint, but, yes, go ahead. >> okay.

nothing in the alley is going to impact the current usability of the fire escape from the rear of broadway. so what they have right now is not going to change. it will stay as it is right now. so the building gets inspected by the fire department and by building department, that they've approved the existing conditions and we're not changing them. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you. >> commissioner chan: i just want to preface that. >> i wanted to add -- [indiscernible] the parking garage -- the alley will be approved as a pedally, with limited vehicular access of emergency vehicles, but it will be a pedestrian alley.

>> if necessary for a fire truck to access, then that alley would still be accessible? >> that's right. >> commissioner chan: i also wanted to ask given that there are 50 residents primarily non-english speaking, if the project sponsor would provide community liaisons that speak chinese and provide the construction information in an appropriate language, is that something that the project sponsor would be open to? >> we'll certainly have a project liaison during construction. and we'll look into whether that liaison will be bilingual. we haven't thought about it, but that's a good idea. many of the residents are not

native speakers. >> commissioner chan: i think it's important to provide the language so they're able to understand and respond to any issues that might come up during construction. that's concludes my comments. thank you. >> commissioner moore: just speaking for myself as i try to sharpen my focus on what racial and social equity could mean for planning commissioner, i feel obligated to really look very closely at the context in which this building occurs and ask as to whether or not it's a relevant building? does this building recognize context? and i would actually say, no, it does not. on the west end of broadway we have supportive housing, large numbers of high density, how housing that that been refurbished for the communities and it has been done a great job to anchor the east side of

broadway. on the west side of broadway. on the eastside, we have built on property to provide affordable housing and then we have several -- there are two buildings at battery and samson on broadway who just do the same. this is an ideal site for affordable housing and nothing else. the building, instead, is upper end housing. it could be built -- somewhere else in the world. i think that the project misses the mission of what i think we are obligated to provide in this corridor. broadway in the center is basically the red-light district of san francisco. you can call it the entertainment district, the red light district, it doesn't matter. it's a fragile area that tries to define and redefine itself. the argument that this

complements the district is a stretch. it doesn't really have anything to do with the jackson square district which is characterized by older brick buildings. it's characterized by small design supportive services and some architectural design professionals say it's office space, but this particular building is not anywhere near to be a part of that district. i have personally a hard time to see that i can support some of the findings i'm asked to support in the motion and it is for that reason -- and a few others, i will not vote in support of this facility. >> commissioner fung: two questions for the project sponsor. the proposed retail off of

broadway, does the project sponsor have a direction as to what type of retail services? >> i can respond to that. yes, can you hear me? >> go ahead, steve. >> yes, we are -- we are talking with clients that potentially could use this as a restaurant, eventually two restaurants. we're trying to revitalization that area especially about [indiscernible] -- >> commissioner fung: is that possible that an entertainment use would go in there?

>> i'm sorry, i couldn't understand. >> asking if it's possible entertainment could go in there. these are quite small. so that seems unlikely. >> yes, they're quite small. we're looking at restaurant, cafes, bakery shops. >> commissioner fung: okay. my second question is if the laundry facility is considered a community benefit, is there any restrictions or limitations there on what the costs will be for someone to use that facility? >> in our agreement with the broadway neighbors, we've also agreed to subsidize the laundry costs of those residents for quite some time. so that is in a private

agreement between us. it's not part of the condition of approval, but in the situation, we do have an agreement to provide subsidy for those residents going forward. right now, that building has no laundry facility whatsoever. so this will be a benefit to them to have a laundry facility immediately adjacent to their homes as well as have financial support for the use of the facility. >> commissioner fung: can you provide what the level of subsidy you're talking about? >> it's $20,000. >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> commissioner diamond: commissioner chan, did i understand you correctly, that you wanted to add a finding

related to the laundry? >> commissioner chan: yes, that's correct. i wanted to include the findings, what we heard today regarding the laundry and the access, the public. >> commissioner diamond: mr. vettel, was there some language you wanted to proposal about that finding? -- propose about that finding? >> i think you can make a finding that the project sponsor's office to provide a facility is a community benefit for the benefit of the community and the commission applauds that modification of the project. something along those lines. >> through the president, this is deputy city attorney. what we usually recommend, it appears in the preamble findings

as a statement made on the record by the project sponsor. in this case, you can reference the project -- the updated project drawings which i believe respect the location and -- reflect the location and other modifications of the proposed laundromat. that would kind of firm into the record exactly where and in what manner the laundromat is going to be included in the project. >> commissioner chan: if i may, i also would need to update the motion to illustrate the change in the use sizes. that will also be included as a totals have changed as a result. >> i think the significant aspect of that finding would be that the laundromat will be publicly accessible. >> exactly. thank you. >> and i would -- my motion would reflect that the findings, the preamble be revised

consistent with comments from ms. jensen. >> very good. we do have late request for public comment. shall we take that person now? >> yes. >> i'm actually for line 17, i'm the d.r. requester for that line. >> jonas: my apologies, commissioners. if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project as proposed with conditions adding a finding related to the laundromat, that it be publicly accessible. on that motion, commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner moore: no.

>> president koppel: aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on the discretionary review calendar. for items 17, case number 2019-0222601drp. 628 shotwell street. this is a discretionary review. staff, are you ready to make presentation? clare, you're not audible.

>> jonas: commissioners, given the technical difficulties, staff is experiencing for the discretionary review, i'm wondering, clare, have you fixed your audio? we still can't hear you. i'm wondering, commissioners, we did have an item pulled off consent. maybe we can get that item out

of the way now. clare, why don't you figure out your microphone, computer issues, and we will call item 7 i believe it was, 2021-3601cua, 724 head street. conditional use authorization. gabby, are you available? >> can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. >> okay. i'll get started. good afternoon, president and commissioners. department staff. before you is a request conditional use authorization for the residence. for that a combination of the six bedrooms within the oceanview special use district.

the horizontal addition will be 12 feet in depth and expanding that residency by 662 square feet. 3,333 square foot property is located on the east side of head street between holloway avenue and garfield street within the rh-1 and oceanview special use district. the immediate neighborhood includes 123 residential development, including multi-and single-family resident. the item before you is required by planning code section 209.1, 249.3 and 303 to allow expansion for the creation of five or more bedrooms within the district. prior to this, the listed conditional use authorization, the project sponsors did conduct a pre-application meeting on march 22, 2021.

two members of the public attended the pre-application meeting. at the meeting, the public members discussed concerns regarding construction. the department recommends approval of conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. they find that the project is on balance and consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets applicable planning codes. it will accommodate six bedrooms and the needs of the property owners and the growing family and multi-generational family. enhancing and preserving the neighborhood character and scale, the project will be developed to provide property owners with the flexibility to meet their evolving family needs. the project will also provide a

compatible zoning district in the immediate neighborhood and the proposed expansion will be compatible with the development pattern, density and size of the neighborhood. this concludes the staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. i believe we should also have the project sponsors on the line. >> jonas: great, thank you, gaab by. unfortunately, i don't see the contact information for the project sponsor as provided to us, but there is a person raising their hand, so maybe we can unmute them and that will be -- no, i take it back. i see them now. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. this is the project sponsor for 724 head street. i'm here with the owner. he's here on the line.

the project in front of you, 724 head street, it's a two-story single family. we're requesting for conditional use for oceanview residence and rear addition to accommodate six-bedroom, three on the ground floor and three on the second floor. the principal for the project when the property owner approached us is to design a home that will accommodate the extended family. the homeowner and his wife. and their extended family. we had in the past worked with them to see if we could avoid a conditional use authorization requirement at the end. their intention is to continue and then apply for a conditional use permit because they do

believe that the family will -- extended family will stay with them. and then they do need additional bedrooms to house their family. james is here with us. i'll let him talk about the uses of the bedroom and the intention behind it. james? >> good afternoon, can you hear me? >> jonas: yes, we can hear you fine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is james burke hart, the property owner. just wanted to provide a little context on why the design is important to us. so, my wife and i moved into the house approximately a year ago with our then-3-year-old. the proposed six-bedroom design is important to us because it will give function to undeveloped space on the first floor and provide us with much needed room in the growing family. in addition to the fact that we're a growing family, we also

need room for remote work. my wife and i both have been working remote due to covid and space for my east coast parents to stay with us. they're both going to be retiring in the new year and it's important that we've got space to house them so they can see their grandkids. so with that, i'll end my comments here. short and sweet. i wanted to thank everyone again for their time and consideration. >> yes, we're here to answer any questions. thank you. >> jonas: excellent, thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. i've been living out here -- my family has been living in this neighborhood since the 1920s. i was born in the 60s.

there is absolutely no parking. i don't have a problem with the guy building out for his family, but we have a problem. the homes on the street are illegal units. the house at 779 was an illegal unit. the people that live up there by 724 already have to park down here at the other end of the block. when people get home from work, there is no parking here. so i have a concern whether this is actually going to be a family home or turn into another apartment building. right now, there is no parking on this street. and for six bedrooms for the size of that property? you know, it's out of control. these people can't even open their garage doors on the street because they've turned the garages into a park. i question about the parking and whether it's going to be a single-family home. thank you very much.

>> hello? hello? >> jonas: yes, go ahead. >> i was going to make a comment, but on 628 shotwell, but i have to go and i know it's a different item number. >> yes, it's a different item number. so you have to wait, i'm sorry. last call for public comment on this item, number 7. for 724 head street. seeing no additional requests to speak, the members of the public, public comment 0 is closed and this item is now before you commissioners. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: -- >> jonas: before you start, there is another member of the public requesting to speak.

>> let's hear from them first. >> yes, i had a question. is there a guarantee this won't turn into like an inlaw rental unit. >> you already spoke and this isn't a question-and-answer period and i don't believe there are any guarantees in life, unfortunately. go ahead, commissioners. >> commissioner moore: i had a question on the staff report. how are we doing with required rear yard with the expansion of the building with the extent that we're seeing it? >> yeah, so this project is going to provide the 30-foot required rear yard. this is reflecting the latest revision to the district and the requirements. if you recall, the requirement used to be the 25% and now it's 30%. which is what this would satisfy, yes.

>> with that many people, rear yard smaller than what is required, that's unusual, but that aside, i appreciate the project sponsor explaining his intent. the one thing i don't really see is family of one small child, i do not see space dedicated to office. i see three bedrooms, each with a bathroom, i find that is unusual, despite the fact that i appreciate seeing the in-laws coming and living with the family, the extended family idea is a great idea and i do not have anything against that, i still find the layout of the building a little bit unusual, but that is more -- this is more question to which there is probably no answer.

>> jonas: if nothing else, i would accept a motion. >> commissioner moore: move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner imperial: i would like to hear what the project sponsor, because commissioner moore pointed out in terms of the -- it looks like two bedrooms with bathroom or -- just elaborate on that. >> yes, the design -- it's an office on the ground floor. it's for the use of the owner. yeah, in terms of the bathroom, the idea behind it is when -- when james and his wife, they're expecting another daughter -- i'm sorry, children, maybe in

the future. for them to be independently staying in a room where they can access to a bathroom. and then also when his family from the east coast, they can use the bathroom in their bedroom without exiting. in terms of design, that's the story behind it. yeah. >> yes. it looks like on the -- there will be four beds. yeah, one master bedroom with another -- okay. yes. and thank you for the explanation and i will move to approve of this -- of this -- thank you. >> jonas: thank you. if there is no other further deliberation, there has been a motion made and seconded to approve the project with conditions. on that motion, commissioner

chan? >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president koppel: aye am . >> jonas: so moved, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and will place us now under your discretionary review calendar for the final item of your 2021 hearing schedule, number 17, case number 2019-22 of 1, 628 shotwell street. this is a discretionary review. ms. feeney? >> can you hear me? >> jonas: loud and clear. >> wonderful. okay. thank you, everyone, for your patience with those technical difficulties. good afternoon, commissioners, clare feeney, planning department staff. the item before you is

discretionary review request for building number 20191196609 for a change of use from residential care facility to residential. located at 628 shotwell street. the proposal is for a change of use from residential care facility to two dwelling units. the existing building is vacant and fire-damaged. the last legal uses are an abandoned residential care facility on the ground floor and dwelling unit on the second floor. the residential care facility will be vacated and a single dwelling unit will be re-established on the first and second floors. a new two bedroom dwelling unit will be added. the project includes restoration of fire damage, interior improvements, facade work and a new rear deck. the building footprint and massing will not be altered. the project is code compliant and residential use is

principally permitted. the project site has changed numerous times since the house was built as a single-family home 130 years ago. in the 1950s and 60s, the home was subdivided into apartments. in 1984, only the first floor was converted to a residential care facility. by 2015, the house was the operating residential care facility on site. it appears that the lorne house had expanded operations to both floors of the building possibly the rear yard without the benefit of permits. in 2015, a fire severely damaged the building and all patients -- all patients were relocated by a care provider, golden gate regional. the building has been vacant and in disrepair since and there have been nine complaints reported to d.b.i. and issues

such as blight, debris, trespassers. however, when the project sponsor filed a preliminary housing development application pursuant to the housing crisis act of 2019, sb330, interim zoning control 201901765, file number 191085 was in effect. this legislation specifically applied to care facilities that had closed within three years. since the lorne house closed four years prior to the application being submitted, the project is not subject to legislation and cua was no longer required to change the use. in summarizing public outreach, i will include comments since the d.r. requester also participated. the project sponsor created a pre-application meeting on june

18, 2020, which one person attended. the attendee was a reporter. the department has received 11 messages in support and 44 messages of opposition to the project. support for the project is centered on restoring a dilapidated building, revitalizing housing, preserving a historic resource, and the intent of state laws to expedite housing construction and improve public safety and streetlights. multiple neighbors referenced disturbing encounters with people trespassing or illegally squatting on the property. concerns were raised about losing a facility that served and housed senior citizens. the size of the dwelling unit and the nature of the housing only for tenants. 20 of the opposition e-mails

were prewritten templates. broad concerns were raised such as the general lack of facilities that serve senior citizens. the need for medical treatment facilities in san francisco. and the general importance of affordable health care options. in response to public comment, the project sponsor hosted three meetings, two of which were facilitated by supervisor ronen's office as well as site visits with the non-profits. a grant right of first offer was sent to these groups in april 2021. to date, no offer to purchase the property has been submitted by any parties. [please stand by]

>> we are ready to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> thank you.

we can hear you. your slides are up. you have three minutes. >> think you. we are here today to oppose the project. we are here because the planning commission has the power to deny this project. next slide, please. we are experiencing many crises here in san francisco. the displacement of low income folks from their homes, gentrification, the loss of 40 care facilities, and all of this during a global pandemic. the san francisco planning commission has the opportunity and the power to preserve this so it can be restored as housing for elderly and/or disabled san franciscans. at this rate that we are losing

these facilities, which is more than 30% within the last six years, it is wrong to allow housing to become luxury housing in the mission. as a look -- as a neighbor who lives two doors down, i walked by the building every day. at least five of our neighbors have written to you and oppose this project. we want this housing to remain coric -- community oriented housing not market rate luxury housing. next slide. it is the planning commission's responsibility to deny the project. we have an operator who tried to speak during line number 7 who is interested in running this. he would like to discuss this with the owner and with the city. we don't want to go backwards by demolishing housing for disabled and elderly folks that are low income folks in the mission.

we do not need more luxury housing in the mission. if it becomes the proposed project, it will harm community members, including low income and latino folks who continue to be pushed out by projects such as this. if you go to slide number 4 you can demonstrate that this project contradicts many of the stated city goals like preserving housing for people of all income and preserving the mission in san francisco. if you go to slide number 5 you will see how the mayor and the supervisors also have expressed that they would like to preserve this. the commissioners should preserve this as a board facility. here is your opportunity to do the right thing.

six to eight shot well is the perfect model to do what the city is supposed to do, which is to maintain housing for disabled and low income folks, as well as elderly folks, instead of turning housing into luxury housing. the city has the resources to make this happen. the city passed legislation to protect these facilities and we should not let a loophole stop this legislation. >> thank you. that is your time. you will have a one minute rebuttal. project sponsor, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, president and commissioners. if you could just display the slides, perfect. following a catastrophic fire in 2015, the subject building has set a vacant and dilapidated for the last six years. they purchased the property in

2019 and have diligently pursued this rublev tatian project ever since. the project provides as much housing as possible, where none currently exists by creating a new five bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit, all without substantially altering the existing building envelope. slide two, please. the d.r. requester has reduced housing. this is false. the property has not had any occupants are provided any housing at all since the 2015 fire. the d.r. requester asserts that the project could result in the loss of the residential care facility. the planning department has determined that the property is not a residential care facility under the recent ordinance.

slide three, please. moreover, the city's own analysis demonstrates that establishing a new small-scale care facility is not economically feasible. the current owners made a good-faith effort to find a nonprofit interested in creating a new community facility at the site. the owners granted a right of first offer, sir, -- first offer in april, may the property available for inspections and reached out to community representatives numerous times. non-- no nonprofits have expressed serious interest. the owners wish to move forward with their application, consisting with the -- consistent with the housing accountability act. slide four, please. this project restores the building's historical single-family use while also adding a second unit, which is a principally permitted use. it should be noted the third unit would not create additional housing capacity because this would require more hallways and stairways that would reduce the number of bedrooms and change the project's occupancy classification, which would

require major upgrades. ultimately, the added cost of complying with these regulations would make the housing less affordable and providing less residential capacity. the architects are available for any questions. i would like to note i did speak with the operator who sent a letter a couple days ago. i'm happy to tell you about that conversation. it is pretty important. i hope he is able to speak today. the project provides as much housing as possible within the existing envelope and will benefit the community by revitalizing a derelict and vacant building. a number of immediate neighbors signed letters of support. we appreciate your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes our presentation. we should open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by

pressing star three. through the chair, you will each have one minutes. when you hear your line has been on muted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hello, i live in the mission district. i calling in to ask commissioners to oppose the change in use to residential use so it may become just another mansion in the city. we don't need any more mansions in the mission. it is very clear. san francisco has left 38% of its board and care facilities in the last two years and we can't afford to lose anymore. it is time for the city to address this crisis. i asked the planning commissioners to deny the conditional use permit and retain its place as a board and care. at the very least, it should be an apartment building and not a luxury home. thank you.

>> hello, commissioners. i have spoken before some of you many times. i have worked in affordable housing and as well as in tenant's rights. i calling to oppose the project because in the time that i have been here, i have seen the problem of homelessness, especially for seniors and disabled folks, get worse and worse. i have had many, many clients come to me who have wound up on the streets as a result of being pushed out. i have seen fewer and fewer affordable options for the community to move into and it is just very clear that there's not enough affordable housing in the city. people across the city -- the last thing we need is to turn units that were affordable

housing to low income seniors into housing for the rich. that is just obvious. in terms of the law -- they are saying this because it has been more than a certain number of years. these units don't qualify for these facilities anymore. we need to preserve these units. if we look at -- >> thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. >> hello, fellow commissioners. i a public policy manager at home rights. it's a permanent, but supportive housing provider throughout san francisco. i'm also a member of the band coalition which is a group of community organizers working to improve access to mental health. i calling to ask that you oppose the change from a board and care facility to residential use. we know that san francisco has lost over 38% of its care facilities over the last 10

years and we can't afford to lose anymore. taking care of these facilities does a huge disservice to the community that needs it. i think that we need long-term solutions proposed by the public and by the department of public health and commissioners to address the high need for folks who are looking for services, such as treatment and substance health. thank you so much. >> hello. my name is tom. i currently live in bernal heights. i currently displaced from the mission. we do need more affordable housing. we need more care facilities, and we cannot let fire take away public serving uses of buildings. this happens too often, and then when people come in, seeing they have a profit motive that is

there for them, they take advantage of us. i believe it is the planning commissioner's rolled to stop that and keep things in a public serving space. thank you. >> hello. my name is jackie. i the d.r. requester. you can skip me again. >> hi, my name is peter. i work in nonprofit eviction offences. i'm calling to remind the commission that the association of bay area governments is failing to maintain and uphold its 114,442 commitments to affordable care facilities as determined by regional housing needs allocation from the state. we should be prioritizing projects and allocating resources and energy into products that increase the

amount of affordable housing and board and care facilities in the bay area and the city of san francisco. not just prioritizing projects for those who can afford to be the most influential and have the money to give the loudest voices. thank you. >> hi. i flow kelly. i live in district nine. i work with the coalition on homelessness. i asked them to deny the conversion of the area and retain the space as a board and care for a community serving use. neither community members, and certainly not the free market can be expected to solve the issue of flippers converting desperately needed spaces into mansions and driving up the land value and driving out our residents in need and the jobs

of those who support them locally. we need the city to step in and start solving this crisis today. the project sponsor took a gamble in speculating on this conversion. if you grant this conversion into a mansion, this will continue to push land costs up in the neighborhood and encourage more of this kind of predatory speculation. thank you. >> hello, i have lived in the mission for five years. i also work in rapid rehousing of homeless families in san francisco. i am calling in opposition. we know how difficult it is to find properties that can be used for board and care facilities or permanent supportive housing. i know this is the wrong choice to take a property that was being used to serve community members in need and convert it

into something that serves only the very rich, single-family or two. and i urge you to take advantage of this available property and find a use for it that continues to serve the community, which is so badly needed for so many of our residents in the mission. thank you. >> hello. thank you for your time. i calling in to oppose the project at 628. the last thing we need in san francisco is to turn housing that was for disabled folks and seniors into luxury housing for the rich. that seems totally obvious. we need more board and care facilities in our communities for disabled folks and seniors. i ask you to reject the project that benefits no one except the

developers. thank you for your time. >> hello? can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> my name is richard. i'm interested in the building at 628. i believe it should continue to be a board and care. i have been a licensee for over 25 years. i'm also a certified administrator. [ indiscernible ] i believe that san francisco is in a position to keep another board and care facility and also increase services for the elderly and mentally ill. san francisco consistently talks about increasing affordable housing, but they have not addressed places to care for the increasing populations. 628 has a possibility of

providing much-needed senior housing in san francisco. for the systems and community advocates, 628 can thrive and continue to be a stable and viable business entity that provides service to low income seniors and adults with disability. thank you. >> hello. i calling from the coalition on homelessness. i also a neighbor around the corner from 628. i calling in opposition to the proposal. this kind of -- i wanted to bring to light some of this. the board and care facilities have played a really critical role in our safety net in san francisco, and many callers have mentioned that we have lost a

large percentage over the last few years, but that went way back. if you go back even to four decades ago when we started this, it is really dramatic just how many people were stabilized in board and care and who are now homeless and out on the street. we have an aging homeless population. the population is having increased acuity in regards to mental health. supportive housing is not often in a position to help folks successfully with high acuity, and reimagining board and care or turning property into a co-op for folks with mental health issues. these are all possibilities that have been explored and there is funding to do it. thank you. >> hello, i live on the same block as 628. i believe that we should preserve these community facing

spaces. i don't think we will be building any new ones. they are desperately needed at this time. creating a five bedroom luxury mansion will not help anyone except for the person who sells that house. rich people have plenty of other options and the vulnerable population does not. please oppose this revised proposal. thank you. >> hello. my name is jeff. can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. >> thank you. i live down the street on 25th, just over half a mile. i have been there 20 years. i also oppose the project for a lot of the same reasons people have been saying. one thing i want to address, first of all, you are the planning department. you have the power to zone

this. it has not been a board and care for a while, but the city itself, the mayor, people talk a lot about how much they have prioritized this. this is the chance to save one. it hasn't been one for a while. so bringing it into a mansion that is over 3,000 square feet is not advised. the developer said we will have less residential capacity because it will be a mansion and it is so many bedrooms, that is ridiculous. rich people love to have extra room. three units would house more people. it is so disingenuous. i was pretty disgusted to hear that. >> thank you, that is your time. >> hello? my name is scott kendall.

i live in the mission. i oppose the project for all the reasons that was mentioned before. i also want to speak as a disabled veteran. i can see with my own two eyes. we should all be disgusted by this. we should do everything in our power to preserve all of our board and care facilities. i also want to state to the five bedroom unit, that is a mansion. it will be two people who are very rich. and it is not housing for regular people in the city. we have an opportunity to preserve a much-needed board and care facility in the mission and i urge you to stand up to this. thank you.

>> hello. my name is olivia and i work at the coalition on homelessness. today is my day off. i'm still calling in because there is never a day off for affordable housing to fight for it. i calling to oppose turning 628 into this developer's plan, i also want to agree with jeff. that could at least be an apartment for, you know, a or more people, i adding housio the neighborhood and that is disingenuous when you do use some funding that you guys have to put your money where your mouth is. that is all.

>> hello. my name is emilio. i'm asking the commission not to blame nonprofits and housing groups for the inability -- [ indiscernible ] we should return this to a board and care facility. disabled and seniors folks who might be living on the street that you are all trying to clean up, please oppose this mentioned -- this plan and support the rehabilitation of the board and care facility. thank you. >> hello, i'm calling to support this and urge you to deny the conditional use authorization. we are in a pandemic. there is a vast closure of board and care facilities. [ indiscernible ]

this is why it mayor breed asked these facilities to form. [ indiscernible ] this must take a backseat to support elderly and low income residents. please support this discretionary review. thank you. >> hello. i a resident of the mission district. this commission has recognize the problem of the loss of board and care facilities and the rise of monster homes. this is an extraordinary circumstance and need -- needs to be protected. please oppose the change.

thank you. >> hello. i represent united save the mission and also countless members who cannot be here. i calling in opposition to conversion of 628. mainly on the grounds of speculation. right now we are making an active mashup -- effort to incentivize this. i have been part and spoken at this commission before and have been told a few times that previously for buildings that were single homes, converting them to multi- home units has been the priority. this goes everything against what the planning commission has stated. at some point or another,

sometime this decade, this commission has to be serious about making changes. this is something you can do right now at this moment. it goes against everything in this city. it is against the goals that we have safe affordable care for those who are in need. this goes against the fabric of what the mission is about and it should be denied. thank you. >> hello. my name is larissa. san francisco has lost 38% of its board and care facilities in the past 10 years, and in the context of the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and the impacts on the mission community in the last two years, it is abundantly clear that we cannot afford to lose anymore. conversion of the property will reduce the amount of properties

zoned for board and care use and actions should be taken in addressing the crisis by taking the discretionary review and preserving the building for board and care use. this city has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in proxy revenue today and will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars more next year and can use these funds to rehabilitate this facility. there is one board and care operator that you have heard from that is interested in running this space. and if the city is truly willing to do more than they will lament another loss. thank you. >> hi, this is sarah short.

we are a permanent supportive housing provider. we could also coordinate the treatment on demand coalition. i wanted to talk about what could happen today. we could see a situation where we are able to create with the help of the city, the property developer, and that community, a group living situation that is community surveying and helps actually address our homelessness and mental health crisis that we see right now on the streets. we have the chance to have this in a community setting in the mission district, which anybody who knows this neighborhood knows how much we need something like that. this could happen were the owner to cooperate and consider the pricing so much or the city to take in some funding. we have an interested operator

in the wings, as you heard, and this would be an amazing thing to happen in this city right now. we all know we can use some good news. thank you. >> sasha: thank you, that is your time. >> good evening. we are joining these many voices that you're hearing from today to uphold the d.r. and deny the conversion of this property. this commission, as someone noted earlier, has spoken earlier about how critical it is that we maintain these facilities. the supervisors have spoken about it and the mayor's office. we have lost 38% of them in the last decade alone. that is a crisis and extraordinary circumstances. you have also spoken about your concern about the rise of

monster homes in san francisco. this is not a choice between a so-called blighted building and a mansion. we would like to see the property owners and officials sit down with an operator who just called in and discuss how it can all work to discuss this and make this a great use for our city that serves the community instead of one or two private homeowners. thank you. >> hello, my name is kandi. i a resident -- i a resident -- i am a resident. i am opposing this. we need board and care homes.

i ask you all to oppose this conversion. it is so essential to keep the board and care that we have. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i calling into ask you to oppose the change in use from a board and care facility to residential. let's keep this a community serving space. i spent a lot of time on this block. two days a week i deliver grocery boxes across the

street. they have been renters for 54 years. the last thing we need is a dark and gated mansion. we have to acknowledge the 30 year history of this facility at a time where huge facilities have been lost in the last decade. knowing there is at least one board and care operator interested, we should be exploring further before allowing conversions. the sponsor took a gamble and speculating on this conversion. if you grant this into a mansion with an 80 you, it will only push up land cap -- land cost. the trust that owns the property has 25 other properties, many of which are in the mission. we have to stop the flippers from converting these spaces into mansions and driving out residents in need. we need the city to step in and solve the crisis. thank you. >> okay, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue.

>> good evening. my name is anastasia. as a rep coalition and san francisco tenant union member, i ask you to take d.r. and deny the proposed project. it was a residential board and care housing six patients and two staff until a fire in 2015. it sat empty since then. the delpit -- the developer wants to turn into a private mansion. you have the power to not allow this conversion. board and care facilities provide supportive housing for elderly, formally -- formerly homeless, people with disabilities, and ask people experiencing drugs, evictions and have as such -- half as much facilities have closed in the last 10 years.

the care provider has scent a message to the commission in expressing the interest of taking over the site, which brings us close to having it reopened as a residential care facility. please deny the project and take d.r. thank you. >> okay. final last call for public comment. you need to press star three. seeing none, this is being closed to members of the public. public comment is closed. this discretionary review is now before you, commissioners. i take it back. i apologize. i'm getting ahead of myself. you have a one minute rebuttal, miss patton. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> we are, but we have a strong echo. you might want to -- >> there we go. can you hear me?

the board -- it is zoned. [ indiscernible ] they found a loophole and that loophole has been closed. the financial feasibility is not an argument. [ indiscernible ] this will reduce potential housing for low income and disabled folks. there is funding available should we request that the project be denied and that the board and care -- the project be denied so aboard and care facility be reimplemented. thank you. >> great, thank you. mr. patterson, you have a one minute rebuttal.

>> thank you, commissioners. ryan patterson for the public sponsor. if we could please have slide number 2? it is not a conversion. it is also not a mansion. the fifth bedroom was added in response to a neighbor request for a family size unit. this is also adding a second unit which will be more naturally affordable. there's already at least one rcf a few doors down called morningstar at 666, which is in the process of being expanded to 41 occupants. the commission received a letter from richard daley. i had an extended conversation with him this morning and he confirmed that it is simply not possible to open and r.c.f. in this facility. i would strongly encourage you to ask him about the finances. or i'm happy to tell you more about our conversation. he also did not show up at the end of october or early november for the site meeting to inspect

the facility or inspect the property. we extended a right of first office -- offer. we waited eight months for financing on offers. the money just isn't there. we are asking to go forward with the housing project. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. that will conclude the public comment portion of the hearing. it is now before you. >> while i waiting for the other commissioners, i will express my support for staff's recommendation in not taking d.r. >> i'm sorry. we have a late request for

comment. should we take it? >> yes. >> hi, my name is victor. i a community activist. i have been advocating for the mental health community and those with substance use disorders. my letter is in your package. i someone who has a mental health diagnosis and has been out -- and had been out of the workforce for about 12 years plus. as such, i don't have much of a safety net. when i become ill, hopefully it will be when i old, i will have no place to go but a healthcare facility such as these and they provide vital services. one of your mandates is according to your websites to highlight health department disparities and critical

healthcare and development issues that have emerged since 2013. i-pronoun vote. >> thank you. that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. >> thank you. i have a question for mr. patterson. mr. patterson, how much is the asking price for this building, plus the rehabilitation? including the rehabilitation? >> commissioner, thank you. we offered to sell the property to a nonprofit entity or to the city for fair market value.

we believe that the value is approximately $2 million. we did not include construction costs in the request. that would be up to anyone who is perching it, but we did offer and do walk-throughs of this site so that anyone interested can see what work needs to be done. it is very extensive. i think that is the main part of the problem of why financing has not been available from the city or elsewhere. >> at minimum, it is 2 million, and it looks like there is a big amount of rehabilitation. [ indiscernible ] i just want to see if you have those kinds of estimates? >> i will defer to the

architects on the line. my understanding is the cost is probably significantly more than that. maybe in the multiple millions. i just the lawyer. i'm happy to refer to the design professional. they have better numbers than that. >> there are some questions i have regarding this see you. first, in our packet, it says that the previews does not have permits or may not have permits. it also mentions that the interim zoning control also applies to whether it has benefits of the permits or licenses. so can you clarify that?

can you clarify why this is not a cv -- see you? and what that means? >> i'm happy to clarify that. the interim zoning control that the property is subject to specifically states that it applies to permitted or unpermitted facilities that close within three years. this facility closed three years prior to the submitted -- to the submittal so it does not apply because all of the criteria had to be met and this one wasn't. when the cua was withdrawn, this project became a normal building permits. every decision the planning department makes is discretionary. so anything can be d.r. even though the project doesn't require public notice, while the

planning department had it, and it was a normal building permit in those few days, and d.r. was submitted. that is how we had the cua. it did not meet the three year requirement. it became a building permit and the building permit had d.r. >> this has been continued in the planning commission. my question is, at one point -- at what point is the planning department staff part of the discussion when it comes to residential care facilities and the funding around this? what is the extension of the planning department's in this kind of deal?

>> for this particular project, planning is not involved in the negotiations. i would defer to a planning manager or director to know if the planning department on a larger scale will go through the different initiatives involved. i'm not sure about that. >> i think you are muted. >> you are muted. >> hello? >> we can hear you now. >> okay, perfect. i with planning department staff. sorry for the technical difficulties.

last item for the year 2021. the planning department reviewed the project against the planning code compliance and also make sure the project meets residential design guidelines. we are not the experts in financing and evaluating whether a residential care facility is feasible on the size and proportionality. we have to defer to the project sponsors in terms of the numbers to come up with how much -- [ indiscernible ] >> okay. >> and in terms of, i guess, my point here, this is the d.r. now and this is the building permit. for us, here at the commission, in a way we are seeing this more than we see the d.r. it is more appropriate to that.

in terms of what we are basing on this in the decision-making, because it still touches on some of the planning department's responds and some of the general plan requirement, so that is something that i also looking into in terms of looking into the findings of this. the planning department did notice there is a 60% block -- loss of the residential care facilities. that is something that, again, i echoed many of the members of the public who came in on this, and for me, as d.r., i more prone to mean to not change the use of residential care facilities, and maintain the residential care facility use. i would like to hear what other

commissioners have to say on this. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to pick up on the fact that we have the most important people in the crisis and we will stick to this today. it was eloquently speaking for us to take a very hard look at what is necessary. in light of the fact that there is a 38% reduction, the loss of residential care facilities, i feel pushed against the wall to see an arbitrary three year binary period mentioned in that legislation. this was brought forward in 2019. one year after the legislation.

i personally cannot support the change in use. the city can collectively muster to bring this project back to its original and intended use. that is all i have to say. >> commissioner chan? go ahead, commissioner chan. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking the public for calling in with testimony and i want to thank staff for creating the report for the working group. i found that report really

interesting. i wanted to highlight a few things that i thought was interesting today. any of you heard from our public testimony. [ indiscernible ] what stuck out to me is the client has been primarily in these types of small facilities. they have traditionally been more affordable and accessible to lower income properties. [ indiscernible ] the availability of these facilities is critical for seniors and people with disabilities in order for them to live independently in san francisco. for me i'm thinking about this in terms of a public health issue and this year need for this type of housing. it seems to me the city doesn't really have a shortage in availability and parcels that

are zoned for single-family homes. i don't have the exact number, but i think it is something like one third of plants is available, but the city does have a shortage of available parcels for the care facilities. these are facilities for low income individuals. [ indiscernible ] i finding that there are extraordinary circumstances. i would like to deny the use. by approving the change of use from residential care facilities to residential would directly reduce the number of available parcels that could be developed for residential care facilities and, therefore, the loss of however you measure this by parcels or square footage that can get built would actually be

meaningful to the public health and safety, especially with an aging population and persons with disabilities. [ indiscernible ] >> i sure commissioner chan made a motion, but i would make a motion to take d.r. and deny on the basis that these are extraordinary circumstances and for the public health's safety. >> i second the motion. >> if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and disapprove the proposed project. on that motion... [ roll call ]