tv Planning Commission SFGTV July 5, 2021 4:00pm-8:01pm PDT
>> this is thursday june 24, 2021. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comments for each item. comment goes to speak during public comment are available by calling 415-655-0001 access code is 46216 had 553 -- when we reach the item you are interested in commenting on press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted that is your indication to speak. each speaker is allowed three minutes. when you have 30 seconds
remaining you will hear a chime. i will among your time is up and take the next person to speak. call from quiet location and speak clearly and slowly. please mute volume on your television or computer. i will take roll. commission president koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you. we expect commissioner chan to be absent today. first is consideration of items for continuance. 1. 100-0726 c.u.a. for 559 clay street. item 2.
4250 26th street proposed to continue to july 15, 2021. item 3. and item 4 through ae through case 2019-017481shd. again 2019-017481shd. 17481dnx. for 530 sansome street adoption of shadow findings, downtown project, conditional use, office developmental location and variance. at the time of issuance to july.
after coordination with parks and staff we propose those matters to be continued to july 29, 2021. we will hold a joint hearing and also fold into that hearing the appeal of the negative declaration which we need to continue at your next hearing on july 8th. continuing further item 5. 478 conditional use authorization to september 2, 2021. further commissioners commission matters 8. 2021-004810c r.v. for commission rules and regulations we had good meetings with representatives of community organizations and we simply request further continuance
again to continue those conversations to tighten up rules and regulations before we bring to you. we are requesting a continuance to july 15, 2021. further, under regular calendar item 13 and 14a through c for the property at 469 stevenson for the case 2017-014833e and v. dnx and c.u.a. for the certification of the environmental impact report adoption of ceqa findings, conditional use authorization we received a request from the project sponsor to have these matters continued to july 22, 2021. i have no other items for
continuance. therefore we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to matters proposed to be continued press star 3 to be added to theque. make sure you have two minutes. when your line is unmuted begin speaking. >> good afternoon, mr. president, members of the commission. thank you. i am asking you also include 11 in this list. this thing has been punted forecloser look at the impact to the pacific bay inn hotel. that has not happened. the document is inadequate. that is home to 75 seriously ill residents. it is to provide homes to the most vulnerable citizens. it is a 110-year-old building
with unreinforced masonry on zero lot line. no analysis of the impact that is meaningful. we have been forced to do the city's work and higher three engineering firms preliminary conclusions are in a letter i sept to you yesterday. this matter must be continued because the work has not been done. not been adequate public disclosure. this is a health and safety issue. these tenants could be harmed through this impact of the extensive excavation or they could be dislocated from homes. these considerations are serious. our engineers concluded there are serious ramifications substantial risk of the project going forward without adequate review. thank you.
>> this is sue hester the rules are very important to the commission. the commission should know the issues raised by the public. i ask the staff report be available for the next meeting and should include all communications from the public on the proposed rule changes. i ask the attachments be included. it is very hard to read things in the communications supplement and planning commission right now. you are lumping mayor's press releases. i support the continuation and i ask that it be communicated and provided to the public and to the commissioners.
thank you very much. >> hello. i am mary and cahill. resident of san francisco. i am calling in support of the o'farrell street project with pictures of christ scientists. i feel it would benefit the community. >> i am sorry, ma'am. i should have paused the initial caller about the continuance for o'farrell street that is not considered at this time. only matters read into the record proposed for continuance are being considered at this time. you will need to call back or press star 3 when we reach that item under the regular calendar. >> this is catherine howard to support the continuance of item 8 commission rules and
regulations. i hope you look at the san francisco coalition on this and address those concerns during the meetings. i support sue hester's comments what is needed for more public input and letting us know what is going on. thank you very much. >> i am working on opening a c1 at 4128 18th street. i submitted the application for the permit. it would take 10 to 12 weeks to be assigned to a planner. >> ma'am, i will mute you. we are only taking up matters proposed to be continued that i have read into the record. your comments will be accepted under general public comment. that is later on the agenda. we will come up to that shortly.
>> this is an opportunity to make comments about the rules and regulations regarding discretionary review? >> only to the extent that rules and regulations are proposed to be continued. only on the matter of continuance. >> i apologize. i will wait my turn until later on. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am glad to hear that a continuance from the project sponsor for 469 stevenson is put
forward. i support that. i was calling to request that you reject the final draft e.i.r. that is proposed in front of you today. i am glad to hear there is a continuance put forth. this project is in the filipino cultural heritage district half a block away from transgender cultural district. a couple blocks away from the soma family special use district. it is very concerning to us that the draft e.i.r. brushes off the impacts it will have in the existing community and definitely needs further time to address these so that is all for my comment. thank you. >> this is michael nolte to
support the comments about the project an stevenson street. thank you. >> commissioners, there are no additional requests to speak from members of the public. public comment is closed. there is one more. >> executive director black to support the comments. >> i want to make a comment if it is possible. >> you have been unmuted. you need to mute your division or computer so there is no background noise. on the matter of continuance we are accepting public comment for
469 stevenson. >> thank you. i at brit young. my office is located in the plaza in the historic building. i spend a lot of time next to where 469 is going to be located. it is a positive influence for the plaza. i can also make a big change by providing affordable housing for families. >> we are only taking comment on the matter of continuance. if you have anything related to that not the substance of the project we accept that now. >> continuance will be okay then. thank you. >> fantastic. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am wanting to speak -- i am from local 2.
research analyst. i am calling to weigh in briefly on matter of 469 stevenson and continuance. i have heard concern from community partners, allies of ours and al lies in labor. it is important to allow time for concerns to be heard. we ask you to keep the public posted on new proposed dates. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, public comment is closed. matters proposed to be continued are now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> continue items as proposed. >> second. >> that is sam some to the 29th
and stevenson to the 22nd. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung was having some technical difficulties. if you could bear with me. let's see if he was able to call in. i don't see his phone number here. we will skip commissioner fung. we hope he comes back. his internet went out on him at home. commissioner imperial. >> aye.
>> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously 5-0. >> i will continue the item, the variance for sansome street to july 29th. >> that places us 6. draft minutes for the june 10th closed and regular hearings. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star 3. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia. referred to working with d.b.i. ms. wong and ms. burger wrote an extremely good presentation which was accepts to me. it should be on the department
website. i did forward to the commissioners about an hour and a half ago. back in january 2020 former director ram in rely playing to direct question from president koppel. >> we are talking about the minutes. >> this is in the minutes. it is june 10th they talked about it in the minutes. do you want me to read you the minutes or do you trust me. >> i trust you. >> it is in the director's report june 10th. anyway, back to what i was saying, in january 2020 former director ram in replying to direct question from president koppel said ms. wattty was working on it. this presentation to d.b.i. updates june 2020 corrections to clarifications how to do the math for the demolition calculations. it is more expansive than the
2015-2016 trainings manuals put together for staff after determined in late 2015 that possibly based on a sample 40 to 50% of alteration projects should have been reviewed as demolitions as stated in the approved minutes from january 7th of 2016 by former commissioner richards. it is a good document. it i sept it to you. it is good to have to preserve housing. thank you for letting me talk. take care. good-bye. >> thank you. i didn't hear any suggested corrections or amendments to the minutes. public comment for the minutes is closed. they are now before you,
commissioners. commissioner diamond. >> move to approve both sets of minutes. >> second. >> did you have something else, commissioner tanner? okay. on that motion then to adopt minutes from june 10. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. item 7. commission comments and questions. seeing no requests to comment from commissioners we can move on. item 8 rules and regulations are
continued to july 15th. department matters item 9 director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i know i have mentioned this previously but i wanted to recognize and thank the many planning staff who served over the last 15 months as disaster service workers. you may know that the covid-19 command center is starting to transition and phase out. we have 8 staff still out on dsw. expecting most to return in the next week or so. in total extra ordinarily we had 53 staff members who served over the last 15 months disaster service workers in various capacities to getting schools re-opened to save sleeping sites, vaccination education outreach in vulnerable
communities. tremendously important roles. many described the work as challenging but some of the most rewarding they have done over the course of their careers. i hope it helps to get san francisco back on track and a leader in the pandemic response. i want to just thank our staff who have served. it was a huge number of them. i want to report we had the third meeting of the equity advisory council last week. i wasn't able to attend because i was out. we will continue to post summaries on the website. this one will be up today if it didn't already. discussion focused on developing priorities for the council's work with housing recovery, equity plan, budget and priorities and our communications and outreach strategies as the primary topics
for the council to consider. there was a good discussion. director shaw joined from ocd about the housing element. next meeting in july about the equity plan. we will continue to post summaries of the meetings on the website. i want to mention two state bills that could affect san francisco in our work that are moving through the legislative process sb9 and 10. it is unclear what will happen as the billings move through the process. this is starting to get to final legislation as we move through the summer. sb would make approval of two projects in single family distincts under certain conditions. those being no alteration of affordable unit. 25% of an existing structure and
if they are not located in a historic district. sb9 allows for subdivision of existing lots in rh-1 under certain conditions as well. sb10 would allow cities to up zone any parcel to allow for up to 10 units without environmental review. the bill wouldn't rezone any parcel. cities would require legislative action to make changes. in cases where they are allowing up to 10 units they won't have to undertake environmental review for legislation. i wanted to give you quick summaries. that is my report unless there are questions. >> commissioner moore, do have anything? >> thank you, director hillis for thanking the disaster
service workers. special thanks. it is difficult to balance a career and have a job that is challenges. vaccinated at the moscone was easier because of the supportive staff. thanks to everybody. i have a question regarding the city request for all city employees to be vaccinated. i assume that commissioners will be returning to city hall falling under the same requirement. you can verify that for all of us. it is a great move for the city. i believe we all need to be vaccinated. hope we will be able to see each other in person in city hall in the near future. sb9 and 10. i have been reading including
the strong comments against sb9. very interested to hear you update us. there was strong comments. people discussing the topic that applies particularly to san francisco. we have a differently response to all of those legislative pieces regarding housing. thank you for bringing it up. i look forward to you keeping us up-to-date when it goes forward. >> i imagine things change as they move through. that is my understanding that it would fall under the rule that employees fall under. we got that guidance yesterday and we will confirm and let you know. >> you are talking about vaccination right now. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. director, regarding sb9 and 10.
could you send the commissioners an over view of the state legislations. that would be beneficial for me to understand it better. >> if there are no further questions from members of the commission, i do see a member of the public raising their hand. two minutes. >> this is david. can you hear me. >> yes, we can hear you. >> am i allowed to comment on 450 o'farrell street or is that already cleared? >> that matter has not been called yet. you will need to press star 3 when we reach that item. that is coming up very shortly. >> commissioners we are on item 10. i have no reports from the board of supervisors or the board of appeals and historic
preservation did not meet yesterday. that places us under general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on matters except agenda items. the opportunity to address the opportunity will be afforded when it is reached in the meeting. you may address for two minutes. if it exceed 15s it may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to speak on items not on the agenda. you have two minutes. when your line is unmuted begin speaking. [please stand by]
couple of comments. one, you were talking about possibly removing public comment from the beginning of the agenda to the end of the agenda. this goes against your racial and social equity goals, so please do not do that. the first 15 minutes of public comment should be where it is now. the rest later. if commissioners find it is fatiguing to listen to the public, they may reconsider their membership on the commission since it is to serve the public. we need adequate time to review items and you're talking about reducing the amount of time that the public has to see documents. the amount of time the public should be able to see documents before they come to the planning
commission agenda should be at least 10 days. it should not be reduced to less than five effective days. we have to be able to go into the office in some cases. remember, not everybody has a computer. thank you very much. >> i want to continue speaking to the subject of the importance of doing adequate environmental review for projects and particularly wind impacts i was speaking of and i was speaking particularly of the 1525 pine location which was illegally built next door, the high rise. sometimes maybe people look at things like wind impacts and traffic impacts on a list and go check, check, check, but on knob
hill it really is. the difference in climate where i lived and jones was unbelievable. they were two different climates. it was notorious, the wind impact. and then there are other areas, all right, i discovered i wouldn't have expected necessarily to run into something like i did down in front of the area where it is proposed to be built higher and where people made an environmental appeal. when i attempted to pass into the area of austin, i walked into a wall of wind and it held me solid steady there. the only other place i experienced that was where i
described down by the suter stockton hotel with the breezeway. as i turned away -- it was really astonishing. i don't know how those people get in the front door now on a windy day. it was just some wind and so on. i ran into the problem that i often run into on days like that where you can be knocked off your feet. i had to creep back around the corner. >> thank you. that is your time. >> yes, this is david elliot lulu louis.
the wind impact does need more attention and i want to talk about the background noise market rate group housing, coming up with a policy but this was designed pre-covid when it was safe to gather. it's not community-serving. i would like to advocate for your group to have a policy for market rate projects. some you have approved and others are coming up for approval and it is really troublesome with insufficient kitchen space and tiny rooms and unhealthy living conditions from
a covid disease spreading situation. i would love to see a policy on that. thank you. >> i would like to bring up a few points regarding the changes the department is proposing that thankfully got postponed and will hopefully be more reflective of what the community wants. for one, we have not received any true basis for the recommendations. my only reference as to why the department is asking for the changes is on the executive summary under basis for recommendations that says these
changes addresses requirements of the racial and social equity plan phase 1 action item 7.11. nothing could be further than what these changes stand for. this is -- you are trying to reduce the amount of time that the applicant can have to present the issues to you from seven minutes to three minutes and god knows who can actually present the issues of a building and complexity of the design in three minutes and impact on them, particularly if that person does not speak english as their native tongue. thankfully we have two commissioners on the commission for whom the language of english is not their native tongue and they are of course very fluent
but they could actually probably sympathize with the plight of someone for whom english is not their native tongue. this is going to be hard for people who are actually filing. if the intent is to do away with dr, we appreciate if you spell it out. this is not helpful. i appreciate it if you listen to us, listen to the public and do not cut our time. plus you don't see many dr's on the calendar any way. why are you trying to cut it from seven minutes total to three minutes. you spend more time on other issues not as significant. we're talking about saving five minutes or maybe 10 minutes all
>> hi, this is michael, executive director of better district 6. i wanted to address the executive summaries. a lot of times the information put in the public comment section about the project does not include -- well, does not include adequate information about the comments being made by the public. and i believe the executive summaries used to include the letters of support and letters of concern added to the packet or they should do that because then the public can be made more aware of what is being said by members of the community about the project instead of seeing a summary and sometimes the summary is not adequately representing the thoughts or points being made by the community that is just being
summarized whoever wrote the executive summary wants the point out. thank you very much. >> last call for general public comment. need to press star and then 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional -- there's one. another one. go ahead caller. you have two minutes. >> thank you so much. good afternoon commissioners. my apologize i was in the queue but didn't get to speak. i wanted to appreciate the continuance of stevenson. we object to the proposed eir, and the conditional use
authorization. our main concern is the project is not appropriate for the area. you have 495 units of market rate housing and this will impact an economic area and there's no way you can have a project of this scale in the heart of neighborhoods that can be mitigated. solution could be to deed the property to the cities for affordable housing in exchange for the projects across the city and for credit across the city of the projects. thank you so much for your time. thank you. >> hello commissioners. thank you for taking comment this afternoon. i'm calling to echo previous caller's comments about the review process and the fact that it is being considered to reduce
the amount of time given. we i guess i wanted to provide some antidotal evidence. we have a large developer taking advantage of some building opportunities and i guess from a systemic standpoint, i think building in the city is something that we need, i have been very close to a lot of the homelessness issues and so i know we need more housing, however i also see that large developers are taking advantage of loopholes and policies that currently exist. and that is infringing on the rights of citizens and changing the landscape of communities in a way that should at least be heard from and a balance should be struck. if there's not ample opportunity for residents to present their
case and have their case heard, it feels like the developer is more easily kind of steamroll residents. i would like for you to consider the possibility of extending or keeping the time so that in our particular instance where there's a developer trying to push through units, there's an opportunity to potentially negotiate some sort of balance and present our case in a way that the commissioners can help to facilitate that. thank you for your consideration. >> hi i wanted to excellent on sb 9 and 10. i'm not commenting on the merit but i wanted to call your attention to potential pit falls should they be passed. right now we have in the building code multiple
definitions of demolition, basically it's wide open, anything can be demolished and not considered demolition. planning code you have section 317 and now you're going to have sb-9 with the new threshold of 20%. a couple of same thoughts on this. i think we really need to have planning sit down with dbi and sit down and look at what is going to happen with sb-9 and make sure the codes are harmonized so when someone elects to use sb-9, there's no wiggle room and people understand what a 20% demolition looks like and had it is written in the code so we don't have after the fact conditional uses and things like that come before the planning commission because someone demolished more than
20%. the other thing i would suggest, impact analysis is done on sb-9 as we did -- the planning staff did a great job on sb-50. what would the impact be on san francisco. what is the built environment and what will it look like? pick a typical lot and apply sb-9 to it and show us that. and i would hope you would include what you think to be the increase of the housing. and i would again work with how to implement all of this with dbi. one last thing, sb-10 you characterized it great but you missed that sb-10 can override the will of the voters. also if the voters choose to -- >> thank you mr. richards.
>> thank you. >> final last call from general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, i would only like to address the comments related to the rules and regulations. no one is suggesting or recommending that the rules be amended so general public comment be placed at the end of the agenda. that is not being proposed and it is also not being proposed to reduce delivery of packets to general public. we can now move on to o'farrell
and jones street. this is to request amends of the approval. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, thank you. >> just for clarity, this matter has been already heard. the sponsor will be provided five minutes and members of the public, one minute. >> good afternoon commissioners, carly glob. the request for the modification. the project is located at the corner of o'farrell and shannon streets and includes five feet of frontage on jones street. it is comprised of three lots.
on september 13th, 2018, the planning commission approved the demolition of three buildings and construction of a 13 story project. it included 176 dwelling units, institutional space where the church could be relocated and ground floor parking. during the presentation, i will refer to this as the original project that required use for these reasons. demolition of five residential units. three, height exceeding 50 feet in a residential zone. for bulk exceeding and for the
establishment of a new religious institutional use. the project modification before you would replace the 176 approved dwelling units with a maximum of 632 beds. this project would remove the residential off street parking. it would no longer require pud exposures. this version of the project was presented on april 15th as version 3. at that hearing commissioner comments talked about proposed group housing including increasing bicycle parking and storage for tenants. maximizing common cooking facilities and improving the distribution of amenities throughout the building and the commission commented on zoning regulations. since the packets were published
last week, the department has received another letter of support. letters in support state it would add much needed housing to the stock including affordable housing and close to transit and other services. and the department has received two letters of opposition. i am available for questions. thank you. >> we should hear from the
>> good afternoon. our new church facility will allow us to fulfill our religious missions and better serve the community. we have been working to achieve this goal for over 35 years, in addition, our project will build much needed new housing which working households can afford on our use of land. along our supporters, the interfaith council. our presentation focuses on answers to planning commission and public comment from our april hearing. i will turn over the presentation to founder and ceo.
>> thank you. thank you carly for introduction to the project. we spent the period actively pursuing the comments made by the commission and community. next slide please. you'll find in the new design we have expanded the kitchen and aminity spaces throughout the building. initial plan changes were proposed by our architect. we have continued our public outreach and can provide you with detail on the extensive program that was undertaken by our team. we also have increased larger unit count, increased balcony
count. in particular we want to recognize these projects address indoor health concerns directly. the nature of the systems created in the building makes sure indoor air quality is the highest available in an apartment structure in san francisco that we are dealing with sustainability issues, energy issues and water treatment issues on site. also we increased the outdoor space and residential gardens. next slide please. so water conservation is a key consideration. this project will take advantage of technologies already approved by the san francisco puc. we are dealing with filtered air
quality into every unit. it will give 50% more ventilation than expected to ensure the quality inside the building is always maintained. our inner conservation model is a unique program for san francisco and the common green space can provide a lot of outdoor activities and opportunity for growing and interaction. all in all, quite a remarkable collection of amenities and opportunity. importantly, a project is not just about the building, it's about the community that will be created by the building. available today is our partner in delivering this community program and they're extensively represented throughout california and have the capability of broad services.
next slide please. teresa will be available for questions. we're dealing with issues of health and wellness, engagement and economic stability, skill development and particularly education about how to deal with financial issues in these difficult time toss all of the residents of this building. next slide please. our units are multi spaces. in the larger units there are two bathrooms and it provides an exceptional cooking experience.
jones street adjacent to the development. we ask that the matter be continued and we have requested prior. we ask for a more meaningful analysis of the impacts of the building. i reference my letter june 23rd that i sent yesterday and summary reports of three engineering firms that have looked into the impacts of this building housing 75 members of the homeless population. the impacts to these occupants can be severe or dire. they have been largely ignored despite the repeated continuances. my client has had to do the work on behalf of the city. you must look at the findings and allow a more meaningful review of the impacts.
i urge you to continue this project to allow proper review. >> i am a member of fifth church and i have been since 1991. i know our neighborhood very well. i understand the people around the neighborhood very well. that's kind of why i want to stay here as a member of a congregation whose presence can be healing and helpful. if you had a moment to look at the beautiful slides imagining real live people in these spaces. a biracial couple with their 8-year-old child who requires a wheelchair. imagine real life people who didn't have a place to call home
until this project. and for me, imagine living in the same town you work as a teacher, nail technician, firefighter and has all the comforts and amenities of home and community and a thriving part of our city. thank you. >> i wanted to urge you to look at this project in the context of the project that come before and probably after them. group housing is something that in san francisco, we really haven't had a handle on for many, many years and that didn't matter when group housing wasn't a prevalent use in many of our
low income neighborhoods. as we see it in chinatown and tenderloin, these are moments in which we require more engagement with the community and i urge you to give that space to the community to engage with the developer and ultimately create a project that can be supported by our neighborhood allies in the tenderloin. thank you very much. >> hello. i'm with the central city sro collaborative. i'm here to say that the tenderloin a very dense
neighborhood and it does not need group housing, that is a project to set up for 600 people. we don't need that here. i have been living in the tenderloin for 15 years. so the developer does not seem to want to engage, we are just an after thought, the community and has made no effort to reach out to us after our april meeting. thank you.
wanted to say two things. number one, i hope you all received the additional petition signers we shared in support of the project and then number two, the message unfortunately that we are sending to the faith community in san francisco is not positive. there are opportunities for affordable housing on congregation land around the city and the process that this project has gone through is going to deter future opportunities for affordable housing and we're disappointed about that. please move this project forward today. thank you. >> hi, i oppose this project
because the developers have made no effort to try to work with the community to have a number of units be below market value. so in no way does this -- having these units help with the homelessness in our communities. >> thank you commissioners. i'm a long time tenderloin resident and calling today in opposition of the project. it's not ready for approval. i have to say that we still haven't really seen them do meaningful community engagement. it has been an after thought. this project is not what the neighborhood needs or wants. none of the support you are hearing today is from tenderloin
community members. it's from outside. we don't need more group housing in the tenderloin unless it is a substantial resources. it is more to contain the own policy, building density into the tenderloin. it needs to extend to other communities and we need larger unit size. this is inequitable project and not designed for the people who live in the community. send them back and make them go back and let's go back to the drawing board and have the community come up with a better plan. thank you. >> good afternoon. member of san francisco tenants union and the race in equity in all planning. i ask you commissioners to ask yourselves, are you listening to the community? are you listening to the needs of the community? and housing developers who work
with this type of housing? they're telling you they need family sized units, they need affordable units. please continue this project so the developer can engage with the community. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i just wanted to emphasize that in april when the commissioners basically advised to go back to the community engagement, it was loud and clear last time that we need larger units. the first time we heard about this from the developers in the community meeting, it happened two days ago, that's when most of us heard it.
so we oppose this project and hope you do, too. thanks. >> i work at tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. we continue to oppose the project at 450 o'farrell street. tenderloin residents are worry ed about the group housing projects being proposed in the neighborhood. in the case of this project, three community kitchens would be shared among maybe around 600 residents. we feel the residents of the tenderloin feel that group housing projects don't meet the needs of the community, especially the needs of working families and only replicate the status quo of overcrowding. the community is working now
with the planning department on a tenderloin community action plan and issue of whether or not it meets the needs of the neighborhood will be an important topic to inform that plan. for now, we informed by residents of the neighborhood continues to oppose. thank you. >> hello. i just called to support the program. i'm a little bit newer to some of the comments made this afternoon, but i just know that the community, they have been working on the project developing it thoughtfully and carefully for many years and their mission is to bless those
who come into contact with the building, so i'm amazed by all of the amenities it will afford to the community and i'm sure whatever adjustments need to be made can be made. but i think the project should go forward. thank you. >> hi, i'm a member of the tenderloin association. i find that i oppose this project. we had one going up on 350 turk and another. it is more group housing. i live in sro, we share the bathrooms and community spaces and i'm really tired of sharing. i like to have something of my own and one way to do that, build apartments for other people that can really spread
out and have a home to themselves. yes, group housing in some areas of the town is great but not in the tenderloin. we have so much going on. >> in my opinion this is the wrong fit for the tenderloin. it is too dense. the units themselves are not family friendly. they haven't taken advantage of the ample community input.
>> just a point of order -- >> hi, i reside in the tenderloin. my concerns are the developer continues to treat the community engagement as an after thought. they made no attempt to contact us as a community after the april meeting. we are concerned that the units replicate overcrowding that many low income families experience. leading more family housing not group housing. thank you. >> hello commissioners. thank you for taking time. this is patricia, i'm a member
of fifth church of christ scientist. we need a new church to fulfill our religious mission. if it's about the exercise of our religious rights and our property is to be able to use not only for us but for the benefit of the whole tenderloin. adding housing to the city is huge and this is a grand opportunity. thank you. >> hi, i'm chris, i'm the former director of inclusionary housing for the new york city department of housing preservation development. i'm very passionate about the economics of housing and very impressed with the program that has been proposed here, the
sustainability components, so much so that i personally invested in previous projects. i spent the time to write a letter to mr. hillis really laying out the numbers behind the affordability of the previous plan. i estimated that the typical square foot unit in the provesly approved plan would require an income of over $300,000 in order to make it a -- >> that's your time. thank you. >> good afternoon.
long time san francisco resident and nonprofit employer in the city and i fully support the project. i know the members of the fifth church to be committed to the tenderloin as a healing presence. they have been there a century and now the membership is offering an opportunity for well-designed work force housing and spiritual uplift. we need more developments like this. there will never be a project that satisfies everyone. true diversity allows each member or organization to bring unique gifts to the table. opening the door to see everyone as jesus saw them. surely this is one gift that is needed throughout the city. i'm grateful for the forces of san francisco not to tolerate any big bigotry.
all eyes are on us, the commission and community for the idea to go forward and the opportunity to get something done. >> that's your time. >> i've been a resident in the tenderloin for 13 years. i live in an sro. i appreciate the housing i have but when you have to share the kitchen, bathroom and other things like that, you would normally have in a home to yourself, it is very difficult and i don't see this project is opening itself up to families who need help and need space. so i'm in opposition of this
project. >> hello. i'm co-chair of mid market coalition. i am saying i have lived in san francisco all my life and i'm a long time district 6 resident. i have also lived in the tl. it's a tragedy, it is horrible to see what is happening to the lowest income, to lower income extremely low income people. this would drastically change the space needs, the safety needs of people living or having to live in certain districts and in certain units. that's what they can afford. i think this would be a really
bad idea. i don't support the project as it is. it is already so dense and so populated. it's one of the highest in the city. it's not a good sentiment to set for affordable housing. >> i'm concerned about the work force population coming into the neighborhood and having to live two blocks from this
development. i have a number of concerns. so please consider the other public comments that have been made. and possibly continue this item. >> hi, i'm calling in regards to a clarification on the public comment portion of item 11 here. i believe that the president asked for three minutes of time for public comment and it seems only one minute of time has been provided at this time. can you please clarify to make sure that it is indeed one minute of time for each public comment or should it be three minutes. it seems we are being cut short at this time. thank you. >> i'm here to oppose this
project. not because i'm against housing but i'm against warehousing and not because i'm against development but i am against the destabilization of the neighborhood. >> i want to speak in support of the project and staff recommendation. i think it's great to have san francisco has needs for many kinds of housing and it is one of the things where it is nice there are more options because we know that often times single people can group together and bid for family units and because they often have more income, they can compete with households with larger size and people with kids for those units. i appreciate having more
options. we request your approval of the project. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment on this item. press star and then three. >> hello. i live in minneapolis, minnesota, however i have attended church services at this church on o'farrell. i totally support this project. there's been a lot of hard work, community engagement involvement and updating to the plans that were previously submitted. it is affordable based on san francisco's housing prices. also it reaches out to the
community. the church is a presence that blesses all as is this project and there are many wonderful comments that went before me and hopefully you will approve this project to move ahead. it appears it meets the safety standards and if it didn't, it wouldn't have been proposed. thank you. >> hi, i'm an architect by trade but not for this project. don't want to focus only on location but this is part of the bigger piece of the puzzle and let's get this.
>> good afternoon supervisors. i'm calling, i'm a san francisco resident, tenderloin community activist working on the neighborhood and i'm calling to oppose this project. the developer i'm not quite sure what the previous caller is referencing but to my knowledge, the developer has made no effort to engage the community and this is not a low income, this housing is not for people who live in the tenderloin. it's 370 foot square unit housing is going for $3,000.
>> that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is now before you. thank you to all who participated. i'm still in support of the project today. i'm wondering if someone from the sponsor project team could give us more context and frame how this project relates to the previously approved project.
>> thank you for letting me speak. i'm working on behalf of the project fifth church of christ development partners. as you can see from the staff report, the matter before you is simply to amend a previous conditional use permit approved on the project. the amendments have been addressed already by colleague glob and it has been previously approved by the commission. what we're here for is just to amend and convert to group housing. as you can see from the addendum, no new environmental impact have arisen because of the change to group housing.
the zoning administrator has reviewed the group housing and agreed that the group housing qualifications have been satisfied. basically as colleagues have identified, there are the section 140 exposure requirements are no longer necessary. the exception granted for that previously is not necessary for the project. so basically, the only thing before you is the conversion to a group housing project. this is not an sro project that has been referenced several times in previous comments. it's a totally different animal. and it has much more features and upgraded group housing development and there's more
available details. i just wanted to let you know, this thing before you is just conversion to group housing and very few exceptions. physical construction of the building is consistent with the previously approved. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> thank you to staffers and community members for comments. i have a number of questions for the project sponsor and then for staff. you wrote us a letter saying we were maybe losing the big picture. i would like to give you an opportunity to talk about the importance of nonprofits and faith-based institutions being
able to use, reutilize or re-imagine underutilized property in order to bolster their own economics going forward and providing services or facilities that are necessary for the city. i wonded if you wanted to share some thoughts. >> i would be glad to add more on that. i think you may have taken it from somebody else's letter but it is something i am quite familiar with as well. first of all, the interfaith council has been very active with this project for years. i started working on this project in 2013. and that's when i first became aware of what resources churches and other kinds of faith organizations, how many resources they have available.
the university of california berkeley has done a state-wide analysis of opportunities for housing there is on surplus land like that. and that probably six month of that analysis and considerable opportunities in what has happened in the past with some of the churches is and religious institutions is dealing with the process that it takes to do it, the issues with regards to historic preservations to burdens of trying to satisfy historic preservation and trying to build new housing on their sites. this is a critical issue i think for san francisco as well and the state of california and i think you can see a great opportunity here in being able
to take advantage of that. >> thank you for that. a couple of specific questions and i don't know whether it is you or somebody else on the team. i appreciate the changes made since we last met with the increasing number of kitchens and spreading of aminity spaces throughout the building. two questions, did you increase the amount of outdoor space and number of private balconies from what we last saw? >> this is richard. we took your message to heart and have increased the number of balconies around the perimeter of the building. we have difficulty adding balconies to the facade on o'farrell street because of the historic district and balconies were not considered consistent with the district. but on the other surfaces, we
have maximized the stepping away space. the outdoor space on the loop is significant and some misunderstanding about what the availability is for the green space in the center part of the building. overall impact is improved in general. >> i missed that last statement. overall it has what in general? >> we have improved the amount of space and quality of space by the way -- i don't have the rendering, but if you were to go to slide 10 for instance -- >> could staff share slide 10 so we can see?
there was a change in the design implemented for us and these are the images of the building design. each of these spaces are double kitchens. you can see how they operate and they extend from the exterior on the lower level and if you look at slide 8 you can see they are open to the exterior. the gardens we don't show, one of the things they have added is the outdoor green space and gardening as part of the activity of the building to grow their own vegetables and food. we think we have maximized the indoor and outdoor part of the building. which is one of the issues in the tenderloin, people simply don't have space, other than the
street. that is one of the things about this project and all of our projects, planning has worked with us to have a better blend of places. >> thank you. next question. so there's been a lot of discussion and what can and can't go into the kitchens. i am curious. assuming the city changes its mind in the future and allows full kitchens to go in to the units, how big of a deal is it to change the wiring and the venting so we could have ovens and standard stoves in these kitchens? >> commissioner diamond, i would like to speak to that and i would like the zoning administrator to weigh in as well. right now the kitchen represent the basic difference between a
group housing room and dwelling unit. so in that case where we're looking at a unit with a full kitchen, we would review that as a dwelling unit and apply that under the zoning code. i think for the purposes of changes to the future of group housing, that is something we have to keep in mind. >> i understand that in group housing you cannot have full kitchens. that is our rule, those are the rules we're living with but these are 100 year projects and i could imagine a scenario in the future when we change our minds and we say it would be important to have -- or permissible to have full kitchens in the buildings. i'm trying to understand what it would take to convert these to full kitchens. does the whole building need to
be rewired or is it fairly simple to change the wiring, how about the ventilation. i know at this point in time our codes and our interpretation of our codes are focused on these but i can see a different point in time it would be perceived to be desirable to have the kitchens and i'm trying to understand whether or not that becomes impossible because buildings would have be vented in a different way or rewired. >> looking at this, we agree that as we look at other projects, we're next to buildings that are 100
years-old. our buildings will be here 100 years from now with good luck. and so looking at the technology, one of the things we're trying to accomplish, not to be obsolete once we complete. the systems in the building and the way the technology is moving are going to be able to accommodate these kinds of amendments if they occur later. one of the technologies is portable cooking element called a microwave. if we take an apartment oven today for a small space, we would be about 2.2 cubic feet of oven space inside the oven. the current high tech ovens
we're provided 1.8 to 2 cubic feet in them already. the new wave of cooktops in the future are lower energy and current requirements going forward. the adaptability of the buildings over the long run will be subject to the technologies continuing on a daily basis to occur. we think it has the legs to last in the generations and will be supportive of cooking and families and feeding people as independent living and outside.
the mechanical system we talk about for ventilation is an important component of that. these buildings are designed to run about 50% higher ventilation than you get in a conventional apartment today. we have intentionally pressurized the buildings so there will be -- it gives us the additional capacity to meet climates as they evolve over time because we have some flexibility built in. >> i appreciate that very much. i am delighted to hear your building flexibility and i don't want to do anything to encourage people to put in facilities that are not in compliance with the code. but i am supportive of building in flexibility to change overtime if our needs change overtime. thank you for that response.
just a couple more here. the next door neighbor from pacific bay has raised some concerns about the fact that they believe that at this point in time, the project sponsor has not adequately addressed the construction issues that come from building the buildings adjacent to each other. could staff respond to those concerns and whether or not that work should have been done by this stage or if it is appropriate for the site permit stage or later stage. this comes up quite frequently with the commission. it would be helpful to address what point in time. the valid concerns need to be
addressed. >> we have prepared -- as part of the addendum, we evaluated the construction -- the letter prepared for the project. the letter provided indicates that there are footings that extend maybe an additional six inches beyond the property line. it would build it 53 feet away from the property line. in addition to that, a preliminary technical evaluation for the project as well as a supplemental evaluation to
address measures that could be undertaken to support adjacent structures and it is common for technical report to be prepared at this time, whereas a more design level report will be prepared closer to construction of the project and reviewed. >> so from staff's perspective, you are satisfied that the issue has been addressed adequately at this stage with more detailed work to come after the entitlement would be granted if it would be. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> my last comment is that from a policy perspective, i have a number of concerns about how we're using group housing. versus residential. i am not very happy about the fact that we are -- that the
changes to the project resulted in many more units with much less open space than the original version. all of which is permissible by changing from residential to group housing. i do believe from a policy perspective that our legislature, the board of supervisors should look at the issues of how much group -- now that we know group housing is being used this way, how much do we want. what is the appropriate open space ratio where group housing should be located and where it shouldn't. but all of that being said, i believe that is for the future. that this project is very far along in the process and i'm understanding, staff please confirm that i'm correct, that the project is code compliant. is that correct? >> the group housing is
permitted but relies on the modifications granted in the last approval. for the purposes of code compliance, it is important to make that difference. planned unit development exception from rear yard and so on and so forth that facilitate the building. >> okay. so i have said before that i am not very excited about changing the rules on the projects close to finish line. i'm supportive of this project but i also believe it is incumbent on us to recommend to the board that it is looked at group housing and how it is being used and may warrant changes for other projects we
gaps, particularly lack of community support that make me hesitate to support this project today as it is in front of us. this is about fundamental policy and when a project comes back with -- there's something in the background that is very disturbing. when a project comes back with this extreme measure of change, i believe that policy discussions have to be proceeding decisions to put group housing into the tenderloin. there are three more recently approved projects, including that the tenderloin has never been given the opportunity to fully mature as a full fetch community with appropriate
housing for the people who live there. family housing i think leads the discussion, this particular project does not provide housing in the amount of space suitable for families. when you see 600 square feet are allocated for four people to live in, i can only simply say that does not work. what was kind of jarring for me is when we reviewed the project in april, we clearly spelled out
what we wanted to see and what we wanted to see and hear in which came in yesterday and the day before but those discussions were never had. for me that was is where the buck stops. the project, we need to be very honest, it may have all of the ventilation and all of those wonderful things. that's a mechanical response and not a physical response in terms of how we should be using in post-covid. the point commissioner diamond made about lack of open space and lack of properly distributed and accessible open space is not at all acceptable to me. and balconies, at the expense of size of living units, i'm not doing it either.
if we add balconies, we either infringe over the public right of way or making units smaller when there is hardly square footage to live in. community kitchen is acceptable to the extent that they are suitable for student housing and buildings that are smaller in size than this one. there's a background noise, is that interfering with me explaining my position? >> actually, i don't hear any noise or anything disrupting your comments. >> thank you. perhaps it is on my end. anyway -- also, i believe this project has the possibility of making further improvements to
what is being asked here. i think i would support a continue. i would also appreciate the planner explaining the staff position on technical and foundation issues, however that conversation should have been had with the individual who presented to us in a letter yesterday and verbally today but never communication had on that subject matter. i think there's a lot of disjointment. i appreciate explaining in great deal the functioning of microwaves and ventilation but that is technology. that is basically infrastructure, which we would expect. what is missing is the glue and connection to those people who would be the recipients to properly explain there's common ground. i personally do not see enough
common ground between the developer and the community to support the project today and i like to suggest that other commissioners i have not yet heard from consider continuous to be able to deliver the project with the support of the community. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i have a question to planning staff. since this is in regard of the letter that we received recently from the pacific bay inn. in the letter, they describe they hired their own engineer and therefore they have their own analysis. has the department had a chance to look into their letter and into their own analysis as well?
>> it does not provide new information in the analysis we did on potential impacts of the project. >> so the initial process the planning department would have a written response. in this case, the planning department will not issue a response pertaining this. is that what you're implying? >> we believe the response within our second addendum addresses the concerns originally raised in their april letter about adjacent footing extending beyond property lines.
but the building will be built at a substantial difference from the shared property line that the investigation prepared and supplemental one of the april hearing provides measures, specific measures for securing adjacent structures during the construction. >> thank you. however, in their letter as well, they added there are statements in how it would affect the public and health safety of the residents in that building if -- is that something also going to be responded or just -- the reason i'm asking this question, these are part -- i understand these
are part of information here that has been responded from the previously -- but at the same time, they have hired their own engineering at this time. i think should also be looked at by the planning department as well. so, for our statements here regarding the public and health safety and i'm not sure, the planning department and have responded into the habilistants in the pacific bay inn, i think right now we're having a response on the basis of the building and structure encroachment but not the nearby residents themselves. i think it would be need closer look and i support is mentioning in terms of continuance in terms
of the response to the pacific bay inn letter and the fact that this letter -- i mean this building adjacent to it is a building that is also run by the city for people who are homeless. i think planning department should make that a priority in terms of determining if it is going to have impact on the nearby residents that is my comment in that sense. >> i wanted to add we have investigated the impact to the pacific bay inn extensively and
there are many mitigation that will reduce the impact to those residences and i wanted to clarify about the geotechnical issues they brought up is to say those likely will be looked at but looked at during the building permit review process we determine if it will be subject to landslides or can it be built without causing significant damage to the adjacent structures and we have relied upon preliminary reports to come to the conclusion it can be built.
this is not to say the issues won't be investigated but they will be used for dbi for the much more detailed structural engineering permits. that's not the level of detail we need for sequence analysis. i believe the geotechnical engineer is on the call and can respond if they have further information about how the building is going to be built. but we have investigated and determined that there will be either less significant impact with mitigation or relying upon the dbi detailed structural
review process that occurs after the project has been approved. >> okay. thank you for that response. i think that's a big clarification and also at the same time, i still find it quite compelling whether this can be continued, whether in order for the pacific bay inn and for development to share information. my other comment, again my issue here is that this is the conversion to the group housing
with many public comments, they're asking for more dwelling units or family dwelling unit sizes. and that i think as commissioner diamond and commissioner moore have mentioned that the group housing definition is something that needs to be redefined and looking into as we are trying to look into the racial social equity and i believe tenderloin is undergoing its own area plan or neighborhood plan that the definition of group housing, whether the community wants group housing in this part of if community or somewhere else in the city, should be looked at by the planning department and what is the purpose of group housing. i am disturbed that the project sponsor is converting it to group housing and not doing the original proposal in 2018.
for me, that sounds more favorable in terms of the area as well. i'm familiar with the area and i think all of us are, there's more families in tenderloin as the population is growing in tenderloin. i would support a continuance for the project. it sounds like there needs to be more issues in terms of this housing. i would rather see more family housing units than group housing. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> this is anding, the first time i have had to call in. perhaps i may now be convinced it is time for us to go back to
city hall and person to person meetings and not have to depend upon the waves in the air. i had a question for the project sponsor. can you describe what happened to your project to the percentage of larger unit increases. >> can you clarify your question? >> what happened to the number and percentage of larger units increases from which you have provided today. >> i think the issue -- i hope
i'm understanding you correctly, are you asking if we can change further? >> yes. >> we--based on the size of building and setbacks, we have optimized the number of units, we have increased them to increase the number of units -- but the issue is when you get them substantially larger or more of them at the very large end, it results in two things. one is the project won't support the overall cost of building. and the second thing is, they become extremely expensive i
believe mr. fraley in his letter to the director demonstrated what the cost of construction and land and delays, etc cetera, is about $1,200 a square foot. and on 1,000 square feet, that's $1.2 million cost to execute. that puts us at a -- >> i understand that. let me rephrase the question. that's not getting to the discussion i'm interested in. what happens if the larger units of 1,000 square feet are increased by the number 10? >> the project becomes unpermissible, period. >> what happens if it is
increased by the number five? >> i believe we are sitting -- we have already increased the numbers across the board and increased the stage where we are right at the border of financeability. and feel we have contributed as much as possible -- >> okay. i understand -- you have no desire to change the mix. thank you. >> it's not desire. >> president koppel, that's my last question. >> thank you commissioner fung. commissioner tanner, you're up next. >> thank you very much. i have a few questions and i do want to apologize, some of them
may be repeats. i understand the balconies cannot be added, at least not many. can you help me understand, it seemed in the rendering there are some on o'farrell or at least it looked like it from the inclusion of some railings. can staff help me understand the rules regarding balconies on o'farrell? >> it's about compliance with the historic district. the building is designed to be with the features of the historic district. there are balconies at the top that contributes to the consistency because the district
does have buildings with the tops of the building are decorative. additional balconies would work against that consistency. so, if it's a balancing act between the preservation review and the provision of amenities for the units. >> thank you for that. i'm going to talk about shannon street. on shannon street because the side is not as contributing to the historic character, balconies are allowed and allowed to be one foot? am i understanding that -- is that one foot over the public right of way or from the building itself? >> the distance over public right of way. balconies are limited in geometry and projection over the public right of way.
>> and mr. hannaman, how many balconies are on the building. i want to get a sense of how many units have the step away space. >> we look at things we notice in the plan, if we pull up the plan -- which one has the best answer here? let's go to -- >> i look at the plans and i can see them. i'm trying to understand if those are indications of where balconies are. i would like a specific answer. of the 316 dwelling units, how many have balconies? >> i can't tell you exactly the number. we are happy to get it to you. it's the majority of the units. if we show the plan, the only
facade that doesn't allow them except for the top floor, that would be floor level is -- on the back in the courtyard in the rear of the building and on shannon, we have the ability to add the balconies to each of the units. and we have stepped the building back on shannon. it doesn't actually go to the property line which allows us a minimum of space for balcony on shannon. we gave up property to have a greater stepping away space. >> okay. i'm concerned about approving a project when i don't know how many balconies there are. this is where we need to know how many units will have balconies and is the planning department able to ascertain how
many units have balconies. >> the plan -- sorry, i heard some noise in the background. from the plans it looks like two balconies facing shannon street, so 24 on shannon. the plans in your packet show five balconies on level 12, 13, 10 and 11. that's 20 all together. i counted 44 balconies total on the plan. >> right. that's my concern. 44 is not a majority. so i really -- i want to applaud that you're committed to providing them and i don't really want to continue this project but i can't approve it and support it if i don't know the answer to the question with a sense of surety it is being provided and i want to align myself with commissioner moore,
i don't want to take away from the living space. i know the outdoor spaces -- in my experience, living in a condo where i don't have the step away space, i talk about how much i would love to have even just a little bit. maybe that's something during the call, you could look up through your staff. we need to see that in the plans or motion that these units would have the balconies. the other suggestion, following up on commissioner imperial's comments, i'm wondering if the staff could meet with the representatives of pacific bay inn. just to understand, our eir's have a lot of content and walking through what is there.
i don't know if environmentle staff could respond if that's something they could do to meet with that representative? >> planning department staff, yes, we can absolutely meet with them and discuss the mitigation requirements of the project and what the process will be. we have a robust litigation monitoring team. there are reports available that the public can review and ways if they're non compliant, they can reach out to planning department and staff and we can address issues that may come up with the measures and to inform them of what their rights are under the mitigation measures. >> thank you so much. and just encourage folks who called in, as the project goes through, as you heard, there will be more point where more
detail will be provided and they'll want to stay tuned and the department staff can help you know where to find the documents needed as it goes to dbi. i wondered if we could hear a little bit from project access. i understand there's a representative from that organization on the line. if they could please describe the type of programming they provide, any experience in san francisco providing the programming and what their plan for services at this location would be. >> i'm here. thank you for the question. yeah, so as richard went over the four initiatives we service residents and education for youth focused on after school programs, pool readiness type programs. everything from the little ones
to college programs. we focus on health and wellness, mental health awareness workshops, community engagement. creating volunteering opportunities as well as economic stability. we really tailor our needs to the residents of each community we serve. we have two no three communities we're serving in san francisco right now. we certain both families and the
range of programs depends on the residents. we would facilitate focus groups and understand how to build with the residents and deliver programs needed. >> great. thank you. just curious if that is something that you in the other communities you work in, do you provide those on site, the community safety, would you have that? >> we put up family resources in the communities we serve. so the idea is we're there within the community kind of in their backyard to help support them so we can serve folks where they are in their communities. here we would facilitate
programs throughout the building. from encouraging gardening programs on the rooftop to community dining experience in the common kitchens or after school programming. >> great. thank you. appreciate your being here and sharing about your program. are you primarily based in orange county? >> our headquarters is in orange county but we have a large presence in all of california. as well as out of state. >> appreciate your presence and sounds like a great organization. wondering if we could look at the open space provided on the
roof. -- it just looks like a flat brick terrace. do we have greater detail of what the space will look and feel like? >> commissioner tanner -- i'm sorry to interject here but commissioner tanner, it seems like your connection is not very strong. you may want to just use your audio. >> how is it now? >> better, thank you. >> okay. if it goes worse, i'll join by phone. could you talk -- to the project sponsor, what is planned for the roof, the roof terrace doesn't have a lot of detail. is there going to be greenery, what is going on up there? >> this is richard again. the roof terrace is a really
the lower terrace was not intended because units on that level will have a small outdoor space of their own. other people are not encourage to use that other than a visual because of the way it operates, filter water in the overall water system for the building. and then the terrace level on the fourth floor is intended as a play area. >> i think the plan shows that the original design, i mean the previous design approved at
8,000 square feet of open space and this has about 5,000 and change. i think that would be the change highlighted. sorry? what i read, the previously approved project has 8,000 square feet and this has about 5,000. that's the idea of the less open space is coming from. >> i would have to revisit the numbers. i don't believe -- >> they're in the plans you provided. the other question i have is following up similar to commissioner fung. i would really prefer if possible to see that the retail space become housing units. i think this area has sufficient
retail to meet the needs of residents and we're concerned about the future of in person retail in general. has your team looked at the retail spaces, i think about 5-6,000 square feet becoming residential units to help to increase larger units without endangering your financing? >> i would have to defer to planning. the issue of how we animate the street and sidewalks in that space in times when people are not present. so do you wish to share carly?
>> ms. glob, can you speak to that? >> that's correct, both residential and retail can be considered on the ground floor. it is dependent upon how the residential units are designed and if it has access to the sidewalk directly from the unit. there are areas in the city that have commercial requirement at the ground floor. i can double check. i don't believe -- we could work with the design team to investigate if a ground floor unit could be an alternative here. >> okay. thank you for that. so with that, i want to also recognize there's different elevations as the building goes across the site.
i was looking at there's a retail space at the ground level and below it, is the idea that the lower level retail is connected to the upper retail, that is supposed to be storage. i'm curious if that level could be made accessible units based on having access to light and air and exiting. >> we have maximized the number of units allowed on the property. we are not in a position to add more -- >> my question is not adding units. my question is whether or not you believe the retail space that is on the lower level, what seems to be the basement level, if you believe that could become viable housing based on needing access to light and egress.
you have not looked at it? >> no, we have not looked -- >> my question is if you have looked at it? >> historical -- >> the only line unmuted is the project sponsor and it seems he is standing outside or something. >> just wanted to check. i also heard some other person's voice. >> i think they have several people in one line conferenced in. >> i don't know if that person who spoke is trying to respond to the question.
i'm trying to understand, one of the things that seem to be an item that could make this a real compromise and winner for everyone is having a few larger size units. to me, the retail space seems to be an opportunity to reach that compromise. i'm not understanding how the retail space itself could be such a big factor in financing and why additional units there, if they could be accommodated geo metrically and meeting the standards of the code, how they propose a challenge to your proposal. i don't know if you want to respond -- i'm not seeing anything -- >> it is difficult -- i don't know if i'm being heard well. can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay.
it is difficult to respond. we believe that all of the buildings or housing should have a ground floor based animation as part -- as it relates to the size of the units, the size of the units up stairs, they are -- when we start to push up against affordability into that kind of use -- so trying to solve more issues than this project might be able to handle.
exactly the demographics we do not feel that taking away the retail on the ground floor will actually serve the streetscape and the life of the residents that live in the building. >> i would much rather see the retail become housing units. i think it could help to bridge this gap that we're clearly
hearing from the community and has been pretty consistent since the april hearing. i appreciate the increase in the number of larger units and number of affordable units. i'm going to leave the topic and go on. one you just started touching on, rent. i was told from a community organization that at a recent community meeting, it was that you hosted that it was stated that a unit of about 347 square feet, i may be missing the exact square footage would be rented for about $3,000 a month. can you talk about the rents you are expecting and what you shared at the open house? >> absolutely. can we bring up that slide? what number is that alex?
rates prescribed for our units, all 48 bmr units i believe and on the right, the rents for the bounds. you'll notice the studios, the ones you are referring to run up probably 360 square feet before they shift to the next. they start at $2675. you don't hit 3,000 until you get to the two bedroom size spaces and the average over the entire building for all 316 units is $3,500, including when you average in the higher rents for the larger units. >> uh-huh. thank you for -- to me
fundamentally they don't have kitchens. they just have bedrooms. >> the way we do this, how we handle furnishing packages or the tenants wish to divide the space. so instead of being built walls, completely flexible, more like a loft apartment from how you can change and utilize the space. we're doing this at the project at turk where we deal with this concept in terms of multi functionality around the world.
>> i'm trying to understand though -- what i'm trying to understand, i wanted to understand what you're saying. when someone choosing the layout -- i'm trying to understand the left most column, we don't have the understanding at the commission level of what someone may do when they move in in terms of setting it up. i don't imagine the rent will be based on how they set it up. i imagine the square footage. so in one chart you provided -- divided the units up into small, medium and large. the small is -- is that how i should read this? >> that is a good way to look at it. the two bedrooms are 550 square foot range and the large units are 700-800 square feet.
>> we are not at the phase of the project to finalize the rents with housing and community development. i want to make that clear. because this is obviously a pretty unique -- this is a unique interpretation of group housing and often group housing, if you're looking at sro style, it is priced 75% of a studio units. we have made our colleagues aware that this is something we're going to have to work
through. but we are by no means these numbers are set in stone. >> thank you. that would happen at a later process in coordination. >> that's correct. >> if i may, we agree with carly, that the b rm unit rents are the interpretation of the current structure, that's what we're capable of putting together until we go through this process. that will take us through the course of the building's development to be able to resolve this issue. as carly points out, these are larger and unique in the city and so it's an important point of our ongoing development.
my last comment, bike parking. i know you are required to have bike parking. i am concerned coming back to all of the commissioners, we have policies here that are not lining up with our current needs in the city and that we are encouraging developers to really get up to this line whether it is group housing or not. i think it's a troubling trend. that said, one of the parts of the policy, when you have more people living, you need less space for bike parking even though the units are smaller, to me that is counter intuitive.
>> it's something we are willing to look at. one of the things we study, how many people really own bikes and how many people use the bike services and one of the things that has been discussed, although we can't commit to it as the developer is the placement of bike stations if you will in front of the building with this kind of density. we would support doing that as well. to add to this. but many people what we have found in the buildings we have anlized and recognize that in the regular -- in the previous -- the project we have a building permit, we have a much
lower percentage of bikes. we increase the project to this density, for the bike parking went up in this project and we accommodated that as well. we have increased bike parking. if we come up we really need more, we don't want them putting bikes in their rooms because of that. so there is more storage in this building than you have typically in buildings available for resident use. could we increase that?
yes. >> do you want more time to look at these things to define the project? >> i think we have spent six months working on refining the project based on what was presented in our initial presentation in january. our process has resulted in a lot of positive recruitments to the project. we remain open to continue working with planning, we need to vote on the project because we're losing the window of financing. >> i hear you on that. but to follow up, do you have a
>> it appears they all dropped off. if you can hear us, dial back in please. pressing buttons on a screen. >> do we have remaining calls from the public or -- >> we're down to one. we'll take public comment at this time. you have one minute. >> i live in the tenderloin a number of years and i understand that the community overall has some questions and concerns about i guess the layout of the unit. so my bottom line thing, i never oppose housing. maybe that's a fault of mine. but i'm going to keep it as a fault because i'm just trying to -- i think the commission keeps delaying this, we'll lose that housing opportunity and what will it be, a strip mall or
another tech center or so. we need housing and the more people we can take out of the housing ladder increases the chance for other folks to get into that spot to get into the unit. it is all about the mathematics. i think sometimes the commission goes overboard, you have such a broad -- you have so many concerns. it is almost not nick picking but seems very close. we don't want to stop development in the tenderloin, positive development in the tenderloin and we're getting close to doing that by some of our actions.
>> they haven't had contact with community organizers since april and i think what mr. seymour said, i think it will bring a lot of people from out of the area into the area and not help people in san francisco. a lot of these people are going to be like tech workers that don't need a lot of space. you know? they get everything at work. the size of the units, the layout, i understand the bathroom is really small and kitchens are practically non existent. >> just for clarity, we opened up public comment for those persons who have not yet
submitted public comment. i do see the project sponsor back with us. project sponsor -- >> i think you said there are 50 balconies on the plan as proposed. >> they're on the exterior of the building and richard was talking about after our last conversation in april that we discussed the idea of adding them anywhere on the interior of the space, and that's what he was saying -- the courtyard sentiment and saying about half the units, a little more than half had balconies. that's not reflected in the plans but it can be put in the stipulation or something. >> miss glob, can you speak to
that, could we add that into project approval? >> yes, we can add that as a condition of approval. >> okay. and then miss glob i don't know if you have the capacity, how many units are facing on to the courtyard. i think what you were counting earlier were the exterior facing balconies on shannon i believe. >> there are two shown on every floor on shannon. let me do a quick -- let me look at the plans and i'll send you a count. >> so if we can clarify that, when we look at doing stepping away balcony for this, as doug said, we can apply that to approximately half of the units in the building. >> but is that only the -- the
existing ones shown -- >> we would add them on shannon because we're allowed to do it there. and we would add them in the courtyard. the only place we can't add them according to planning is below the top floor of the o'farrell facade. >> okay. so, i want to hear -- i see commissioner moore is going to speak again. i'm interested to hear what she is going to say and some commissioners say they would be supportive of the project today. what i would wonder from the commissioners, adding there would be the step away balcony, i don't know if that's a thing we can use on the shannon street side and interior facing courtyard for all units. i'm interested in adding bike parking. i don't know if other commissioners are.
when you can put a little table and two chairs out there. if it's a foot, not only the width of your foot as an adult to be outside. if it is full size windows to open the door and have the air come in, that's different. it is more for appearance but not usefulness. in a project as dense as this, the addition of meaningful open space is what the question is. getting back to commissioner tanner's questions originally, what happened to the rooftop garden and open space from the project that was approved in 2018, 8,000 square feet, there's not really any kind of clear open space plan that shows the usefulness of open spaces, including balconies, existing or to be added relative to the quality of life that the building will deliver. if i hear one of the second
floor open spaces is more visual because it has the features that are required, then i'm saying this particular building needs more than anything else useful usable open space but not just visual for a floor that is only useful for those who live on that floor. observing that resizing and not adding family units but considering deleting the retail space may be indeed a good idea. the fact that the family units which we are so desperately needing and the project does not meet or plan policies to provide family housing, would indeed be served by using the retail space
and resizing the 600 square foot units to be larger and potentially locating smaller or medium sized units to the lower floors. these are all questions that with architectural skill and little sharpening of the pencil could be done in a few weeks, i would support that because i think these are not conditions you can approve and just expect it will be done. i think the commissioners preserve themselves the right to carefully have their thoughtful questions answered and that is really our role. we are here to facilitate communication between the community and applicant. and it's our obligation to stand with the community and allow members of the community to get answers to some of their questions. i would again, ask that we give it a little more time and get the kind of thoughtful answers that we ourselves need to see in
order to fully support the project. it will not be just adding conditions. hopefully the community's concerns can be given to what is not answered at the moment. those are my comments, thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> the issue as to what size the balconies are and whether the ground floor retail space should be housing instead of retail, i believe those are refinements that would i would be fine leaving up to staff. it would be nice to see the final resolution come back to us
as an information item but i believe we are closing up here and the proposes -- the changes being proposed are in the nature of refinements that i am fine having staff be the party that works that out with the developer. >> commissioner imperial. >> i just want to provide my last comments and i appreciate the deliberations and questions for the project sponsors and ideas in regards of this project. for me, when it comes down to it, the majority of the community are asking for family units. they're asking for 1,000 square foot units.
those units will not be family sized units. they will still be let's just say a large size studio that may have walls but they will not be 1,000 or more square foot units because this is group housing. so for me, if we're going to go down in terms of where the community stands and have a compromise, this is where i don't think i will compromise because this area is heavily overpopulated, it's very dense and i do -- there are family units -- family populations in this area. and there's only a small in here at the same time. it will not serve even in the below market affordable housing
it will not serve the bmi applicants. in that case, i will not support this project. >> i would entertain a motion. commissioner tanner. >> let me give this a try commissioners. bear with me. please help if i go astray or not make sense. i move that we approve the project with the modifications that there would be balconies of a minimum of one feet on all sides of the building that are
code compliant to have such balconies to the extent feasible they may be larger than the one foot that is allowed. and i would also ask that the project sponsor and planning staff replace the ground floor retail with dwelling units to the extent feasible, including the basement level if that is feasible and if not, that the space would not become dwelling units and finally to increase the on site bike parking from 131 class one spaces to 200 class one spaces. >> second. sorry, zoning administrator team. >> just a quick point of clarification on commissioner tanner's motion, she referenced
acquiring the ground floor and basement retail be converted to dwelling units. i want to clarify that you actually mean group housing bedrooms -- >> thank you. that's why i asked for help in the beginning. thank you. i did mean to say group housing units to the extent feasible. >> just to get clarification as well, was the condition that they -- the ground floor retail space must be essentially residential use and designed in a way that meets the code and that the basement level would be dependent on staff's determination of feasibility? i want to make sure we are clear what the requirement is for that space. >> what i'm understanding, the ground floor that is not below grade could become dwelling units -- i should say, staff to research it is code compliant
and this area can have active ground floor use be a group housing unit and if that's the case, i would like to see the retail space become that. understand the basement may have limitations. staff to work with the project sponsor to analyze the feasibility of that level accommodating group housing units. i don't know if they can be code compliant. i don't know if they can be. and the balconies, it's not so much they have to be only one foot, but i understand they can only extend over the right of way one foot. so in some cases that's the extent the balcony can be unless the building set back changes. i don't want the building to be set back more than it is set back. that's why i said the one foot. >> and i believe the actual extent it can project from the building may be two feet as the
maximum. instead of a number, say maximize the projection. >> maximize the projection of the balconies to the extent feasible. >> the other one i wanted to put in to clarify, if we start to add group housing rooms, the goal is not to increase density, it is already at the density. the goal is reconfigure the interior to have larger group housing rooms. >> that's the idea. >> commissioner tanner, were you saying the number of bike units must be increased from x to y or that the project sponsor would work with staff to see if it was possible to increase the number
of bike stalls up to a certain amount. >> i was requiring it to commissioner diamond and because from when i look at the plans, i see storage space and i couldn't get a straight answer from the project sponsor if they could or couldn't add them. he kind of said we'll add them if we find we need them in the future. if i lose your vote on it, i'll change it, but i'm just concerned about way fewer bike parking spaces than the number of group housing units. >> i would like to have the language say that whatever the current number of spaces, the project sponsor will work with staff to determine if there's a way to increase the number of parking spaces to the maximum extent possible up to the
up to 200 for the groundfloor and whetherthe basement place ce converted to group housing. i believe those were all the conditions. >> i like to voice my concerns over this type of conditioning. there are possibilities of changing the structure and really grading situations that i'm not resolved based on the desires that we have of what spaces should be be and can be. further to that, if the balcony is only achieved by reducing unit size i would greatly believe that is the wrong thing
to do. i also question as to whether or not the developer will be amenable to sacrificing the retail space which i think is 1r area. to make a dwelling unit because it's the loss in the type of revenue you derive from these spaces. those are all questions and that's why i personally believe that this project should be continued and have the people answer the questions as to whether or not they're feasible or not and we are signing other dedicated storage space in the basement where only impair the possibility of other amenities tenants have. where do we put winter clothes? where do we put suitcases in units that are under size to start with? we need to start with the same kind of questions we ask ourselves, living perhaps with two people in a 900 or 1,000 square foot unit.
we have problems is our winter clothes and the storage space that we have. these questions have to be answered for the people living in group housing facility and the way we have this project on the fly, will not necessarily allow us to retain the equity that is the current design may provide when if has storage spaces we want to assign to bicycle spaces. i'm making a pitch that these types of amendments and conditions should first be examined by the applicant in real life. and when it comes back, he can tell us, yes, i can do that but this is not possible. we will never see what we are approvingbecause the conditionse of us know can be implemented. that's my comment. >> i just wanted to clarify again, i believe jonas, you read the proposed condition for adding balconies as all front
ages and i believe it was all front ages except o'farrell street as that has restrictions on the ability to add balconies? it's entered and clarified, if i heard that correctly? >> that's correct. i believe o'farrell cannot have balconies under our code. that's why jonas might have said to the extent feasible, to capture where the code allows the balcony to occur. >> i believe i read to the maximum projection and so, the maximum projection apparently on o'farrell street would be zero. >> so you did capture that. >> i do wonder, to the seconder, if he would be amenable to adding that we could see the revisions come to us as this project is provided with staff? and if that would be something we would want to see come back to us? in that form. not as a hearing item?
>> is that amenable to the seconder as far as a written memo update to the commission? >> yes. >> i think that's pretty straight forward o yes, we can certainly add that. >> i wonder if you would want to hear it all from the applicant at this time on this motion or if we just want to go forward. >> let's hear from commissioner diamond and then go forward. >> i was going to mention the two things that commissioner just did. i would request this come back to us as an information item because i'd like to see where it landed. i too would like to hear from the project sponsor just before we vote to see if there's any place where we are going in one direction and they are accommodating this. >> let's go ahead and do that.
>> project sponsor, are you with us? >> is this to us now? >> yes. >> project sponsor, are you with us? >> yes, we are. i think that if we can go that we're going to work with planning to work through these details to the extent that they're feasible for the building itself, and planing and come back as an informational basis we would support that and the parking and the storage and these spaces are relatively fundable and we have the ability to work with our architects to help address these issues and as well as the balconies which would appreciate the opportunity to add the building. i think we support all of the questions and we appreciate the
comments. >> and make amenable to the information hearing as opposed to the informational update memo. >> sure. if we do that that sounds great. i don't know if other commissioners have a preference. >> i'm fine with the memo, i don't need a whole hearing. >> i'm sorry, commissioner, diamond, i heard that you were requesting a hearing. >> i might have misspoken. i think a memo is fine. >> very good. ok, commissioners, i think we have reached some consensus maybe. so, just for the record, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve the project with conditions as of to increase larger group housing units where feasible to include balconies on
all sides except o'farrell to the maximum ex at the present time possible and projection possible to work with staff on increasing the number of bicycle parking spaces up to 200 and for the grand floor to be reduced to housing and the continue working with staff to analyze whether or not it can be converted to additional house space and that an informational update in the form of a written memo be submitted to the planning commission and on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner dime opened. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> no. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> and president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes 4-2 with the
commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on the final item on today's agenda. as 459 stevenson has been continued. for item number 12, case number 2020-001973cua. 1737 post street suite 367. conditional use authorization. staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission, sharon young planning department staff. the item was request for conditional use authorization at 1737 post street and assault 367 japan center west and established the former retail limited restaurant use student bis and time on and 565 square
foot vacant groundfloor special space occupied by another long former meal and the restaurant doing business and moogart and it's located within the chinatown neighborhood commercial directing japan town special youth directing and the height and the project site is also located with the area and western edition neighborhoods and the project will involve and hear improvements to the there's no extension on the existing floating envelope or storm front modifications proposed and they will be filed under separate permits and the proposed hours are operations are monday through thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and friday 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and saturday and sunday 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. as far as issues and considerations, according to the
project sponsor, there are currently 1500 store locations worldwide of which, there are throw san francisco store locations within the lakeshore boulevard trance home and the inter sunset and it would allow for the new store location within the western addition neighborhood the former retail findings are located in the motion for the commission to consider and today, as far as the permit has received one letter in support and the project ands correspondents from the japan task force and a member of the community that requested for initial time for community engagement to review the project. the project sponsor has since had conversations with the
interested take holders and he can pride additional details in this presentation. and as far as the project sponsor has indicate second-degree, he has conducted a pre application meeting on the project and on march 17th, 2020. the persons other than the sponsor was present for the pre application meaning and commissioners, just to note that copy of the pre application meeting materials which includes the main and the invitation that was dated for as far as the
co-chair her name is (inaudible). >> i see your other partner. i'm going to unmute his line. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> dear commissioners, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. my name roy lamb and i am thomas' business partner and i would love to speak with you guys in terms of a process of this applications. we are very honored to be here. we spoke with japanese groups in japan town and lastly we spoke with the task force groups with glen nakahara and i knew she had some concerns because she informed the planning department that she did not receive her
letters but unfortunately, we sent it out like earlier in the year and so we quickly reached out to her and wanted to address any concerns and apparently the group needs to have a meeting to talk about it and i was trying to be very accommodating and offer zoom meetings to address any issues. they said that they don't have any issues but they just wanted to inform the group about our interest in the japan town community. so i'm not sure if you have any updates from the task force team, but we would like to be accommodating as well. we wanted to be engaging with the community and work with the community to make sure there's no outstanding issues out there.
>> that concludes the presentation. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star then 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you have two minutes when you hear your line is up muted it's your indication to be in speaking. that caller decided to hang up. commissioners, for now, i think, that we'll conclude public comment. i will close it and let you know if that person returns and presses star 3 again.
ism supportive of staff's recommendation today. commissioner diamond. >> i'm also supportive and would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner imperial. >> quite unfortunate that the japan task force is not here. since they work in terms of the japan town neighborhood directing i think they need to be -- they need to have more conversations with the project of sponsor and it sounds like the project sponsor is willing to accommodate that. so, unfortunately i would like to hear their concerns of the japan town task force.
i guess this is my request to the project sponsor is to continue engage with japan town task force and their concerns. whether you can have a report back with in terms of the concerns. the reason i'm highlighting this because it's a cultural directing that needs to have more engagement with the community itself. so, those are my comments. with the project sponsor, would you be willing to have more meetings or engagement in japan town task force? >> absolutely. i 100% agree with your comments and we are also ready to engage especially with our opening. we wanted to engage with the japan town and be able to planning with the culture as
well. thank you very much for your feedback. i appreciate that. >> ok. >> so, i hope to add in the conditions of a proposal to have a report back on the meeting between the project sponsor and japan town task force as more of a memo. is that amendable? >> yes, absolutely. >> i'm talking to the commissioner who proposed a motion. you want today add a condition required them to meet with the japan town task force and report back by memo? i'm fine with that as a condition. >> i am as well. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the commissioner's extra weighing down on the subject matter and the applicant allowing for
additional time with a different task force. 14 years ago when i stepped on this commission, dealing with japan town task force and being sensitive of every step along the way for creating the cultural directing and sensitivity to this particular part of downtown was extremely important and it was a huge amount of time spent by everybody involved and i think that the word i got is that the talking to each other fell right into the beginning of covid restrictions. so, the flow of information was not as fluent so with the condition added to this request for approval, i will be in support and very longley will lg update for the commission when it's available. >> commissioners, i do see one member of the public requesting to submit their comment.
>> caller: can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> caller: i hi, i apologize. i had technical difficulties. this is gwen, vice president of the japan town task force and as you may know, we're a community-based non-profit and our longstanding mission is to preserve and develop japan town as the cultural heart of the japanese and japanese-american community as well as authentic commercial directing. i'm here today to reiterate on the letter sent in to you. we ask for your support for a continuance on the conditional use authorization to provide time for some baseline community engagement. we were really taken by complete surprise by the application. we received a notice for the hearing june 11th and for
unknown reasons, we did not receive any prior notice including the pre application notice in the beginning of march. i would also note the pre application meeting was held the day after the city's announcement of the shelter in place order which might explain why that was there attendance. i did speak to the project applicant, however, you know, about what we're asking for, there's been just no community engagement. we're sensitive to the struggles of the property owner and businesses in this climate, especially those small businesses remaining in japan. so we're asking for a continuance of a few weeks so we can hustel and engage the community. thank you.
>> just for clarity, i'm not sure if the representative from the japan town task force was listening but they were, the commissioners did make a motion and i object included a condition to continue working with or to at least meet with the japan town task force. so just for that. >> did you have anything else? >> yes, i do. i would like to weigh in favor of a continuance. beforehand communication outweighs for me reporting afterwards. the communication between these two groups is essential. i know that the applicant will do a good job and i implore the applicant to give the commission a week or two to meet with the community and come back and get your approval. i personally have to support community engagement as we do with everybody else and for that
reason, because the speaker was not being heard, i have to basically withdraw my support in favor of a continuance. >> is that a motion, commissioner moore? >> yes. >> do i hear a second? >> i do not hear a second on the motion to continue. there is an original motion to approve with conditions. shall i call that question? [please stand by]
>> thank you all for joining us today, and happy pride. [applause] >> my name is joseph sweiss, and i'm the chair of the human rights commission. first, we're going to do a land acknowledge from commissioner pellegrini, then, i'll do rapid fire acknowledgements, and we'll get the show on the road. >> we acknowledge that we're on the unceded ancestral homelands
of the ramaytush ohlone. in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, or forget -- forgotten about the responsibilities of this place. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and the relatives of the ramaytush community and by acknowledging their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> thank you, commissioner. so before we get started, i'd like to do some acknowledgements of everyone who's up on the stage, and i'll be quick. michael lack better, karen roy, jeff jaw, jeff tumlin, grant
colfax. manu raju, supervisors ahsha safai and rafael mandelman, commissioner mark keller, disability and aging services martha knudson, we have chief nicholson, h.r.c. director sheryl davis, director of the office of transgender initiatives, clair farley, and jason pellegrini, who just gave our land acknowledgement. thank you. [applause] >> we are all extremely excited to join mayor breed to
officiate this new relaunch of the lgbtq + launch. i see amazing leadership in front of me, i see amazing leadership beside me, and without further adieu, i'd like to introduce karen clopton to introduce the mayor. >> i'm going to ask our vice chair, joseph sweiss, to stand by me, in response to all of his amazing work, maturity, consulting the elders in how to do things and how to go about things because he's one of those that knows he doesn't know everything.
we love you, we appreciate you and we want to give you this present. >> oh, thank you. thank you so much. frz frz [applause] . >> i also want to acknowledge commissioner amhon for all of her work on this revitalization. >> me, too? >> not yet. >> and commissioner kelleher. [applause] >> for providing institutional and historic knowledge. i am so honored to introduce someone who, frankly, in this crowd needs no introduction, but yet, i feel compelled in the words of lin manuel
miranda, love is love is love is love. this city is amazing because we have amazing leadership. our mayor, london breed, epitomizes so much that we aspire. she is not only beautiful, she is beautiful on the inside, and that radiates out. she is educated, she is radiant, she is eloquent. most importantly, she empathetic. she is also a loving granddaughter, daughter, sister, friend, and she has provided love in her leadership, the leadership of valuing everyone.
all residents of the city and county of san francisco are her constituents. i am so proud that, ten years ago, on the centennial of the women's right to vote in the state of california, as president of the league of women voters here, we acknowledged her as a rising star. well, her star is fully implanted in the universe, and we are fully blessed and fortunate to have her as our beloved leader. with no more adieu, mayor madam, london breed. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, karen. i so appreciate your kind words, and it is so great to be here with members of the human rights commission to reconstitute a committee that is so vital to the protection of lgbtqi rights here in san
francisco. in fact, this commission, constituted in the 1970s, has really shaped policies in this city around domestic partnerships, around same sex marriages, around all of the policies that have really put san francisco on the map as a leader for lgbtq rights in this country. and the fact is people look to us for what we're doing pushing forth similar policies. i'm so honored to be a mayor of a city that prides itself on being inclusive, on putting forward ideas that people don't always feel comfortable with. like when i talk about guaranteed income because people need money in their pockets in order to take care of themselves and their
families, and in san francisco, not only did we push this policy for guaranteed income for expectant mothers of african american and pacific islander descent, we are pushing for universal basic incomes. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and it has a lot to do with the office led by clare farley and the office of transgender initiatives, the first office of transgender initiatives in the country specifically. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: a lot of this work has so much to do with so many of you, continuing to come up with ideas that make the most sense based on our
history. when i think about the compton cafeteria riots, and when i think about harvey milk and his breakthrough, becoming the first gay supervisor in this city and all of the milestones that people continue to talk about and point to when describing the history of this community, one of the things that was important to me and important to supervisor mandelman is how do we talk about this history, how do we remind the next generation of this history, how do we protect this history? and together, we worked together to make sure there was $12 million in the upcoming budget to have the first ever lgbtq museum in the city and county of san francisco. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: martha, we've come a long way, haven't we? [applause] >> the hon. london breed: we've come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.
there is still a need for change, and that's why this committee, which has such an incredible history in san francisco, that's why it's so important to reconstitute this committee. i want to thank sheryl davis and all the commissioners who thought about the need to do this, rather than working with the supervisors and making all of the decisions and the directors and making all of these decisions. they said this advisory committee will be representative of the arts, it will be representative of the challenges around mental health. it will provide input to us so that all of the investments that the city is making are going to the right places, and more importantly, all of the local policies that we need to create are coming from the people who understand the impact the most. so today is a day to celebrate. yes, it's a swearing in, but you know what? it's the first time we've had
anything on the mayor's balcony since -- since covid! [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so that's why everybody showed up. they're like i don't know what it is, but we're here. so before we swear in our advisory committee, i want to introduce supervisor rafael mandelman. so i'm so grateful for his work, his advocacy. sometimes he's the loan supervisor, fighting for the things necessary to support this community, and i'm appreciative of his colleagues who just support him and go along with the things that we know are important. so supervisor mandelman, we have work to do, but i know that you'll handle it, so come on up and say a few words. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: i'll handle it.
you know, one of the things that i love about pride and being able to have pride here on the mayor's balcony is the opportunity to have amazing, phenomenal, and diverse leadership, and i see the folks who are leading in city government, and i see the folks that are leading in nonprofits, queer and otherwise, and the folks holding up the nonprofits, demanding change. i love our community so much, and it's so wonderful to be here in person, and so happy pride, everyone. happy pride 2021. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: one of the problems with being mayor london breed in the summer of 2021 is everyone is falling all over themselves to say nice things about her, but they are
deserved because she did get us through this pandemic. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: with an assistance from our gay public health director, grant colfax. thank you, director colfax, but she has also been from the beginning and before she was mayor, but definitely, i have seen her since before she was mayor, being a friend to the gay community, and the people she has lifted up in her administration that you see here, some of whom are doing great work, to the investments in lgbtq housing, in the museum, in universal basic income for trans folks, it's truly extraordinary, and each year around budget time, she comes up with amazing things to
do for the gay community. so thank you, madam mayor. that's an applause line. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: and just yesterday, we approved at the board of supervisors to collect soji data. in the 80s, you would not have asked. if you asked, there was something wrong. why did you ask if the person was queer? that is not information that the community wanted gathered in the 80s. today, we know it's information that we want gathered and that is the work around same sex marriage and seniors and youth and looking around at the factors of discrimination in our community, and we have now gotten to the place where we have federal, state, and local protections, and where we need to know to better serve the most vulnerable folks in the
queer community to get the folks in city government to have this data. that's just the tremendous mark of the a.c., and i want to thank everyone for all their work over the year. i want to thank vice chair sweiss and campon and kelleher, and all the folks that are stepping up on the a.c. to go forward. we know the world is not where we want it to be. we know that there is tremendous unfairness, that it is hitting black, latinx, and trans folks, and we're seeing it in violence and poverty, and i know that folks signing on for the a.c. are going to do that, and happy pride again. >> the hon. london breed: happy pride. >> thank you, mayor breed, and thank you, supervisor mandelman. one of the exciting things
about, one of the great things is we're giving seats, united nations style, to people who come. i want to acknowledge nancy pelosi's office and senator scott wiener's office, and i do want to acknowledge with us, luis zamora and we wouldn't be more without the hard, hard work of the human rights commission director and staff. yes. stephen and cass, and everyone, thank you for all of your hard
work, but none of it would have been able to be done without you. >> i'm sheryl davis, director of the human rights commission. [applause] >> first, i was going to ask commissioner clopton if she was looking at me when she said the elders. i just want to first and foremost thank daquan harrison from the human rights commission. daquan will be working with the department and i just want to thank him for his hard work with commissioner kelleher and commissioner sweiss. there was a lot of reading of the bylaws and a lot of rewriting of the bylaws. when i first came onto the human rights commission in
2011, then commissioner chung and commissioner pappas were there, and one of the things that i said i wanted to focus on was intersectionality, that when we talk about the layers of who we are and the complexity of that. so when we start talking about lgbtq + and anything else, it becomes that much more challenging to navigate through things, so i'm grateful for this advisory committee to be able to call it out, whether that is age, whether that is race, whether that is gender, but understanding to be poor and lgbtq + is not the same as just being poor, and when we do the work to create these policies, we're very intentional. i'm grateful for all of you who have signed up to work with us, but more than that, i'm grateful for the partnership of
mayor breed, supervisor mandelman, and supervisor safai because they're willing to standup and actually make the policies and make things better. so it may not be easy, it may be challenging, and it's going to take some work. we appreciate your work, and we appreciate the effort made to make things better not just for one folk but for all folks, so thank you so much for your work. [applause] >> thank you, director davis, and before we get started to the swearing in, i'd like to also invite martha knutson, who was also on the committee of aging and disability services.
>> the committee was the first of governmental bodies in the nation to advocate for will go. [ -- for lgbtq rights when it was created in the 1970s. mayor feinstein believed that the lgbtq commission laid the groundwork for change by documenting our history through hearings, writing policy recommendations that ultimately became legislation and focused nonprofits to better serve our needs, all of which is on the lgbtq today. during the 1980s, they had conducted hearings on the first ever domestic partner laws, same sex marriage, and rights
and problems faced by the community. during my time, we held hearings on issues facing our young people, surfaced the economic issues facing most members of our community, wrote regulations facing transgender people, and held hearings on issues facing intersex people, we broke ground on issues facing lgbtq seniors. i urge you to raise new issues, take risks, and be bold. thanks for playing your part in expanding our rights and protecting our future. [applause] >> thank you, martha, and of course a special thank you to michael pappas, as well, who was on the commission and is
now on the interfaith council. between the two of you, at every meeting and stakeholder engagement. before we get there to the swearing in, i want to welcome joejoe thai. >> i'm a former youth commissioner for district eight, and i'm a current member of o.t.i.s transadvisory community, and now i'm a new member of the lgbtq advisory committee. thank you, mayor london breed and the san francisco human rights committee. i'd also like to thank commissioner knutson for acknowledging the work of the lgbtq committee.
inequities of housing, access to health care and violence, just to make a few of the problems. our communities are experiencing multiple forms of trauma, including covid-19 and racial battle fatigue. while systems and agencies are responding, scores of decisions are made without the input of those most affected. we have the opportunity to advance leadership and visibility of bipoc, trans, and gender nonforming leaders. once again, san francisco continues to lead in lgbtq plus equity. the new committee consists of mostly bipoc, transgender, and gender nonconforming leaders, making this one of san francisco's most diverse committees. this is an exciting new model for san francisco that will
bring us all together, and i can't wait to see what we accomplish for the rest of the nation to see. again, i'd like to thank mayor london breed, the humans rights commission to always serve the community. for the leadership and advocacy serving all lgbtq people in san francisco and beyond. thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: before we get into the swearing in, i just want to take a moment once more, when we kicked off pride a few weeks ago on the steps of city hall, i acknowledged grant colfax of being this incredible leader and what he did to help us get to this point in the pandemic, and he wasn't even there. he was on vacation, but you know things are looking up when dr. colfax takes a vacation, a
well deserved vacation. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so i want to take this opportunity to recognize him during pride and just to say thank you, dr. colfax, for your leadership. i yelled a lot, and he'd never back down, and i wanted to open, and he's, like, here's the information, and i'm, like, get that out of my face. i don't want to see it. let me tell you, we are so fortunate to have dr. colfax as the leader of the department of public health. when you tell people what we did here in san francisco, i want you to tell them it was a gay man who lead this effort, so thank you, dr. colfax. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and one last thing. where's my little bag?
this didn't happen with other mayors. i just want you guys to understand, when someone chooses to serve, whether it's a commission or an advisory committee, i take the mission myself as an honor. i hardly missed a meeting, i always participated in a conversation, and when i first got a city fill pen, it wasn't until, like, way later in my term. well, i as mayor decided that as soon as i swear anything into anything, they're going to know that i swore them in. so this is a city and county of san francisco, this is the city seal pen. my signature is on the inside, so you can remember, and it just talks about the history of this city, and as you take this oath and serve our city
proudly, please wear your pin proudly so people know you serve the city and county of san francisco. with that, please stand, all members. you'll get your pin officially after you take the oath. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: all right. no turning back now. okay. please raise your right hand and state after me. i, state your name, do solemnly swear, to support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
that i take this obligation freely. without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter. and during such time as i serve as a member of the lgbtqi + committee for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [applause] women's network for
sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we
the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven
program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi
hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org
>> chairman: this meeting will come to order. this is the june 28th, 2021 budget and appropriations. i'm joined by president walton, supervisors ronen, safai, and mar. i want to thank kaleena for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. the minutes will reflect that committee members participated in this remote meeting to the extent as if publicly present. we invite public participation in the following ways. public comment was provided on the committee meeting on friday, therefore this meeting will not take public comment on items 2 and 3.