planning commission. june 16, 2022. >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, june 16, 2022. in person and remote hybrid hearings require attention and our patience. if you are joining us remotely and not speaking, please remoot to enable public communication. we are streaming live. we will receive public comment

on each item on the agenda. comments to speak are available calling 415-655-0001. access code 24839741745. we will take public comment from those in the city hall first. then open up remote access. please speak clearly and slowly. state your name for the record. each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. with poseconds -- 30 second you will be notified your time is up. for those calling in to submit testimony. when we reach your item press star 3. when you hear year line unmuted that is your indication to speak. best practices call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly. mute the volume on your

television or computer. for those in city hall come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. finally, please silence mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. at this time i would like to take roll. >> commission president tanner. >> here. >> commission vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner koppel. >> here. >> commissioner ruiz. >> here. >> on your agenda are for continuance 1a, b, c, d for 2009-0159env03 for one oak proposed to continue to june 30,

2022. 2. conditional use authorization for indefinite continuance. no other items for tip youance. public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed to be continued. i see no requests to speak. public comment on continuance calendar is closed. they are before you, commissioners. >> any motions? >> move to continue items as proposed. >> second.

>> thank you. on that motion to continue items proposed commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> funk. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> continue 1b for one oak to june 30th as well. >> thank you, zoning administrator. that places item 3. commission comments and questions. >> i am sad i am not with you all in person today. i have covid. it finally caught me someplace in san francisco. i am taking advantage of hybrid schedule or setup and participating remotely today. i do want to start off with the

land acknowledgment and make a few comments. for those in the chamber the secretary will type. if you raise your hand and there is a pause or you want to say something and i miss you, please just speak into the microphone. we have been doing this hybrid thing for a bit it is a new experience. right now with our land acknowledgment. we are on the unseated homeland of the ramaytush ohlone. this they have never forgotten their responsibilities as care teaers of the place and all

people in their traditional territory. we recognize we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. as uninvited guests we affirm their sovereign rights. we first peoples. we recognize that we must embrace indigenous knowledge. last year was a federal holiday to be celebrated on monday recognizing the true time for those who were in texas three years after. we hope you enjoy your festivities. national holiday that we are celebrating for many years. i will turn it over to the commissioner. thank you. >> i only want to express my best wishes to you with covid and hope you recover.

>> thank you. i appreciate that. commissioner diamond. >> thank you. i will ask commissioners to indulge me. i have a number of comments to make. i have been thinking nonstop about our hearing last week. i want to share some thoughts on that with all of you. the impact of the update on the west side i was astonished none of the west side neighborhood showed up to participate in the hearing and few if any submitted comments on the draft e.i.r. that is surprising to me and many of you given that we hear from west side neighbors on a weekly basis about concerns

about one story on adjacent property let alone four to six stories addressed by the proposed action in the draft e.i.r. after asking around after the hearing i learned that some, maybe most of these groups have no idea the draft e.i.r. pro proposed up to 85 feet. houses two or three stories at most. i asked for a copy of the notice that went to the group regarding the availability of the draft e.i.r. to see if it was clear to the average reader what this is proposing. it states and i quote. that is plans assumes adoption of housing element update would lead to future action planning code amendments to increase height limits along the

corridors and modify density controls in low density areas located on the west and north sides of the state. i don't believe the average reader would interpret the increased height limits on transit corridors to mean increase in height limits to 55, 65, 85 up to 240 feet. not only on commercial streets where transit is located but residential side street between commercial streets where transit is located. nothing in the notice that would leave the average reader to understand what is proposed is a very significant height increase or density and height increase is not equably districted.

unless you read the 600 payments you wouldn't discover the proposed action in the draft e.i.r. showed one possible distribution of that 2.70 page 2-25. i believe that in order to do its job that informs our decision making, the draft e.i.r. thoroughly examine the impacts. we need to make sure the project description in the notice sufficiently alerts the public as to the aspect of the proposed action that we know will be of most concern be to them. i believe planning should right now make sure they are aware of those height increases not only on commercial treats with transit but on residential side streets and extend comment

period 3 weeks so they have time to absorb implications through internal processes of decision making for neighborhood groups that can be complex. then submit comments. i have a couple more comments on the draft e.i.r. i am interested in the staff reaction to that suggestion and any of the commissioner's thoughts on that. >> thank you. it is a need to make sure folks understand. we want a robust discussion. we want to make sure that happens through the e.i.r. and the housing element. does staff want to respond to the questions raised in this idea of extension of time? >> let me take a crack.

lisa is here to extent the comment period for the draft e.i.r. i want to talk about outreach. it is extremely thorough. have we gone to every neighborhood group? no, but we notified every group on the list of the e.i.r. as well as the fact that the housing element is prepared. we talked to every supervisor numerous times about this in what is in the document and offered to attend neighborhood meetings that they may want us to attend. i am optimistic one of the reasons we are not hearing a lot from the neighborhoods on the west side. they are more and more open to the idea and the need for housing on the west side. we will see as the process rolls out. i certainly want to make sure we

are giving community groups and residents the opportunity. we have to be careful what is studied in the e.i.r. is not necessarily zoning proposal. that is not before you nor is it as part of the housing element that would all come after the housing element is adopted. it certainly points in a direction studying impacts to potential zoning actions you and the board of supervisors may take in the future to implementer the housing element. with that said ms. gibson are you here to talk about potential extension of the comment period? >> yes, i am. this is lisa gibson environmental review officer. thank you, commissioner diamond for your comments. i do concur with the director the project description for the

e.i.r. does reflect the housing element update would modify the policies would not implement specific changes to existing land use controls, any changes to the controls would require legislative processes including review and public hearing before the planning commission and board of supervisors, approval of housing development or infrastructure would require development applications and approval. again, the project description in the e.i.r. in the notices is clear that the element update itself is not re-zoning. that said, i understand your desire to ensure that the public has the opportunity to comment on the e.i.r., that they understand the document and the analysis. your request for extension of three weeks is one that we can accommodate.

this is a project that is a city-wide scope with a great deal of interest. we want to receive comments on the e.i.r. our team is working diligently already on the comments we received. we are under a tight schedule to do so and to meet our state deadline so we hope that the three weeks will be sufficient for your purposes. >> i appreciate that. how do you notify groups? everybody else that wishes to partake in this three week period of the extension? >> i will confer with my staff to address that. i don't know. i am happy to get back to you and inform the commissioners once we have a chance to explore

how best to do so. >> i do appreciate that. i understand you are working under tight deadlines. i believe it is in our interest to make sure that given the enormity of this project and implications that we really have made sure the groups on the west side until what the document is and isn't. to that extent i have a couple other comments on the draft e.i.r. i do believe that it must include more than one possible distribution of the height and density to better equip ourselves to use the e.i.r. to cover other distributions that may ultimately be adopted as part of the planning code amendments. with only one possible solution, perhaps unintentionally it

appears to guide decision-makers toward specific outcome on the distribution on the planning code amendments without any public hearings on what that might ultimately be. for me at minimum the d.e.i.r. should include one other distribution with more equitable allocation of height increase across all of the west side so that everybody on the west side bears their fair share of height increase. the imposition of the 85 feet or 65 feet i am certain the residential side streets. lastly, i am sure along with many of you read with distress the announcements of companies leaving some or all office space downtown and mid market areas. not only the loss of the economic engine is worrisome the

loss of smaller retailers so dependent on office space users. i think we need to acknowledge that the decline in the use of downtown office space is no longer simply a short term pandemic phenomena but a change in the attitude about remote and hybrid word. how can we make lemonade out of lemons. i believe we should study what it would take to convert the under utilized downtown office space to other uses so we create a mixed use to support retail office and housing and tourism. housing update right now in the draft e.i.r. started before this phenomena. at the time it was focused on the west side for the bulk of new housingtosh built.

as we have seen in the graft e.i.r. there is insufficient wastewater and transit capacity. we are disrupting the neighborhoods to fit in more housing on the west side. i firmly believe the bulk of new housing should go to the west side. we should include in this housing element right now the exploration about what it would take to identify downtown office buildings with older buildings with windows that open to convert underutilized older buildings to residential use. the harrison street project. i referenced this last week. i really don't think it is speculative at this point. i do believe it is worth exploring in the housing element whether or not these existing buildings might be a very good resource for us as potential

source of housing in a transit rich neighborhood. >> we have discussed next we can having a discussion about the state of the economy. i think also. [indiscernable] >> on the broader question. it is on top of our mind, too, what the future of downtown and the impact of the pandemic will have on the demand for office space. i can say to date, there has been a lot of talk of converting office to housing. we haven't seen a ton of interest in that from owners or project sponsors. i totally agree with commissioner diamond that may change as leases run up and we can see more vacancy in the downtown core. we can certainly look at that. i don't know if we can count on it. i want to avoid a big discussion

today. we are bordering on an agenda item on the calendar. next week we can look at the state of activity and development. project more focused on housing what projects are moving forward and where they are in entitlement phase. why they may not be moving forward. we know why office projects aren't moving forward. we can add that and come back on our future agenda item to talk about that in this notion or possibility of converting office space to housing. >> i want to remind commissioners and members of the

public we welcome your comments on the draft e.i.r. those should be submitted in writing. we welcome your comments today and we hope you will include that in written comments. we are calculating three week extension from the current as of today the comment period on the draft e.i.r. was ending june 21st. with the three week extension the comment period will end on tuesday july 12 at 5:00 p.m. members of the public can and the commissioners can submit comments in writing to us at the address on our website for these comments. i am pulling that up right now. cpc.housing element update e.i.r. at sfgov.org.

thank you. >> thank you, commissioners and staff. i don't see any other commissioner hands up. i think we may be under department matters for item 4. director's announcements. >> no announcements today. >> 5. review. >> i am manager of legislative affairs. this week land use committer heard three mayor breed's proposed ordinances to allowmohcd and planning to share enforcement duties and to allow mohcd to accept fines.

at this week the committee had questions how the activities would work. supervisors were supportive of the concept with concerns about staffing levels at mohcd. there were half a dozen speakers about affordable housing. they forwarded to the full board with positive recommendation. next was mayor's ordinance for land use regulations for easy charging locations and fleet charging. you heard this on april 14 and recommended approval with modifications. those included to, one, require conditional use all c-3 districts for ev charging and change to make gas session the c.u. for those permitted. two. exempt conversion of automotive uses to ev screening requirements. three. prohibit fleet charges from r3 districts.

four allow conversion to ev charging regardless of zoning. five. allow fleet charging. the fleet charging is conditionally permitted. they took exception to fleet charging as accessory use to ev charging. the discussion was on that particular provision which the committee voted to remove. the other was to amend to more than one ev charging station. this is necessary to somewhere one is not financially feasible. >> the city attorney needed time

to draft. it was continued to july 11. due to the budge eat and holidays that is the next committee hearing. they took up the automotive uses, cars to cases. commissioners the planning commissioner heard this decembed recommended approval with modifications. those included eliminating the zoning district site eligible, last legal use was automotive use to be eligible for this program. reduce legacy business criteria from the past 10 years to four year. clarify it can be combined with the state density program. require monitoring to understand how many units used the program where located. perform outreach before and after adoption. consider different shorthand

title. amend legacy eligibility to consider those submitted not yet reviewed or approved. mayor included all recommendations in the ordinance except removing the provision and the outreach and consideration of different shorthand title. community previously heard this on february 28 where it was discussed about the lack of height and affordability requirements and loss of blue color jobs. there were comments this week in opposition and in favor of this. the positives of seeking parking lots changed to housing. callers in opposition shared need for increased affordability and blue collar jobs. supervisor peskin proposed roof heremoving rmand rc on maximizing density. the committee accepted. staff understands the mayor's

office was amenable to the amendments. supervisor preston raised questions about increased density and concerns there was no information on feasibility or the updated. preston did not feel the questions were answered by planning. no representative from the mayor's office in attendance. they moved to continue to the july 11 hearing. at the full board this week supervisor peskin's ordinance to allow fire damaged liquor stores to reopen due to fire passed second read. supervisor mandelman was on the calendar. before voted on supervisor melgar noticed error at the last comment having to do with rent control provision out of that committee. that was continued to june 28th hear. since supervisor peskin's

ordinance to create special use in chinatown neighborhoods was linked it was continued to june 28. that is the conclusion of my presentation. i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you, mr. star. no report from the board of appels. historic preservation did meet yesterday to consider one item where they adopted recommendation for approval to landmark the mother's building in the san francisco zoo. if there are no questions from commissioners we can move to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when they exceed 15 minutes it

may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> i sent you an e-mail. i will show pictures. here we go. there it is. that is the title. pictures. i sept a guide to -- sent a guide to explain it. my main point. this has a story i can't go into. it is a tragedy. these are all alterations, approved alterations. only one had dr hearing that was continued and withdrawn. this is since 2014 through the

pandemic. the average price increase was $4.158 million. what does that mean? think about what section 317 was intended to do. to protect financially housing and preserve affordability. since i have been talking about this since 2015. people said section 317 is awful, horrible. doesn't work. doesn't do what it is intended to do. i have to say and i re-red the summary from 2020 when you got rid of affordable clause, supervisor mandelman got rid of it, and you agreed with it. that was in there, too. i guess no one ever acknowledges that the it is adjusted. that is a tool that could have

been implemented to try to make section 317 work. that is my while point. i don't see how they can honestly truly be said that section 317 with the threshold they have never been adjusted since 2008-09. maybe that is simplistic. if you have an average increase of 21 projects at $4.158 million something is a wrong. here is a hand out for everybody. here are the minutes. i sent the minutes and pdf to make it easier. again, it is a tool. never been used.

if the commission had adjusted, if staff recommended to adjust one-time then i think they should be adjusted twice and not three times. then i could say, yes, you are correct. section 317 is bad. the main part of it has never been effectuated. that is all. thank you. have a good day. >> any other member of the public in the chambers wishing to make general public comment? if not we will go to remote callers. >> eileen wilkins. regarding sb9 and other state

bills. any legislation from sacramento is questionable for one reason. mckinsey and company. when gavin newsom was first running his issue was $3.5 million housing unit deficit. failed to mention this 3.5 million number was for 10 years from 2015-2025. the 3.5 million was based on study by mckinsey with primary offices in shank eye and zur-- shanghai. if he had used provisional method the housing unit shortage would have been 1.5 million units over 10 years. besides newsom -- before he was initially sworn in as governor, a former executive was sworn in

as chief economic adviser. now the bills are based on ideology by mckinsey. it should be noted several years ago newsom walked back the 25 million number. mckinsey has the concept called superstar cities. san francisco is classified as one of them. finally, it is appeal to hcd. san francisco did not appeal the numbers. as a west side resident i strongly dispute director hillis' remarks that the west side is more needy of density. thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. san francisco land use coalition. i would like to congratulate commissioner moore who was sworn in today for her fourth term. we were there and delighted to see her sworn in for the fourth time and for her public service over 16 years we are also grateful to. thank you and congratulations commissioner moore. i would like to thank commissioner diamond for her observation about lack of public engagement. i can't speak for the entire west side. the group i am a member of san francisco land coalition has a number of west side activists with groups from that area. my observation is that we feel planning has been completely dismissive about the new housing

element. we have been talking to the supervisors about these issues. the housing element can't acknowledge the great impact of rent controlled housing. we don't think the removal of current policy objective no. two which advocates for preservation of existing rent control. what chance do we have in bringing up our issues when we can't get the simple fact that we cannot afford to displace more middle income people from the city who are tenants in the rent control housing? the problem has been all along we do provide comments but they are not heard. having said that i am grateful that it is extended for another three or four weeks.

we really would like for the planning department to be more welcome to our comments. one other thing commissioner diamond brought up was the height issue in commercial spaces and commercial corridors. one thing we forget is that commercial corridors are surrounded by residential areas. there is a street that is populated with average homes. the height does matter for these folks. the impact matters for these folks. i am hoping that the planning department is going to be more open to our comments and will take them more seriously. thank you.

>> last call for general comment. general public comment closed. regular calendar for item 6. 5250 third street. home-sf project authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item is a home-sf project authorization pursuant to planning code 206.3, 328 and 737. to allow construction of a seven

story 65-foot tall building to provide 30% on side affordable dwelling units. it is also receiving zoning modifications for space requirement of section 135 and requesting exceptions from the dwelling unit exposure of 140 and the rear yard requirement of 134. it includes new construction of a search story 65-foot tall residential building with 100 units on a vacant lot. the rear appears to be back 120 feet from the sidewalk. the building would provide 3300 square feet of common amenity space. 100 class one and six class two bicycle parking paces. 5900 square feet of common open space and private decks for 80 of the proposed units. 17 studyios, 21 are two

bedrooms. the project does not include off-street parking. home-sf 30% on site units, 30 out of 100 affordable. 10 restricted to 55% of the area median income. 10 at 80% and 10 at 100% a.m.i. to clarify confusion. the project did not utilize planning code section 315 for educator housing. it will not be directed to any specific profession. i will read into the record the revision to condition approval 11 on page 29 of the staff report. the relocation of the individual project transform tiffinstallation has significant effects to streetscapes. however they may not have an impact if installed in preferred locations.

the planning department with public worksthal require following for the project to be located in the location that most aligns with code section 145. it shall adhere to the memorandum of understanding regarding electrical locations between public works and planning dated january 2, 2019. the project sponsor hosted a pre-application meeting october 22, 2021 which 10 people attended. questions were raised about parking, retail space and public art. over the last eight months the sponsor hosted six community meetings with 18 one-on-one meetings with neighbors and community partners. to date the department has received nine letters support. no letters in opposition. they referenced lack of resent development, inclusion of

affordable housing, included foot traffic and potential to live in this building. the council met with the endorsement of the project. in jurisdiction of the bayview-hunters point. it was presented to them on february 2, 2022. the cac asked questions with the housing percentage, amenities, they unanimously voted to support the project and wrote a letter formal enforcement. the department finds on balance wonsis swept with policies of general plan and meets requirements of the planning code with home-sf. maximizes use of vacant lot with new four story building by providing 100 new dwelling units, 30 are on sitar affordable units.

46 of the units will be family, two and three bedrooms. project site is near schools and parks and community facilities residents of all ages enjoy. we found the projectness, come pattable to surrounding neighborhood. this concludes staff presentation. sponsor is here with a presentation. thank you. >> you have five minutes. project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners for your time. i founded this organization project sponsor affordability project. for one reason. to give working class families a shot at staying in san francisco. in 2017 we were in front of this commission at this very

microphone with what i thought was a bold idea at the time. to form a community-based nonprofit housing developer that wassent going to take public money. no public subsidies or grants or tax credits to solve this missing middle problem to try to deliver housing faster. i stand here today five years later with our project. i am going to commit and go on the record minimum of 70% units below market rate units. we will be back here again with another project. this is our first project hopefully of many. we need to get this approved to move to the next one. thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. proposed project provides 100 units on seven level no parking or commercial space to maximize number of residential units achievable. takes advantage of home-sf program. awards two level of height in exchange for providing 30% of the residential units bmr. the project voluntarily bumps up 40%. creating project providing 70% at below market rate rentals. to support working families, 25% of the overall unit makeup consists three bedroom units. project is on the west side of third street on vacant site. significant up slope at the rear

averaging 25 feet at third street in the photos. in traditional layout like on the left rear yard would require huge retaining wall at the rear property line resulting in a dark uninviting space. in contrast we created a welcoming rearyand with the c shape building on the right. with terrace gardens towards the rear property line. within this structure we are providing space for the residents to be used for group exercise meeting or study space. large windows spaces out toward the yard where playground, fountain, seating and pet frapped friendly grass area -- pet friendly areas are located.

they will have private patios. upper level every unit has generous 6 by 8-foot deck. large enough to finish and provide ample deck for plants to be placed in screening for residents who prefer additional privacy. another view of the upper level of the decks. at the seventh level we provide a spacious sun deck. giving residents the option of two areas of usable outdoor space to enjoy. landscaped and furnished with seating and game tables. third street property line sits on angle diagonal orientation of building to provide opportunity of stepping the building frontage to be broken down in scale using resources decks and

trellises to help contextualize in the neighborhood. the demonstration will beacon texttual in nature lending the building over ofall -- every ever overall feel with metal railings and planters in the informal balanced composition. color landscaping will be used restrained manner to define enlighten the main entry and entries off third street. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the executive director of affordability project. that woulds your five minutes. should we take public comment or do you want to afford more time, commissioner tanner? >> we can ask the question.

>> in that case we will open up public comment. members of the public address the commission on this matter. for those in the room please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. those calling in remotely press star 3 to be added the queue. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the executive director of economic development. i am a bmr home owner on third street and live a few blocks from the project. i have attended the public meetings. they have presented to a lot of people. we are in need of affordable housing on third street in bay bayview-hunters point we have 18 units of density transit rich

1.8 units of affordable housing an year for 10 years. i happen to be one of those lucky people with the condo. is it an amazing corridor with a lot of businesses that are new and all looking for new foot traffic, more lighting, more activity on the corridor. i want you to know i support this project. my board of directors support this project and i hope you will support this project. thank you for your service. >> good afternoon, president tanner commissioners. thank you. i am a field representative at carters -- carpenters local 22.

i represent 40,000 throughout california. 5250 third street. it has ongoing labor dispute. this is centered on nonpayment of standard wages and benefits. at this time there is no commitment to labor or use of general contracts. this means a few things. liveable wage with medical and retirement benefits. to allow workers and families to live in the community and work. this means wages are reinvested to the economic community as they spend the earnings and tax dollars fund the local schools and the government. responsible contractor commitment is accredited apprenticeships. it will continue to have a trained skilled and experienced work force able to complete high-quality projects in a safe and timely manner.

this provides opportunities not just for a job on this project but career path to many men and women who have or will go through our apprenticeship program and veterans who are part of our program. giving them another opportunity to integrate back to the community to provide benefits for themselves and the family and community. this should be built on the backs of construction workers. we ask commission require healthcare, apprenticeship and payment of area standard wages and benefits on this development. thank you for your time. >> any other members of the public in the chambers? we will go to remote callers. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. community developers. the original proposal bumped from 30 to 70% affordable. we would like to request to get more specific details of the breakdown. we would like the project to allow to reassess the proposal. [indiscernable] this project on bayview with the community and directly serves the community. we continue to allow the organization to re-evaluate proposal and the recommendation from the developer. it includes affordability to serve folks in the community who deserve access in the neighborhood. thank you for your time and consideration. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. thank you for taking this call. i am calling on behalf of san francisco building council in opposition to the project. it is great to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the carpenters in opposition. it is great to hear the support of labor and great to hear everybody recognizing this unit. when the proposed group proposed this idea of affordability several years ago i reached out to them to open up discussion between san francisco organized construction organizations. there is no outreach on the project despite several attempts on our part. this new curveball with 40% affordabilities does deserve a

lot more implications. permanent? is it worth the income level? all of these different things. we urge you to reject the project. one last point is that san francisco is in the midst of great day bait how to add 80,000 more unit in the next decade. both arguments are about the terms under which we enable a lot more development. this project doesn't meet the standards of either proposal. thank you. we urge you to reject it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am executive director at third street clinic. i have been involved with this project from inception. we had to start somewhere.

i grew up the bayview-hunters point. second generation. we haven't had many developments in our neighborhood. this is an opportunity for us to make sure the great migration of families from san francisco stops and primarily stops in our own community. as a kid who grew up here, i want family to stay here and see kids to go to the park down the street we are investing in. i want families to be able to feel safe in their community to have something that is equitable to call their homes. this is a start. having 70% of the progress be affordable is something that i haven't heard be presented or proposed in san francisco yet.

to me this is a strong indication that we are listening to the community, we are putting families first and we want something in our own community to be proud of. please support this project so that we can start to keep our families here in bayview-hunters point. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am dave tracey. i am with ua local 38 plumbers and pipe fitters of san francisco. we stand in opposition of this project sponsor's hiring practices. they traditionally hired not prevailing wage with untrained unskilled work force. we encourage this project with other projects to use union trade skilled accredited work forces not only for the workers

safety but also for the public safety on projects of this nature. we also stand in opposition of this project. thank you. >> last call for public comment. for those in the chamber, come forward. remotely press star 3. no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. it is now before you. >> thank you. before we head to vice president moore. i want to see if the project sponsor could share more about the affordability with a goal to get to 70%. is that an aspiration how are your going to go about that.

maybe you can explain more. >> few things. first of all, the group has nothing to do with this projector organization. this is a nonprofit organization that i started. completely independent. the group will not be the contractor. we have not so solicited bids. there will be 70 deed restricted affordable units on the project. some low income. the remainder will be 80-140. we have not determined where in that range and how many units. we don't know the short comes for each of the different a.m.i. bracketts. two teachers with two kids we don't know how difficult to get a unit in san francisco as opposed to firefighter and teacher. we are scoring where the 80-140

will be. 70% minimum de restricted on the project -- deed restricted. >> it sounds like you will provide moderates income housing. to know what this would be or affordable? >> we have got to get closer. how many units 80, 90, 100. we don't be have that. we know the maximum is 140. there will be 80-140 we know for sure. third point. there are 30 market rate unit was. proceeds of if there are proceeds from the building that come out it will be owned by the nonprofit to try to build more

affordable housing in san francisco. that is the goal. speed up thennen titlement. it turns to five and 10 years with red tape. city has only built 6%. 6% of the mid income housing unitsness in order to serve the population in the city. we are trying to change dynamic with our nonprofit to build work force housing faster. >> i think i will make comments. >> i want to share about the organization and how you see this project. 70%. commissioners and myself and callers. how did you make sure we

understand? >> ultimately what i have been saying as i go around to talk about what the organization is. it is different than any organization i have seen that builds affordable housing. we are focused on the mission. i want to this is the small stuff. in our bylaws. the primary pickup is affordable housing units to low middle income to support critical infrastructure in san francisco bay and surrounding counties included not limits to teacher was, police officers, public health, nurses other first responders. when we looked apartment how we have started this organization it is truly community-based. in talking to vendors, people in the city, local community

members, i have had over 500 personal meetings and 50 hours community meetings in bayview-hunters points with other 150 people to discuss this community based organization. how the structure works. we want to focus on housing. that is the differentiator to how our developers work. we want to partner with local community leaders, organizations to provide services that our tenants need. ultimately we want to focus on building high-quality affordable housing for the missing middle. having the private funds is critical. there are true subsidies for that are to allow this project. there is a concept of what we are founded to do.

there are going to be periods of conversation where we are finding what is its that tenant needs. we will provide that. >> we in the city and we hope you come back next week when we talk about housing, getting more housing built this year. i am going to stop my questions. i will hand it over to commissioner moore for questions. thank you for your time today. >> you were asking the question i was going to ask. five years ago plus the father of was standing in front of this commission indicating he was planning to support or do something like this. five years is a long time.

this is the first time today that this particular group now is a community-based group has come forward. i know little or nothing about it. a brief explanation helps. it has raised serious questions which normally it is in the context of the last call again. we are putting ourselves in the position. i would like to hear more from both sides. i would like to hear the issues relative to building this project and how they basically the construction industry and how the project responds. i am letting those questions

stand. a discussion with a couple questions. i want to stand behind your question. [indiscernable] >> thank you. other commissioners. >> i have a comment not question. >> commissioners fung and imperial to speak. >> i support the project. even though i find that some of the bedrooms are not very well-done. i am prepared to support the project today. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i do find this project

interesting. i am entirely supportive. the comments from the construction trades as well gives me some questions as to the recommendation with that sector. i am curious in implementation of the remaining 40bmrs. the home-sf project will have to comply to inclusionary housing. with 40 remaining projects or units i am curious whether it will be complied with the housing as well. these are conversations that perhaps need more for me clarity because this is new information for me. i don't know if the project sponsor can say about the implementation, monitoring,

40bmrs or inclusionary housing. since this doesn't have any subsidies, i am curious if you would apply for the mixed units. >> for the additional 40 units. they will be deed restricted. all represents in conformity with ocd. a.m.i.s we will internally handle the leasing not go through the process that can take a year to get someone in the unit. the point of the entire organization is to get work force folks into housing units. if we have to go through more government red tape it defeats the purpose of the organization step outside as private citizens, donating time and money to build housing.

they will conform with the rent, deed restricted. we are going to manage leasing. we believe a private organization can be much more efficient than the government. >> no lottery process on the remaining 40bmrs? >> we haven't establishrd how it will work. it will be all organizations best judgment as to how these communities should be rented. of course, there will be a process to ensure these are folk that meet the requirement but affidavit as well. the exact process we haven't determined yet. >> in terms of the communications with other construction sec fors, how is that. you mentioned a little bit. >> they came up talking about the groups and multi-unit development. that has nothing to do with the affordability project.

we cannot commit to doing entirely union on this project. we hope the next project. the issue now is we need the building built. we have to raise money through fund-raising to get the capital to build. we have to make sure the financing partners will fund the project. we don't know where that is going. our goal is become an established organization like bridge or mercy where we can go entirely union. i will start those. first one we need built. the whole point of the organization is to build these projects in two or three years when our competitors in affordable housing are taking 10 years from inception. 10 years from now san francisco will be past the threshold of accommodating our work force population. >> you have clarified my

questions. i find this model interesting. >> we have come across this before the build the units. non-profit. it is 501 c-3. non-profit is regulated by the irs to get tax-exempt. they must have charitable purpose. as far as all regulations control the first 30%, what the number is they are required to do under home-sf. they have to go through the process. remainder are flexible. some rely on the nonprofit in regulations on how they manage and select tenants. it is an interesting model. i know a bit about this from running a nonprofit myself. that dealt more with office space than providing low cost

office space. we did it through the nonprofit not through the agency of the government. this is mix. first 30% will be required by the city to follow the rules. the others will be subject to their nonprofit guidelines and by-laws. we will be and you can ask the project sponsor. i assume owned by the nonprofit. it is an asset of the nonprophet. >> it is owned by nonprofit. when leasing the additional 40 units not regulated by the city we will be using consultant from ocd in projects with ocd monitoring the affordable units. they recommend consultants. we will use that consultant to guide us. another thing to mention that he did incredible job. we are going to make an effort

to prioritize families and individuals that are currently live anything bayview. we want this project to reflect the demographic of the following there. that is our intent. >> thank you very much. i am generally in support as home-sf in terms of 40 units those will happen later on. i want to caution in terms of the hiring since you are also this is not for the commission to talk about this. conversations are going to happen. in terms of overall project, i think it is good. >> i support it back to the project. 70%. as home-sf project it is well designed building, very

thoughtful. i want to also commend the tremendous community engagement that happened. i was at a number of the meetings. there are folks today that would like to have outreach and your intention to have more trade on future projects. in terms of the 30% under home-sf to execute the project. i will call commissioner diamond. >> i want to understand from the city attorney how to deal with the statement made today that making a commitment 70%, 30% and the units will be constructed. that is not part of the

findings. we are to focus on the user. could you give us guidance what we are ap-- approving today? >> from the city's perspective, what is before you and enforceable are deed restrictions associated with home-sf project. in the findings they can include statements from the hearing. understandings about the intent of project sponsor. statements about how they intend to implement the program and deed restrict their properties. those are separate commitments from the terms of the home-sf project. >> thank you. that is very helpful.

couple questions for project sponsor. i was supportive of this project and am supportive of the project as presented. i appreciate the creativity and the desire to try to find new ways to produce housing. i am willing to support you experimenting with new methods including non-profit to accomplish this. the statement today and i wonder how you feel about including the finding that captures the commitment on your part or the intent to move from 30 to 70% deed restricted housing? >> we are committed to this. we are doing it. on the record we will make 70

units nsr for each unit. special restriction that 70% of the units below market rate. i don't know how else we are supposed to do this. we are not making money on this. we are trying to build the affordable housing in san francisco. you got it. nsr on each unit? is that the best way to do it? >> council for the affordability project. the finding is acceptable. >> thank you very much. >> one other question. i noted commissioner fung raised concern that if you believed me with the project and we see it with increasing number of projects to get more units we are relying more on the

bedrooms. as you go through approval you will meet the city requirements over seen by d.b.i. i do note that some of these bedrooms, the three bedrooms and others, units the bedrooms with no windows are very far from the direct source of light. i wonder if you are willing through design to continue to work with staff to try to get as much white into the bedroom as possible. >> planning department staff. i would like to call on mr. winslow to address the bedrooms more. >> david ones low staff ash ticket. in reviewing the plans

yesterday. drafting errors that indicated rooms that would comply with the d.b.i. memorandum on nesting bedrooms. when you look at the corresponding dimension there was a 50% opening on the wall facing an adjoining room. there were a couple examples of bedrooms that looked to be with the 50% opening to the hallway. per d.b.i. information shouldn't ie01 which went into effect jul. interpretation of nests bedrooms. quite frankly it was vague what it meant to be adjoining. a room adjoining another room to obtain light. stipulated as interpretation that the bedroom with the 50% of

the wall transparent to another space that octaned the light directly from the window should be at least 7 feet in width for a habitable room. hallways are not 7 feet wide. there might be some refinements the project sponsor will have to undergo when they get through d.b.i. [indiscernable] >> i will add that we will be willing to work with planning staff to develop the nesting bedrooms and smaller design issues to sort outcoming forward. >> thank you very much. it is important to me and i appreciate the fact what you are doing. i want the bedrooms livable spaces. they need more. i am in support of this project

as presented to us. i would be open to adding the finding that captures the commitment made today if that is the interest to other commissioners. >> commissioner moore. >> the findings as far as nesting bedrooms. i felt the approach was very clear. that proportioning of directly adjoining windows makes access to the two bedrooms very positive with full glass wall separating the bedrooms to meet high standards of live ability as far as the bedrooms. there are one or two which don't

have a room between. overall i found this project with the. [indiscernable] i have one question. would you mind coming up to the microphone. on the second floor of your project on the west side you have two units which basically it is in a ditch with a 10-foot retaining wall five feet away. by question while i appreciate the creative use of open space in the courtyard remarkably, i

would like to know if you would be willing to introduce a living green wall over the entire retaining wall in that particular portion of the project? [indiscernable] >> absolutely. i think that is a very good idea. we have done it on previous projects. a window would be facing a blank wall. we are willing to do that. and that can be included on the revised set. >> what we are looked at. with that in mind i would like to make a motion to approve the project with conditions.

>> second. >> we have a motion. we will vote on that motion. >> just so i understand the findings that will be added to this. findings of commitment of 70% of units affordable. from a.m.i. range 80 to 140 from city attorney perspective if the nonprofit finds it is not feasible to commit those units at a.m.i., then can the level be higher or what we approve with the finding added? >> deputy city attorney. the findings relate to the context in which the commission makes this decision. in terms of binding enforcement. it is limited to those units associated with the home-sf

approval and land use program associated with that. what they need to do to get additional two floors. the self-proposed deed restrictions associated with 80-140 a.m.i. that will be by the project sponsor by themselves. the city isn't really in position to assert third-party beneficiary theory or enforcement as to deed restricted units. that is the extent of it. >> thank you. a question for the project sponsor out of respect for community process this project is proposed and what the community is sensitive. would you reach out to young

developers who turned out for public comment that said it changes with 70% but they wanted more details? >> absolutely. i spoke with him today. i have meeting next week. i met with him on may 16th. absolutely. i think the public outreach we have done means we are totally committed. absolutely. >> commissioners are there questions or hands up? [indiscernable] we may be ready to vote. >> motion to approve with

conditions with the amendments staff read into the record in their presentation and adding the finding related to bmr level of 70% commitment of 80-140 a.m.i. on that motion. >> the addition of the green wall on the west property line retaining wall. >> as a condition, right? >> that's correct. >> including a condition for there to be a green wall on the west retaining wall. on that motion commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> compel. >> no. >> moore. >> aye. >> commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes 6-1

with commissioner koppel against. that will mace us on item 7 for case 2020-006544 c.u. a at 1721 15th street conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before the planning commission is conditional use pursuant to sections 121.1 and 303 to allow project site greater than 10,000 square feet. in valencia street for rear yard. active frontage and building height with the bonus law. the project proposes demolition of commercial building and new construction of two residential

acknowledges totaling approximately 46,000 square feet and 50 dwelling units. the 55-foot tall building would be constructed on the 15th street containing 46 dwelling units and three story 36-foot tall building at the rear containing four dwelling units. bicycle spaces and four class two bicycle spaces. 3,000 square feet of common open space and private open space for 11 units. includes dwell unit mix of 21 two bedroom and 21 that are one bedroom and eight studios and density bonus 26%. the housing program requirement for this project is minimum 27% of the dwelling units affordable 15 at low and 6% medium and 6%

moderate. sponsor has voluntarily to provide two low income units at 65% a.m.i. this requirement is applied to the base of the project. with the 15% low income that entitles the project to 27.5% density bonus. this district is represented by square footage. given the proposed size of the project. it is requesting 6.6% density bonus. to accommodate that density bonus they request full waivers for open space, active frontage and building height and concession incentive to the rear

yard. the findings for these incentives and waivers are found in section 7 of the draft motion. to date the department has receivedded phone calls in support of three residents supporting new housing in this location and including letter noting that they worked to improve the design and will increase affordability and they entered into agreement with project sponsor. department received correspondence and phone calls in opposition from search residents expressing concern including compatibility of the building scale and density with surrounding neighborhood, over can crowding. resulting demand for parking and permits, necessity for parking of residents and request for further study.

increased traffic annoys, effects of stormwater, reduction the privacy of the rear yards and shado and the pressures of gentrification of the neighborhood. there is a pre-application meeting in april 2018. to convert to state density bonus. they hosted virtual meeting may 11. attendees expressed concerns regarding traffic, privacy, ground water, construction noise and security. raised questions about the affordability and amenities. the project sponsor engaged in outreach efforts and entered into a private agreement. as a result of this dialogue removed commercial to add housing familiar and agreed to additional affordability. the department finds project is on balance consistent where plan

and objectives of the general plan. it would demolish the pdr. it has affordable unit in the established neighborhood, policy goal of the city. it maximizes density and configures as close to the existing district as feasible. department finds projectness, desirable and compatible with surrounding neighborhood. not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties. we have a presentation. this concludes the staff report. >> sponsor. you have five minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. i have a presentation. you have the detail in the packet. i want to make a brief

statement. the developer and joined by mark donahue with the architects available for questions. as mentioned, the project is culmination of more than 60 years of work in coordination with planning, community groups and maybes. as a result what you have before you is a project to provide more homes at more affordability level with more transit friendly features than the original proposed project. as mentioned. it would supply 50 new homes in a location with none. including 11 below market rate units. it approves existing streetscape and converts it to parking for messenger vehicles and loading vehicles focusing on transit

serving and non private car uses. the bike parking and perhaps it is locations where bike and pedestrian activity is big part of the attraction of the building. to that point the color scheme leaves the historic collars at the intersection of and was i formed by feedback of the community. marketing of the project when complete will be intended to attract people that support the existing community. there will be verbiage in leasing and marketing to that effect. that will utilize and contribute to the many services within walking or rolling distance. this has no car parking. it will attract people to use the transit oriented nature of the site. we have worked in delivering this project within the constraints of the site, codes and economics to design the building that works for both future and existing residents.

within the context of the neighborhood. a dense urban area. as mentioned concerns about car parking and traffic and be noise and privacy. in this location we understand that. we understand the concerns. the concern for the future residents of this building as well. we understand it is part evidence urban lifestyle. storm water management issues have been assessed in the initial reports we are confident do address those in the building permit process in the technical design. the state density bonus elements of this as mentioned. a lot of waivers and concession for this. they were needed to make the economic viability work and work on his site which is zero lot

line, very constrained locations. we appreciate your consideration of this project. >> thank you. that concludes the sponsor presentation. we open public comment. come forward if you are in the chamber. seeing no members of the public in the room. when your line is unmuted begin speaking. >> i am a resident. the impact on parking on 15th street and add jay sent streets. highly congested with parking. we have no idea how many new car registrations will be created by this process. i also have a question for the

process developer. in the construction of this projects. [indiscernable] >> my time point i would like it be continued for two months for a solution. [indiscernable] >> hello. >> this is your time for comments and concerns, not a question period. does that conclude your comments, sir? >> that concludes my comment. thank you. >> very good. >> hello. i am carla wilson. i live on albion street for over 25 years. i want to express concern about this. the need for housing. the issue for san francisco.

my concern has to do with nothing in how to bring in 15 units. [indiscernable] parking. bringing in the units the parking available. as it is those who live here struggle daily to park our own cars. constantly have to have cars moved. we are showing it needs to be addressed hear how the rear yards of this project will be implemented how we would like for the neighbors. i would like to ask you to

comment on the parking. tell me more about how it is that parking. [indiscernable] >> hi. i am a resident. i live on woodward street. i am about a block away from this location. i am calling to express my support of this project. i believe that we need more

housing. i can't think of a better location. this is a prime location so close to transit. i am not sure if i agree 100% about the parking. there are so many parked there. the bus lines. i don't need a car now. especially given the living in the city in. i feel like it is not necessarily really to have to open up for everyone having a

car necessarily. i am not really concerned. that is not a concern for me at all. i want to say community engagement of the enterprise project. it is great that there was, you know, the cultural kind of feeling of this appearance, i guess, of the units. great that it was so much involved in the community here. good project really. thanks.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, score resmith on behalf of housing action coalition to speak in support of this proposal today. i want to echo a lot of what the previous commenters said regarding the perfect location to build new housing. converting and using other shops into multi-family building that is the exact type of growth in san francisco. we are excited they are utilizing the vacancy bonus. there is additional low market rate housing on site. having gone through a number of these hearings regarding market rate income projects in the neighborhood. happy to hear the project team reached an agreement to support the proposal. many of you are very, very well

aware that we want to commend the whole team forgetting to the details and the community support. i think it is critical that the construction costs and all of the other challenges that exist right now to get shovels in the ground for projects. that is approved today. to make it harder and harder to actually see the project to get into construction to get something built. you have got an opportunity. please do everything you can to move it forward today. we are thrilled to be here. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. sarah o gel be calling from oak

land california. having formally lived in san francisco. i would like to support the project. i think the density and i have lived in two buildings that never supported any parking. one was built pre-190. one was built pre-1950. san francisco knows how to build apartment buildings without parking structures. this is nothing new. i doesn't need more delay. i hope you pass the project today. thank you. >> i am joseph calling to oppose. i live in the same block this project would be built. this is a project to provide

permanently owned housing i would be in favor. these are more market rate units not to help the problem of housing affordability in the city and could contribute to the problem. recent study showed over 40,000 empty units in the city, four times the number of unhoused in the city. the housing problem in san francisco is not lack of housing it is lack of affordable housing. adding these units will have no impact with the overall project contributing to gentrification of the area. the housing project in san francisco is another project to increase wealth without regard to the community. please deny the permit for this project. thank you.

>> good afternoon. this project has been in the making for six years now. in the planning process and working with neighborhood groups. i am happy to hear it has community support. i have heard criticisms of the project of height. we are comparing it to buildings in the neighborhood. the rear building on to other properties. the building south of the main portion or main building. i am not finding that to be a valid criticism. i am happy about the affordability component. i urge commissioners to approve it and hope to see it go. thank you.

>> i am charles. i live on the corner of 15th about a block away from the proposed project. i express my strong support. this is an amazing location to replace an unused shop with more housing for new neighbors and transit rich neighborhood. i really look forward to seeing it. it is a no-brainer of a project. i hope you move this forward today. thank you. >> last call for public comment. come forward or press star about 3. public comments is closed. the matter is before you commissioners. >> thank you. i want to say i am supportive of this project. i want to commend that it is

something we can use to the next phase. i wonder if the project sponsor could tell about the design relationship between the rear buildings and the primary building instead of a rear yard. i need to understand about that. provide opportunities for the labor in term -- the neighbors in terms of exposure. could you talk about that? >> absolutely. part of that consideration is the company i work for. it is a prefab factory built housing. light gauge steel framing to limit in san francisco the height to six stories. to the current limit.

we did work with our design team on including everything in a single main building due to egress routes and fire and variety of other design constraints in those different configurations, we opted for the buildings along the rear lot line. we recognize that is impeding on the neighbors on the rear. currently the last round of adjustments we went from two-two story buildings to one three story building on the east side and one one story building on the west side where there is single family home backyards fronting the one story and

multi-family backing the three. that is the nature, the source of those rear units which was when it was initially designed it was one building with the exposure and that is allowed. as we converted to the state density bonus we looked for opportunities and that is where the design led us. >> i want to say the inclusion if they don't count as open space. 70% of the units or 70 units. >> basically every single unit except for the second and third unit in the rear buildings have either a yard or balcony. part of the challenge with the

bay window ordinance. we have projection over the street frontage. there are constraints there that. we have juliet balcony. >> open spaces don't qualify. >> a lot about this. stepping away space. i wonder about the doors opening out should be code. i had a green thumb i use a little bit in the unit possible what is on the balcony. i am not sure if that is possible or not. [indiscernable] >> thank you for including them.

i think mr. moore and commissioner koppel -- commissioner moore and koppel. >> i would ask the architect to state more about the minimum of 10 feet between the rear facing on the 6 story and the front facing units of the building. 10 by 20 with the minimal sitting on top of each other with these floors. the second part of the question is the second building does not have its open be address. only access to the common

corridor of the main building going to the rear. minimal courtyard dividing the two buildings. how do you deal with the privacy and the fire and safety issue? how do you deal with the individual identity of the units? >> i will start with the separation of rear building from the front building. the main requirement is that 10 feet would allow certain percentage of openings. the primary driver was to allow us to have at least 25% openings. to address privacy issues. we have laid out the windows and openings so they don't align

from the front to the rear building. in the cases where we have projections the windows face outwards in the sides rather than directly back towards the main building. we would normally advice against having these kinds of buildings close together. >> the corridor. did you discuss this with the fire department. >> the open stair. outside and you pass to the two hour corridor to lead out the front door. that is the same corridor that

serves the stairs. from the standpoint of safety from an area of relative safety to one of higher safety the get to the exterior. in terms of address in the presence of the units on the street. it should be part of the main building. separation of space. coming to the building as resident or guest would come to this address and then would know to go through a certain passageway to get to the unit. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you. commissioner fung. >> question for staff. if there are a number of waivers. the one that i question on is

the rear yard concession. why is that a concession and not a waiver. you don't have a rear yard? >> the reason that it is a concession instead of waiver. waiver is for when you have to deviate from the standard to physically be able to build the density. in this case they got waiver from height. they could have put that as seventh story. concessions when it would provide cross savings or provide some additional value that will offset the cost of constructing the bonus units. since the rationale for waiving the rear yard to avoid going to a higher construction cost by going above six stories. it seemed more appropriate as concession.

it provided a financial offset rather than physical constraint. [please stand by]

>> it's and this has shown to be durable initial installations we've been putting in the airport was first used they've been recently doing testing seeing how it fared the last 40 years and it's showing the new material and recently installed taller are virtually indistinguishable. it's got about a 40, 50 year life span. for the perforated portions we're talking about using perforated metal and so that would just have the powder

coated perforated panel and no panel has been shown to be durable under the conditions. >> what's the experience in dirt collecting on these and how do you clean them? >> for powder coated aluminum panel it's easy to clean and resistant to dirt and moisture penetration and cleaning is the same cleaning you would use for standard facade maintenance. >> i'm not worried about the dirt penetrating the coating it's all the openings.

what's the maintenance routine? >> it's less likely to attract and retain dust compared to other surfaces, stucco, cement board, etcetera. this taller is used -- is anti microial and anti-graffiti we plan to use at ground floor. the maintenance is the same or less than a standard stucco building or other approved building. >> and the little holes that are everywhere doesn't mean there's more likely to be dirt around the edges of the whole? -- of the hole? >> i would say we'd have a regular maintenance schedule. similarly this would be up to the h.o.a.

one note is it's an ownership not for sale project. that's also interesting in terms of the b.m.r.s there's not a lot of opportunities with below market rate units. it's up to the h.o.a. to have regular maintenance. we have an engaged maintenance consultant and access on the roof for regular maintenance there. i think it would be at the direction of the h.o.a. >> how did you satisfy that the perforated aesthetic will look good year after year?

>> under design review we don't typically take into account the cleaning schedule of exterior materials. >> i don't usually ask that question it's that we don't usually see this much perforation. if it's not a concern for the architects on the commission i'll drop it but it seems to me it's a problem waiting to happen. >> do you have any other questions for the project sponsor? >> commissioner moore. >> there's a large two-story

building which uses that almost extensively perforated light-colored metal on the facade and it's been there about five years. i did not see any unusual streaking or dirt patterns, etcetera. you'll i know is you use a garden hose or pressure washer for the accumulation of dust or grime off those panels. that's a very practical observation because in the beginning i had concerns about this and i have not seen a change in the performance of the perforated metal facades in the city. >> i appreciate that. thank you.

>> clerk: through the chair, apology to interrupt but there's a late request for public comment. should we take the caller. >> yes, thank you. >> clerk: caller, you've been unmuted. well, we tried. >> i appreciate your diligence. one thing i'm stuck on are the buildings and i understand a see the benefit and the trade-off

and the efforts to have the buildings behind you and it seems like in the block over all there's no open space. there's a building running down the middle of the block. what's the height of those buildings because i'm trying to understand to better consolidate the four units and maybe three units in one building versus two that take up the ground floor open space. if you've looked at and that if it's conversations with the neighbos and if you can put more color of the buildings. >> it's been a chess game. once we realized we'd gone through the multiple con fill --

configurations and it wasn't building and reverted to two buildings in the rear. both for impact on the neighbors residents and to lessen the rear-facing units. the request was made to shift the mass to align more with the rear yard massing on the east side. we did that if you put them in four units and four stories and walk up four stories is not tenable and putting an elevator is not financially viable. you'd have a tour story building in the rear-facing units.

trying to keep them low. the lower units the ground floor units have exterior access and yards and one on the one side and the design as supported by staff. we have three in one now. one other comment which may not be that clear in our plans there's a green wall, a living wall on the west side of that central courtyard per commission moore's comment on the previous project of how do you lighten up a space that's dense.

just wanted to intoing -- flag that as well. >> i appreciate that. are there other commissioners who want to speak on the project? any motions? >> there's a motion seconded to approve the matter with conditions. on the motion, commissioner ruiz. commissioner diamond. commissioner fung. commissioner imperial. commissioner koppel. >> no. >> clerk: commissioner moore.

>> aye. >> clerk: president tanner. >> aye. >> clerk: so moved. the motion passes 6-1 with commissioner koppel voting against. that will place us on items 8, abc and d and case numbers 07590a-02 and -- >> commissioner: do you all want to have a little five-minute break? if so you have to say something because i can't see you clearly. we can take a break or go to the

next item? >> commissioner: a quick break. >> commissioner: we'll come back -- let's come back at 3:20. >> okay. thanks. >> clerk: okay. commissioners. welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular planning meeting for june 16, 2022. we left on items 8a through d for the property of 725-765 harrison street. >> the projects are large

authorization and conditional use authorization for demolition of six existing building with a lot to the construction of new affordable housing and new construction of a 14-story mixed use building. the project no longer requires a variance for permitted obstruction. a revised packet was provided and uploaded to the planning website. to provide you some background information first, in december, 2019 the planning commission approved large project authorization and development authorization. and administrators granted variance for four requirements. later after that, in february 2020 the project sponsor submitted a revised project into the development. specifically the over all square

feet increased by 46,000 square feet to 981,000 square feet. including additional 40,000 square feet of office use and 200 square feet of p.d.r. use. in order for the revised project there must be a large project authorization and the building mass of the revised project is in keeping with the original proposed building. the original project received four exceptions and the revised project is seeking modifications to two of them. including set backs and street walls and horizontal mass reduction. the modification minor and do not deviate from the original proposed design and planning code requirements. second, a phase two office development authorization. the revised project includes 810,000 square feet of office

use. the approved phase 1 including 505,000 feet of office space and the revised project draws for the program. a condition use authorization to demolish three units at 759 harrison street with a 972 square feet four-story building constructed in 1994. the building encompasses the lot with windows in harrison street and along the property line. floors three two four include adus and the cost is not

financially feasible. in terms of public comments, the department has received a letter of support from the three existing uvus expressing they have come to an agreement to vacate the building and in support of the proposed project. in materials of average, over the last five years the project sponsor has conducted extensive neighborhood outreach including meetings with individual stakeholders and separate work shops and community outreach. in summary, the department recommends approval of the revised project as the project is on balance consistent with the central soma area plan and policies of the general plan. identified as one of the key sites it has long-term benefits including street improvement,

construction for affordable housing and substantial development and opportunities for opportunities for community partnership. the central soma fund the vm investment will improve the neighborhood and compatible with the vision of the neighborhood. the phase 2 office allocation will allow flexibility to construct in one in two spaces and for tenants looking for large office space. the project will provide job opportunities during construction, upon completion the new office, and others will expand diverse opportunities for the city residents. this will help for existing commercial activities. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions you may have.

>> thank you, project sponsor. you have a five-minute presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we're the project sponsors of the fourth and harrison project key site project. its was approved to construct the first phase. we're excited to return to the commission to get the allocation to the entire project could get built. we didn't control the parcel at the time we received the initial approval in 2019 so we had to design around it but have since been able to purchase the building. despite being a commercial building there were three unpermitted dwelling units on the upper floors of 759 and the udus did not comply with building, housing or fire codes and not safe for habitation.

there was open enforcement cases for years without action from the prior owner. due to the 759's location relative to our site we felt we were in a unique position to resolve this situation to everyone's benefit. we were able to fund the residents to permanent housing and as a result the tenants are in full support. the illegal and unsafe situation can be abated. let's talk about our community benefits the project is offering. we're dedicating 15,000 square feet of land for the city to construct 144 units of affordable housing. we're in late stages of execute land dedication agreement with the city effectuated prior to the building permit. we entered into a community benefit agreement with local community groups that provide below market p.d.r. space and

collaboration in passeo and the public space and donation to the stabilization fund and create hundreds of union construction jobs and permanent operating jobs. it's more feasible to construct and it's important they receive the full allocation to continue to advance building permits and be prepared to start once the market recovers. boston properties has the financial capacity and expertise to deliver the highest quality work space that meets the post-covid-19 needs of the workforce. some features include an leed platinum certification and low-carbon building with net zero core shell operations. water reduction strategies and reuse and rooftop terraces and hvac systems that exceed

requirements and we have acquisition and design and entitlement cost and committed to office building on the site. to conclude, in order to compete with the other emerging and established metro areas around the country, we need to continue to develop high quality innovative workplaces to attractive employers and we align with the city's objective. i'd like to introduce our architect, paul wolfered. -- wolferd. >> here's the images aaron was referring to. you have the facades of the tower facing fourth street. multi-story popos along the block of fourth street.

pdr and retail along the facade of harrison. >> childcare and a new open pay paseo park and in the you can see the development and inclusion. that's the final image indicating the inclusion of it. thank you. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes. >> clerk: members of the public if you'd like to submit your comments to the commission, now would be the time it do so. if you're in the chambers come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. if you're calling remotely,

press star 3. >> good afternoon, i'm a representative with the carpenter's union local 22. i represent 40,000 carpenters in northern california and 4,000 live in san francisco we're in support of the boston property's development at fourth and harrison. boston property committed to the use of union contractor it will be constructed with 100% union labor. this project would create thousands of union labor jobs and give individuals the opportunity to earn a good livable wage, work where they live and provide health care and requirement benefits for our members. the project will offer training through the apprentice sp. it includes women, minorities

and veterans and continuing training and mastering of the craft of our persons who are already journey persons. in closing we ask the commission to vote in favor of this development, aye. we know you'll make the right commission and look forward to -- make the right decision. we look forward to working on bigger projects with the commission in the future. >> good afternoon, my name is benjamin solare. i'm a carpenter and resident of the sunset district. i'm one of the carpenters represented and i would have the opportunity at this job site to help build our city. this site >> for the community both there and across the city as it would give me, my brothers and sisters in the union a chance to learn our trade here in the city and put money and work in the city.

we have a good relationship with this developer. this would be a good project. this would be great addition to our city. i encourage you and ask you to approve this. thank you. >> clerk: if there's no other members in the chamber wishing to submit public comment, we'll go to remote public callers. >> i've worked in the area for the last 20 years. boston properties have been one of the developers in our community, district 6 and always available when we need them and remain committed to the project.

we have to 250 kids and they're always working with our events and ensure affordable housing units will be available for our future community. we urge the committee to approve this process. thank you. >> hello, planning commission. i'm here seeking support of the project boston properties has been exceptional as a partner in

the community and great community partners to make sure what everyone needs and they're always collaborative and so we know the residents left amicably and they made it right and echoing and supporting this project and supporting boston properties to finally get this project done so the community can benefit. thank you. >> clerk: last call for public

comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> thank you. i want to thank the staff and all those who came and called in to participate in the hearing. i'll go to the project sponsor. i don't want to talk steal commissioner moore's thunder about the office property and talk about what you see as the time line for the project in terms of getting shovels in the ground and seeing the project realized. do you hope when it's complete the office market has returned to a more robust leaving environment? help is see what you're seeing in the future. >> sure. we're all equally concerned

about the health of the downtown and the office driven by the pandemic. office is not dead. office does well that's highly amenitized and there's opportunities for those types of seat -- assets to be reimagined. those are my comments around the office market. in terms of timing of the project, if we get approval today, we'll immediately refile our site permits and the rate we understand from a timing perspective is 9 to 12 months for a site permit. we'll push it through as quick as possible and given the best scenario we're a year to year to 14 months out and we'll vance the permits with the expectation the market is ready to accept the new project starting next

summer. san francisco has gone through many very large recessions and every time when we're in the middle of it, everybody says san francisco's dead. it's not coming back. it's rebounded stronger in 2001 and rebounded in 2009 and 2012 and san francisco is where mroir -- employers want to be and employees want to be and want to meet the needs of the modern workforce. thank you. >> commissioner: we heard great comments from folks that worked with you and thank them for calling in and for your collaboration together. >> for those who weren't around 2019 that's december 12, 2019.

this is a project in central sow ma and have full support for what's in front of us. the parcel now purchased by the developer is a consistently designed project. this parcel is holding up the land dedication for the affordable housing which is on the eastern portion of the site. i'm in full support and hope the project can be realized as quickly as possible because the

affordable housing project is a significant building block in central soma which we desperately need. i'm in full support of what's in front of us today. >> commissioner: i'll call on commissioner koppel and commissioner diamond asked to speak after you. >> this was on the docket when i was commissioner and in full support at the time. when i looked at the staff report it gave me pause because i felt we should ask ourselves the question in light of the pandemic and use of office space downtown, how do we think about

this project now. it's asking for an additional office allocation. as i gave it more thought, we need to allow developers following all the rules to proceed with their projects and we shouldn't make them subject to changes and rules part way through their project and a tremendous amount of work was done by the planning department and commission long before i was on the commission and creating a vibrant mixed use economy and the project and the fruition of this project is very much part of that vision. i am in support and will be voting to approve it today, all three motions. i do want to say it under scores the need i raised at the

beginning of this hearing to step back and look at a downtown, we know the conversion cost of the orderly buildings is extremely high. i believe quite strongly we should be convening with architects and developers to look at our building stock downtown and planning codes and building codes and fee structures to see if we can make changes to take on conversions that could potentially happen downtown. that's a separate issue and should not stand in support. i would move to approve all three motion. >> second. >> commissioner: thank you. commissioner koppel. >> finally a project i can stand

behind. this is an interesting topic. i always paid attention to the corridor and the commerce it brings to the city and with conversations with the developers i still have a lot of hope things will not always completely normalize but come close to it with the amount of times we are all looking at these things and the amount of companies still going public with social media and streaming i don't see as much of a slow down as some might. i may be optimistic but that's where i'm at with this. i have to give props to the

developers and seeing electricians of mine that are retiring that were in the ground building the four embarcadero centers in the '70s and '80s and i get goose bumps thinking about the pride like me have and my brothers and sisters in the trade and the kids that grew up in the city and went to school in the city and were lucky enough to get in apprenticeship program in the city. they got to ride the bus and train and worked in the city working for contractors in this city. developers like boston property, they support all the trades, every single one of them. i know i've been making a concerted effort as much as i can to get more brown people, more women, more residents from disadvantaged neighborhoods into our city so they don't get to

just work on one job but a lot of jobs for 30 years and cash out with a pension and annuity and retirement. maybe be lucky enough to stay in the city i grew up in. boston properties, hats off to you. it's well deserved and i'm in support today. >> thank you, commissioner koppell, well said. if there's anybody else in the chamber that wants to speak come up. >> clerk: there's a motion that's been seconded. shall i call the question? >> commissioner: yes. >> clerk: there's a motion seconded to approve these authorizations with conditions. on the motion, commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner fung.

>> aye. >> clerk: commissioner koppell. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> clerk: commissioner president tanner. >> aye. >> clerk: it passes unanimously and the zoning administrator determined the variants there is no need for variance. we can move on to the final item under your discretionary review calendar item 2021-00 914dmr a staff discretionary review. >> planning department staff again. the item before you is a staff initiated discretionary review of a billing permit application to allow use integrated in the working space of artist, artisans and other craft persons. per planning code section

24.204b in the existing building. first to provide background information about the project. in 2016 the planning commission approved large project authorization and conditional use authorization to demolish six building and construct six-story building with ground floor retail and p.d.r. use. the construction is complete. the subjects to the current proposal represents about 8,000 square feet of p.d.r. spaces with the full bathrooms and kitchen and three units areally leased without tenants on site and the other units are vacant. in terms of public outreach one

meeting was held march will 1, 2022 with the community and the proposal received a favorable response during the meeting and the main concern was the need for the enforcement measures to be in place for both building management and planning department to assure only p.d.r. tenant are eligible for accessory dwelling use. today the department received one letter of support for each mission improvement association. in reviewing the application, the staff recommends conditions of approval as outlined in the packet to provide clarification on the proposed residential use as an accessory use and enforcement mechanisms included but not limiting to each p.d.r. unit to hold and maintain a valid and active san francisco business license registered to the project location.

the owner of each unit must submit a report to the zoning administrator once every two years demonstrating compliance. the department recommends the application with restriction. the use complies with the zoning code and general plan and mission area plan. and will support p.d.r. businesses with the option to work or lease the spaces. given the surrounding neighborhood is mixed in character with residential, commercial and industrial use the proposal is compatible and has minimal impact and that concludes the staff presentation and i'm available for questions. >> clerk: project sponsor you have five minutes. >> i'm on behalf of the project

sponsor. the purpose of the d.r. hearing for the commission to impose conditions of approval to ensure the p.d.r. space complies with the planning code for use. the p.d.r. spaces were built to be primarily work spaces for a variety of p.d.r. businesses including activities. each space has a direct access to the double-width door and each has access to an off street and kitchen and bath behind and a small mezzanine above the kitchen and bath. planning section allows to use the space as a residence but no requirement they do so. to assure all nine are primarily used for p.d.r. activity an

addendum to the building lease has been repaired requiring all p.d.r. tenants to have a business license and spelled out in the section 204.4 and allows artists, artisans and craftpersons to also live in the space and notifies tenants of the p.d.r. space to not comply face eviction and some will be lead by p.b.r. tenants who do not intent to live in the space and there's a section as the occupied p.d.r. spaces demonstrate. the proposed conditions of approvaling a draft motion including reporting and enforcement mechanisms for the planning department to ensure only artists and artisans and craft persons reside in the space and used primarily as

p.d.r. work space. in the outreach the only concern are that mechanisms are in place to ensure they're not used only as resident but true work spaces. we believe our lease addendum and the conditions of approval and draft motion satisfy that concern. thank you and i'm available for questions you may have. >> clerk: very good. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the matter. i don't see anyone in the chamber. if you're calling in remotely and would like to submit comment you need to press star 3. seeing no request to speak, public comment is now closed and the matter is now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner: thank you very much. i have one question.

i read and understand the artisan or craft person that owns the business or employee. will family members be covered if it was a small business owner that -- perhaps you can explore that for me. >> in theory, it's for four people. if one person obtains a business license and p.d.r. use the family will be able to live in the unit up to four people. >> commissioner: and this may be outside the realm but with things like vacancy and if someone did decide to lease the

space to live there that won't be categorized as a housing unit. it's an accessory use to the pdr? >> correct. >> i think the principle use is still p.d.r. use and the residential use is considered sack -- accessory use. >> thank you. i see commissioner fung has a question or comment. >> question for the department. does the department think we're going get a lot of these in the p.d.r. uses? >> no, in my time being on the team, this is the first time we've seen this so one of the few times we've seen this type of accessory use.

>> commissioner: i have a question. >> in terms of the conditions of approval for the accessory dwelling units with the tenant report does it apply to the accessory dwelling unit because i understand it's only for the p.d.r. will that be included in the tenant report? the tenant for the accessory residential dwelling units? >> so -- so the conditions of approval will be included for all nine p.d.r. units and the tenants can use it only as a p.d.r. use or electively they can live in as a residential accessory use.

>> commissioner: okay. i'm in total support of this. i can make a motion. i'll put a motion up there. [please stand by].

>> that were not able to documentation etc. and we felt that it was necessary to actually, you know, observe first-hand, then we could request that inspection and site visit. >> would it be the current planner that's staffed on this project or would it be yourself? >> it wouldn't have to be. but we could assign that to any planner to undertake that. >> okay. just wanting to make sure that the residential is being used for who's intended for. thank you. >> i think we're ready to vote. >> i did not hear a second.

>> i seconded it. >> secretary: thank you, commissioner moore. to improve this project. commissioner imperial. and commission president tanner this concludes your hearing today. i would like to add, go warriors. >> have a good one. >> bye.

[♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> so i grew up in cambridge,

massachusetts and i was very fortunate to meet my future wife, now my wife while we were both attending graduate school at m.i.t., studying urban planning. so this is her hometown. so, we fell in love and moved to her city. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> i was introduced to this part of town while working on a campaign for gavin, who is running for mayor. i was one of the organizers out here and i met the people and i fell in love with them in the neighborhood. so it also was a place in the city that at the time that i could afford to buy a home and i wanted to own my own home. this is where we laid down our roots like many people in this neighborhood and we started our family and this is where we are going to be. i mean we are the part of san francisco.

it's the two neighborhoods with the most children under the age of 18. everybody likes to talk about how san francisco is not family-friendly, there are not a lot of children and families. we have predominately single family homes. as i said, people move here to buy their first home, maybe with multiple family members or multiple families in the same home and they laid down their roots. [♪♪♪] >> it's different because again, we have little small storefronts. we don't have light industrial space or space where you can build high-rises or large office buildings. so the tech boom will never hit our neighborhood in that way when it comes to jobs. >> turkey, cheddar, avocado,

lettuce and mayo, and little bit of mustard. that's my usual. >> mike is the owner, born and bred in the neighborhood. he worked in the drugstore forever. he saved his money and opened up his own spot. we're always going to support home grown businesses and he spent generations living in this part of town, focusing on the family, and the vibe is great and people feel at home. it's like a little community gathering spot. >> this is the part of the city with a small town feel. a lot of mom and pop businesses, a lot of family run businesses. there is a conversation on whether starbucks would come in. i think there are some people that would embrace that.

i think there are others that would prefer that not to be. i think we moved beyond that conversation. i think where we are now, we really want to enhance and embrace and encourage the businesses and small businesses that we have here. in fact, it's more of a mom and pop style business. i think at the end of the day, what we're really trying to do is encourage and embrace the diversity and enhance that diversity of businesses we already have. we're the only supervisor in the city that has a permanent district office. a lot of folks use cafes or use offices or different places, but i want out and was able to raise money and open up a spot that we could pay for. i'm very fortunate to have that. >> hi, good to see you. just wanted to say hi, hi to the owner, see how he's doing.

everything okay? >> yeah. >> good. >> we spend the entire day in the district so we can talk to constituents and talk to small businesses. we put money in the budget so you guys could be out here. this is like a commercial corridor, so they focus on cleaning the streets and it made a significant impact as you can see. what an improvement it has made to have you guys out here. >> for sure. >> we have a significantly diverse neighborhood and population. so i think that's the richness of the mission and it always has been. it's what made me fall in love with this neighborhood and why i love it so much..

>> hello everyone, i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i am so excited to be here today announced the budget for the city and county ofsan francisco . [applause] i see all the department heads clapping. they're really excited about thesenew budget numbers . when i think about the challenges that have existed in the city i can't help think about all the things that we have tried to do for the past couple of years especially during this pandemic. and when people have made a number of requests for additional services or additional support or additional assistance, it's not just about the dollars