Transcripts For SFGTV 20240622

Have the Construction Costs im not sure what the question was was the construction housing costs higher and put the inclusionary fees were talking about today and maybe other fees and the operating costs on Group Housing versus market rate housing is it cheaper we heard last week only turk street it was less expensive and over here the money shot the income so what im hearing the rents on Group Housing are higher than market rate luxury housing theyre more affordable affordable means someone that makes hundred thousand dollars a year can pay for o more versus the rates are five or 6 a unit it was mentioned in the presentation where is comes together the yields it is generated by the market rate housing what the market will bear the whole notion were increasing the costs what the market bears that is bearing a lot more per foots on the smaller rather than the larger i wish i should someone from the market rate community here i wish mr. Coleman were here this is like any other housing costs are the same if youre making more you should be giving Something Back the 12 percent inclusionary clapping. excuse me. A thats not necessary and the 12 percent inclusionary is not onerous to be honest and no developer has told me im wrong, and, secondly, on the men, women, and children amendment i guess the question ive only been here 10 months the precedence without code attached the first time im seeing it is that normal. No. That has happened before. It happens if a supervisor tomatoes amend an ordinance they will supply a memo. Can i say the supervisor worked with supervisor avalos on including this in. Yes. Okay. Great a couple of comments one resonated the haste do we have a clean resolution clean up attachment clean up attachment i fully support work on the clean up legislation that supervisor christensen submitted in her letter i want to add what the gentleman said the clean up language and well be done with the clean up language thank you. Commissioner hillis. I agree that is Pretty Simple this saying that Group Housing people see projects theyre really market rate housing it is logical it the inclusionary applies im supportive of the legislation the one question some of the projects that were done prior to the cough weve seen like the central and the diamond on central weve seen before this is what i call Group Housing the old Group Housing before the marietta housing is that type of housing can still go forward. Yes. That housing is in the planning code it provides an exception of a hundred percent affordable and some of it is liv the diamond shelter is more Service Oriented and not income but people are there for a month or so i want to make sure those types of projects are not impediment and those are for the homeless shelter or count as subsidized housing that is exempt from the inclusionary. So i think this all make sense thank you. Commissioner johnson and thanks very much i agree with commissioner hillis this is weve talked about that for the past few months just a couple of quick things on i think that the theres one recommendation from the Planning Department didnt make a recommendation to ask us to continue to study the open space and requirements for group hows i have a suggestion im assuming you dont want to go through the staff study would it be possible to consider the common space part you know in exchange for that some of the exposure requirements because Group Housing is the types of housing that ends up on oddly shaped lots i would hate to get the Group Housing projects not being able to comply with the Group Housing requirements but agreeing with the recommendation that the Planning Department continue to study those elements of the exposure and common space requirements. The proposal includes that language that the exposure can be satisfied through all bedrooms complying with the exposure or a common space and granted the common space is not required weve assuming the projects will provide common space they have that option. Sorry so great fantastic so just a question then on supervisor christensen amendment what is the memo of options i dont feel there was enough analysis to support any recommendation he reserve the judgment on the merits of technical proposal im sure it is a level of clean up and sure some of it make sense there are elements that are not necessarily slam dunk universal i dont feel there is enough understanding where those clean up items came from and what their impacts will be so i compare the analysis of supervisor christensens amendments to what was proposed for the analysis that was given for the Group Housing clean up and it was day and night in terms of the the language that was provided thats it thats where in terms of today what is our many options i know that people in Public Comment saying reject supervisors can reject whatever they wish. You can make a recommendation it be included in supervisor avalos ordinance and also make a recommendation it not be included you can also say youd like any ordinance that has it in that to come back im not sure if the required to do that because youve already heard technically they can move forward but you can be on record you want it to move forward. I think can i add something sorry deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland the planning code come great the Planning Commission as do the chapter so as aaron said you be approve or disapprove and either ask for an informational update when the amendment is drafted to further weigh in on it before the Land Use Commission hearing or if the full commission decided it didnt have enough information to consider it at all it needs to come back to you for another hearing. Okay. Ill say just for the Supervisors Office the legislative drafting is on my plate and not a very lengthy task i can have language to the commission for an informational update if it is something the Commission Wants to consider. Id like to see what other commissioners have to say im leon on asking for this not to be part of the supervisor avalos ordinances so i it seems like if we were to add the making a finding we want to get further information you know, i can see a circumstance we dont end up recommending the protective well be hearing informational i want to go through the same process we look at any other protective language i dont feel like i have enough information i object to come back but i dont understand some piece of the amendments to be able to say yes or no. Commissioner wu. Thanks so on the inclusionary Group Housing i think this is a great example how the process can work between the Planning Commission and the boards we saw a number of cases we saw a problem and asked the board to propose and its come back and now it is really positive the fact were seeing the smaller units in were defined as Group Housing theyre only lacking an oven and another small unit has to pay inclusionary it is unequal level the Playing Field and hundred percent Affordable Housing Affordable Housing is exempt also want to say to the staff i thought the report was very good through the independence of Group Housing thank you for that thoroughness to the question of the c3 amendments i agree with commissioner johnson i think we should ask is it follow its own tracks its not clear which 3 c maybe 3 g and f those are likes south of market and. 3 c g. Anyways that is the point we dont have the language we dont have language and understand what is being asked to vote on today, i suggest it take its own track and not include it in the commissioner avalos legislation. Commissioner moore. I wanted to thank staff laughter . Great i love it. Double coverage. I want to thank staff for the x quest presentation youve considered every aspect so im happy to support it in entire outlet ill agree with the commissioners that while the piece on the c3 s is interesting i think it is requires an independent track because this commission has been asked many times in the question of affordability to look at a broader inclusionary affordability addressing the type of people youre trying to capture in c3 it is a good piece to follow on its own tracks and probably decision as well i would agree with the rest of the commissioners included in this legislation models what were trying to do it explicit quite have the clarity of the discussion an outline all levels that the legislation addresses the issue weve been struggling only in another district than c3 i believe building it needs to stand on its own and on its own strength so i appreciate the supervisors kovrmd but i basically will not carry it forward under this particular discussion commissioner richards i move to approach items 1, 2, 3, 4 in recommendations and item 5 indicates we dont have enough information to make a judgment and ask it to come back. Ive decided to propose a minor amendment the Planning Commission state it didnt have sufficient information to approve or disapprove the amendment. Accepted. Thank you second. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. Does this legislation contain new exception for housing restricted to seniors . Group housing restricted to seniors are they exempt if it is Affordable Housing for seniors yes, but restricted Senior Housing is not exempt. So market rate Senior Housing it would not be exempt okay. All right. Thank you. I know what he need to know now. Commissioner johnson. Thank you very much the motion that was maids open wants table does it indicate that we are not adding recommending that supervisor christensens amendment not be added as part of the legislation at this time are you understanding . Commissioners, if theres nothing further theres a there is a motion and a second to adopt the resolution recommending items 1, 2, 3, 4 omitting item 5 the commission didnt have enough information important approval or disapproval. Commissioner antonini no commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong no that motion passes 5 to two with commissioner antonini and commissioner president fong voting against commissioners, that places you under your on item 10 this is a planning code and Zoning District map to rezone a place of diego rivera even though street to and it will rezone dagget street to rightofway public space if i may have the slides so the notion of dagget street started during the eastern neighborhoods this is the open space on the eastern neighborhoods that identifies a need in the area where show place square meets mission bay showing in the circle the show pates e appetites square identified the opportunity site for open space thats site number 5 on that map in 2010 the project sponsor of the housing on the other side of dagget rightofway wanted to build the parish for the eastern neighborhoods fees that was supported by the eastern neighborhoods and this commission in kind agreement an updated in kind agreement will be coming to you next week so the park will be as you can see in the middle no street there today it is always been an unapproved street not built out the portion that will be rezoned is the area highlighted in yellow the remaining rightofway will remain a street or become a street a curb list street this piece of legislation is one part of a very, very large package to make that actuality the process of doing in kind agreement and this body the land is actually the western more and more most portion of mr. Brown we have to negotiate with the state to transfer the land grants from the state by the land parks grant money to buy the land and very large piece of legislation bs 10644 that hazard the pieces to make that necessary the transfer of the land, vacation of the land, creating a major encroachment with dpw accepting a gift from the developer for more than the in kind this is a small portion of the overall package that comes to the Planning Commission so what this does when with vacant a piece of rightofway automatically seeing the zone is a mixed use and our tension to make that a park and person city of you can still have the zoning that is meant to be a parklets make that zone public and zoned open space that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Opening it up for Public Comment if theres any. Not seeing none Public Comment is closed. And commissioner antonini. Yeah. This is a beneficial proposal it is just follows up on what is proposed all along to have a park there i just was unclear about the showed that yellow zone was under consideration but the dagget park also exists is that what youre saying you didnt have that included it was part of the area to the north northwest and the rightofway is wide like hundred and 20 feet wide wider than selma it was never paved over and the area in yellow is the portion of the rightofway that would become the park and then a very small street serving up the buildings with retail there and the park would remain to connect between 16th street and 7 but the arrow is proposed to be the park. I understand it explicit look like it stepped up to the plate to the southeast to the materials you gave us the green park area. All the way twr 16th street to 7. Not including the sidewalks. As far to include the small triangle at the end of the park okay got it. So ill move to approve. Second. Commissioner there is a motion and a second to do you want the recommendations commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore excuse me. Commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 11 valencia street a request for conditional use authorization please note on may after hearing and closing Public Comment the commission asked the developer to continue the matter until jill 2 by a vote of 5 to zero because it is already heard well ask the project sponsor to provide an update of up to 3 minutes and any additional Public Comment up to one minute. Good afternoon commissioner president Fong Jonathan Planning Department staff the item before you is a request equivocation for the proposed project on the ground floor of on existing mixed use building on valencia street the existing mixed use cantonese 18 dwelling units and commercial space and a below market rate the project sites is on the Northeast Corner of valencia street within the valencia commercial transit Zoning District and tight and bulk district the project is seeking conditional use authorization tossing allow a learn 3 thousand square feet in the Zoning District for the planning code additionally the project is seeking conditional use authorization to allow modifications to the rirmentsdz the planning code section for number one residential to occupy more than 75 feet of continuous along the street in the valencia m t sdrn on may 21st the Planning Commission established the mixed use occupying 5 on may 21st the project sponsor proposed a small component within the lobby area upon review the Planning Commission requested the project sponsor install a retail space and conduct you further negotiations and outreach with Community Stakeholders in response to the commissioners comments its been amended the project sponsor today proposed to establish a new medical services occupying 6 thousand plus square feet in a independent space and occupying approximately 3 hundred and 25 square feet the new retail space includes a new door access to and from the street since may 21st the department has received 3 opposition letters and 12 letters since then in opposition department has received one phone call in opposition to the project of the 3 letters received by the department after the meeting one letter was included in the packet and two letters received by the department after our projects were you delivered i have those two letters here since may 21st the project sponsor has conducted additional outreach with the stakeholders as detailed in the letters from the project sponsor included in the submitted packet Department Staff represents approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable it complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code the project is consistent with the policies and procedures and the project is located in the zen for medical services and Retail Services are permitted the project is for the Zoning District and the intended use will be Neighborhood Service project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation of the property project that concludes my presentation. Ill be happy to answer any questions. Okay project sponsor please. Good afternoon, commissioners we are unaware we only had 3 minutes to speak we respectfully ask for a little bit more time to tell you what has trapd transpired between then and now. Okay 5 minutes. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners were really happy to be back to explain the value were bring to this project and neighborhood and in bringing primary care to the area and also to explain to you the changes weve made since we last met our proposed clinic is to have 6 primary care providers in adult medication and children medicine and pedestrian findings and provided lab services so patient can have one stop care well have extended hours open on nights and weekends and welcome drop in and take month insurance well go into details about the retail space that is proposed for the site the election is easily acceptable by bart and muni this isnt working so every year all right. In 2013 the department of Public Health published a San Francisco Health Care Master plan and the valencia and 20th neighborhood was identified as a storage of primary care decreases the dph addressed like the which one disease management as well as abduct management and mammograph and a convenient location for moms with ease care were open nights and weekends that are longer than the regular merchants are open well be openly earlier and staying open through the evening we continue to with work all Community Health care partnered p a participates from the neighborhood weve referenced the meetings in our packet this slide shows the area that we will occupy with the star at valencia site currently this is really important to understand there are 73 thousand people would live in third year this area and not enough decreases to serve this neighborhood 36 primary care decreases is needed and only 28 decreases in the entire area 8 of them are over the age of 65 older decreases cut back on their shortage and worsening shortage in the future this didnt take into account the 5 percent growth in the area weve made phone numbers and 4 of the practices are completely closed to new patient and 10 practices have over a 4 week wait for services were building a hundred and 20 bed hospital anothers st. Lukes and this is slayed to open in 2019 7 blocks away from the clinic the current st. Lukes clinic is aging and our proposal to bring primary care into the area we are experts at recruiting physicians and those physicians would be in support of st. Lukes hospital and revitalizing that new hospital and new clinic that will go take into account we believe with the valencia care is a winwin for the community