item 2, case 2014, 0243, 3927 through 3931 19th street. indefinite continuance. under the regular calendar, staff is requesting that item 17 for case number 2015, 00419, 333 12th street, conditional use authorization, to be continued to february 13, 2020. no other items for continuance and no speaker cards. >> president koppel: any members of the public that would like to comment on the items proposed for continuance? come on up am -- come on up. >> hi, my name is tracy thompson. am i to understand we can comment on number one in the regular calendar right now? >> only to the matter of continuance, not the project itself. >> so i'm confused. >> well, item 1 -- >> no, item 1, under the regular calendar. >> no we're just taking matters proposed for continuance. >> when do we speak for -- >> when that item is called. >> thanks, sorry. >> president koppel: any other members of the public wish to comment on items proposed for continuance, come on up. >> hello, i want to confirm there is 333 12th street not on this list, proposed for continuance. so it's continuance of what date? >> it is proposed for continuance to february 13th. >> this will be the second time that it was proposed for a continuance. is that for a delay on the project then? is that more time for the commission to take a look at it? >> it was a request made from staff. >> from staff, thank you very much. >> anyone else wish to publicly comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would entertain a motion to continue. >> so moved. very good, then commission, on the motion, including item 17, to february 13th diamond aye, fung aye. koppel aye. that motion passes unanimously. 4-0. that will place us on consent calendar. they're considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items had unless a member of the commission, the public or staff requests. item 3, case number 2019, 017311, 901 through 911 union street. item 4, 153 kearny street. conditional use authorization. item 5, 2266 union street, conditional use authorization. item 6, 1610 post street, conditional use authorization. item 7, 645 irving street. conditional use authorization. i do have a speaker card requesting that union street be pulled off consent. item 3. we'll take that up at the beginning of the regular calendar. no other items for you to consider on the consent calendar. and no other speaker cards. >> president koppel: anyone from the public, would they like to speak on the items proposed for consent? >> commissioner moore: move to continue items 4, 5 -- sorry, move to approve items 4, 5, 6, 7. >> jonas: just confirming there is no other public comment. >> president koppel: seeing none, public comment is closed. >> jonas: very good, thank you. thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to approve items 4, 5, 6 and 7 under the consent calendar diamond aye. fung aye. melgar aye. moore aye. koppel aye. so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. and again, item 3 will be considered at the beginning of the regular calendar. commissioners, that will place us under commission matters, item 8, consideration of adoption, the draft minutes for the january 16, 2020. and there were some amendments made to the minutes that were sent out to you during the week. so... >> president koppel: would anyone like to publicly comment on the adoption of the draft minutes. commissioner melgar. second. >> jonas: on that motion to adopt the minutes, diamond aye. fung aye. melgar aye. moore aye. koppel aye. so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously, 5-0. item 9, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i wanted to ask if there is a possibility to get quality control over the printed material that we are receiving. in the last few weeks, prints come out in a very light way, hard to read. in addition that certain projects, text and drawings reduce the type face size, it's hardly readable. it's so small in light gray, even with a magnifying glass. it may be talking with a vendor to look for more consistency. >> jonas: we can address the issue. >> president koppel: commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: this is my last planning commission meeting. i wanted to thank you all of you for being wonderful colleagues. i've enjoyed my time here. and to the public who always is here to tell us what they think. i also thank you for being part of this process. >> commissioner: yes. [laughter] >> thank you, teresa. >> president koppel: she's worth it. i'm sorry to see you go. i haven't been here without you, so it's going to hit me next week. best of luck to you once again. you know public comment. come up. >> potatoes, they're called magic myrna. so there is four of them for you. they're very good roasted. >> thank you [laughter]. >> can't you take them? >> commissioner melgar: [laughter]. thank you. >> jonas: if there is nothing further, item 10, director announcements. >> president koppel: let me add my thanks to commissioner melgar for all she's done for the commission on behalf of the staff. i want to thank you for this transition time with the new director and managing that whole process with so much grace. i really very much appreciate it and i hope -- we wish you all the best. >> jonas: item 112, review of past events. there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon. first on the agenda was supervisor peskin's ordinance grandfathering clause to the previous ordinance that restricted limited restaurants in the jackson square. you waived your opportunity to hear this item as it was limited in scope and would only impact one business application. the supervisor did thank the planning commission for waiving the opportunity to hear the item and they spoke in public comment. they wish to forward it to the full board as a public report. next, they heard the ordinance that would abolish the north of market affordable housing fund and have those fees deposited in the city-wide affordable housing fund. you heard this back june 13, of last year and recommended approval. the first time it was heard at the land use committee, the committee did not index the fee per the planning commission's recommendation, however, at the full board, commission haney indexed the fee and sent back to land use. the planning department clarified it only authorized them to index the fee beginning in 2011, and we can do that automatically. therefore, this hearing -- the this hearing, the proposed $25 fee was reverted back to the $5 fee. in the end, they'll be charged $7 and odd cents. steve vettel representative for the project sponsor gave public comment about the hearing expressing concern about the increased fees in the area and making projects infeasible. the committee did accept the amendment and sent the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. lastly, the ordinance authorizing interim activities at develop sites was back in land use this week. they were rehearing the item to the planning commission recommendation to require applicants to have a project to increase residential density only if the land contains a residence. they continued that for one week because the amendment was substantive. the intention is to pass it next week. at the full board, the appeal for the environmental determination for the page street bikeway pilot project was continued to february 4, due to a noticing error. and the jackson square special use district passed first read. lastly, supervisor yee nominated maria imperial to fill the seat. we'll miss you commissioner melgar. and that concludes my presentation. >> president koppel: thank you very much. >> jonas: board of appeals did consider two items of interest. first, they held their election of officers and elected ann lazarus as the president and darryl honda as vice president. they considered judah street, they heard an appeal of the home sf project, the appellant raised environmental concerns related to abandoned underground storage tanks on the property that will be dealt with by the department of public health under the maher ordinance and the board denied the appeal and upheld the commission's decision. there are no other items or questions, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the comment may address the commission on items of the interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to the agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i have just the one speaker card for georgia. >> that is the name of the variety, magic mirnyi. during january public comment, i spoke about 463 duncan and sent you an e-mail with the rejected e.r. attached and raised issue with projects like there one, density, how to densify space. full-lot excavation and the neighborhood character. i think there is a better template for spec projects like there. one of these is to use the entire garage, keep the curb cuts and let that remain with the property for parking. that becomes a big issue. i don't think it's a granting of a benefit to private party. you can park in your driveway already, you don't even need a permit. might as well let them keep the curb cut and let them use the garage space and maybe that solves the parking problem. i had a large map made when we were doing the r.e.t. back in 2017. and it shows the green is the r.h.1, the red is rh-2 and the blue is the rh3. and when i saw this, i got scared because i saw this housing. i thought, my god, is this housing going to go away? and six years ago, it was the most affordable housing in the city and still is. i think in the future, our demolitions need to monitor the outcomes starting now. like the one that you approved a week or so on dolores and the one you have today on taraval. i think it's good if they report back to the commission, to the staff, as part of the condition of approval within six months of the cfc, the project sponsor could report back on the occupancy, tenure and sales price of the unit. so you know, this data would be helpful if you do proceed with democrlition demolitions. see what you're getting for your money. thank you very much. >> hi. i'm marissa noel. i'm tenant and artist at 221 11th street, the dove tail community. we're one of the last remaining communities to house artists and provide live work space for movement arts and concrete arts at affordable rates. we're all here today as our landlord is making attempt to evict us despite trying to work with her in good faith to legalize the space and we want the planning commission's help to save our home. we're not only artist space, but we're activist community, too. and during voting seasons, we host events like voting parties, talk about issues, spaces to meet candidates and our goal is to be good community members, good neighbors and also good tenants. we've worked with the landlord in the past to support their restaurant business in ways, including being careful about sound in our home, keeping the outdoor space beautified. and despite this, our landlord is blocking our actions to legalize the space after putting a lot of effort and money into it and is trying now to evict us on the grounds that we haven't done the work. all that we want is to keep our home safe and sustainable. and we're looking for the planning commission's help in doing this. thank you. >> jonas: thanks. >> president koppel: public comment is closed. >> jonas: through the chair, we'll be taking item 12 in order and taking up item 3 after item 12. case number 2019-92 -- >> president koppel: before we go into that, let director speak for a second. >> the speaker came last week and several commissioners asked me about this. this is dwelling unit on top of commercial use. the tenants had actually submitted an application to legalize the unit with the approval of the landlord who then subsequently withdrew her application. so that is the challenge that is faced here. legally, we can't proceed with that application without the owner's consent, however, we're exploring other options to see if we can get that unit legalized per the city. so we're exploring that option as well. >> commissioner melgar: i was wondering, director, if it wouldn't be appropriate to reach out to supervisor haney's office and have them involved and perhaps negotiating. thank you. >> jonas: if there is nothing further, regular calendar. as stated, item 3 will be considered after item 12 for case number 2019-0209 for the residential occupancy, intermediate length occupancy. >> president koppel: before we get started, we need a motion to recuse commissioner diamond. >> you may recall when the item came up, i asked for recusal because as a family member who works for one of the companies that could be impacted by this ordinance and he still works for the company, i would like to ask for recusal. >> commissioner melgar: i make a motion that we recuse commissioner diamond. >> second. thank you. diamond aye. fung aye. melgar aye. koppel aye. moore aye. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> good after planning department staff. we're here in response to the continuation that was taken at the january 16th hearing for the matter of the record, staff has provid provided you with memo with the substitute ordinance. before i provide the staff recommendations i'd like to provide supervisor peskin's office with time to present to you. >> welcome. >> my name is sunny and i'm representing the sponsor of this subject ordinance, supervisor peskin. thank you, all, for taking this matter up at the january 16th commission hearing and for your really thoughtful comments and concerns and questions that you raised. i wanted to just briefly kind of restate what i heard at the last commission meeting and let you know sort of our office's conversations with our city attorney and with operators and staff just in terms of how we might approach some of those questions. number one in our very early on meetings with director ram and planning staff, we did discuss the potential for interim controls. i think we were trying to figure out whether or not that would be included in this legislation or that would be a separate piece of legislation. we have since confirmed that we can amend the legislation further to be more explicit about future permanent controls, future development, new construction, and i just wanted to state for the record that we really consider this legislation right now to be interim controls, particularly two pieces of the legislation which, one being the two-year amortization period for non-price controlled units. those that were built after 1979 to current day that are operating corporate rentals currently. and that two-year -- not to say legalization period, but this amortization period, where they would come into compliance, come into the planning commission, that is really an opportunity for the city to be able to work with the operators and developers to get that data. i mean we're working right now with operators to get their data right now. our budget and legislative analyst has been preparing a report that would anonymize the financial data. so that would not be for public consumption, but at least the data points would be helpful in informing what future controls might look like. the other piece of the legislation of course is the controller's report which is not just limited to a study. it could be other things that they may choose to analyze and study which we can be more explicit in our legislation to say that when it comes to the board of supervisors, that is the time that the board would take up legislative recommendations as to what future controls would look like. and obviously, that would have to come back to this commission and all of you, so but in the meantime, we'll make it more explicit and clear that this is the cap that you will currently be considering is, first of all, i think open to as that data comes in viewing with you all, the authority to add minutely raise that -- administratively raise that cap if there is a need, and if data shows there is a public convenience and necessity to legalizing more than a thousand units in non-price-controlled buildings. and we would be interested in seeing, maybe having some kind of additional study done even by this body. the other concern that i heard from commissioner melgar, and i believe commissioner johnson as well, was sort of different industries, but may have been dependent on ilos up to this point. you brought up the specific example of ronald mcdonald house and i'm pretty positive that our legislation, and i've been in touch with ucsf and the hospital foundation that runs them, that they're currently exempted in the exceptions section, because they provide their -- their primary mission is to provide affordable housing for patients, families of patients, but we would -- we can replicate that language that is currently in the admin code and put that in the planning code so those exceptions are more explicit. and those units would not count toward the cap of that middle bucket of ilos that would be coming into compliance. i also heard from folks that there was a desire to have some more guidance around potential criteria for looking at cu approvals. and members of the public offered thoughts about how you might look at geographic clustering, the u.c. berkeley urban displacement project has map that is bay area-wide, but looks at areas prone to displacement. as a result of the issues that we discussed at our last commission meeting. so that, you know, perhaps that could be something that we could include in the file as a benchmark for you all to use. another thought that i brought up and you also heard from members of the public as well as affordable housing developers, about the real problems with trying to find temporary housing for -- you heard from some folks, from operators alleging that they really, their model was vital to temporary housing because it was housing folks who were displaced as a result of natural disasters, construction. what we're hearing from the affordable housing community that is not the case. and unfortunately, as they have looked on the market for units that they can put displaced tenants in for a temporary amount of time, but it's far outside of their reach financially. and i think that speaks to sort of the adverse impact of the rent inflation we're seeing anecdotally and i think the data will show that as well. so that could be something else. if operators were willing and interested in voluntarily listing a certain portion of those units for the mayor's office of housing and community development to potentially have the list of temporary emergency housing, that's something we would be interested in having be available for the city to avail itself of. other things might be building typeology, or amenities. it the operator providing certain amenities that are on par with a hotel? that might be something that you would consider when determining whether or not this is an appropriate residential use. i think that was sort of the main gist of the things that were brought up by commissioners. of course, we're open to hearing more, getting more feedback and considering other amendments as this moves forward. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioners, staff maintains that prior to adoption, interim control be enacted to collect data on the scale and location of ilo activity in the city. the interim control can take a variety of forms, be it neighborhood notice, planning commission hearing under discretionary view or cu or a moratorium. but in either case, staff believes adequate for the skwal, adoption of the controls is premature. that concludes the presentation. >> president koppel: thank you. we're now going to open this up for public comment. >> jonas: i have the one speaker card. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to wish a happy last meeting to commissioner melgar. it will be quite a change to have a different set of faces, but we welcome seeing what your next endeavors will be. i'll try to be brief. i really am looking forward to seeing what happens with this legislation as it continues to move through. and really urge there to be a process, by the way, for the record, my timer doesn't appear to have started. i want there to be a process where we end up with a way to protect housing and to protect the interests of people in the community who are vulnerable and desperately need affordable housing. that is what our members need and that is what our communities need. we need real housing for people. we don't need housing can blazed into short term rentals. we need long-term housing that san franciscans can move into and call home and form part of a community. and i'll reiterate, what we found, these stays are functioning as extended stay hotels. and for all intents and purposes, that's what they are, extended stay hotels. so the city has a process for creating extended stay hotels. so this legislation is welcome, because it allows for the collecting of data, allows for protection of tenants and clarification if you're staying somewhere longer than 30 days, you have rights and the companies are responsible for making sure you're informed of your rights. it provides for the adoption use process. that's what the city already has and we welcome the opportunity to have the same kind of scrutiny and frankly the same kind of opportunity for community input, as we would for an extended stay in hyatt place hotel. thank you. >> president koppel: anybody else for public comment? >> hi, tracy thompson here. yeah, the way i read this, you're making short-term rentals more criminal than attacking a policeman or breaking into a car or being a public nuisance on the street, someone who who defecates in the muni transportation station. the landlord is going to be subject to civil penalties. these are strong words to put against a landlord. as a landlord myself, i've been subjected to nuisance tenants who have caused $35,000 worth of damage on their own. refused to cooperate and have reported me to the rent board as a landlord who tried to do wrongful eviction. this proposal does not address -- it does not address short-term rentals performed by tenants behind landlord's back. this is restricted just to landlords. and the high level of displacement that you see in san francisco is because landlords have pulled their units off the market. this is a known fact, because of the legislation crafted by people like aaron peskin and his colleagues there at the board of supervisors, along with the rent board, have stripped the rights from the landlords, not just to restrict rent increases, but also have restricted landlords from being able to maintain their properties appropriately. i think that this really needs some addressing as the former speakers have allowed. i think this is -- will not address the housing crisis as tent right activists say. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am really hoping we move quickly on this legislation. i hope that we also learn the lessons that we did experience with short-term rentals. that was several years of trying to regulate a business that started without asking, had refused taxes to be paid, et cetera. so i hope that we can take those lessons and apply that to this. i would also say a moratorium on any further developments like the castro, a moratorium should be in place until we get this right, so people don't continue to use the loopholes that exist today to create more. we do need housing for our residents. every bit of space in the city is needed for residents of san francisco. i will tell you also the story of -- as a former nurse, having a family from mexico coming to stay here to have this very extensive surgery. and the small child was in the hospital and the father stayed downtown at a hotel for seven weeks. and then the child was going to be released from the hospital, but needed to stay in the city for another 10 days in order to see the doctors. so i offered them then my apartment having worked every single day of those seven weeks with this family, with the father and with the little boy. and in offering them my apartment, it was then going and seeing them every day and taking them around the city. and i could stay with my family. did i ask for any money? no. it's just what you do in terms of being to guests. and i could do that. and that is something we should also look at. there are extensive periods of time where people do need to stay in hospitals and family needs to be around. i don't know that we need to have entire buildings that are built to accommodate all of these types of situations. just saying that there is a traditional way that is called hospitality. that does no harm and there is no money exchanged just as another example. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm glad you're hearing this again and i hope that you will take action today to move this forward. we had so much trouble trying to regulate airbnb and other short-term renters and this has got the potential to be as big or bigger. so let's take action now. i'm a property owner myself. i know some of the troubles that go on, but we need housing for residents. we need housing for continuing residents. for new residents and putting some reasonable limits as this legislation proposes will be a good step in the right direction. and a moratorium is excellent idea, too. so, please, honor the work here and take action before we have a real collision course here. thank you. >> thank you, anyone else from the public wish to comment on the item. seeing none, public comment is closed. before i go to the commissioners, i wanted to thank everyone for the patience in the couple of weeks to get the to finer details. >> commissioner melgar: thank you so much. i wanted to start just by thanking sunny angulo for your incredible brains and hard work on this. and supervisor peskin for taking it on. i think as our city changes, it is imperative that we tackle those changes by looking at ways that both protect and preserve what we have and make progress, economically, and what we need to do to adapt to a new economy and a new way of doing things. so you know, i like what i see. i think we need to move forward on regulating ilos. that's what we're calling them, right? so i wanted to make a couple of requests beyond what i said last week since i had time to think about it. the first thing, you know, you already touched on it during this interim period, you will look at the numbers as to what is appropriate. i would ask that along with that, we look at geography. just like hotels, there are places it's appropriate to have intermediate length of occupancy, like right next to the opera, where there are artists staying for three months because they're part of a show. and there is places where it's not appropriate, where they compete with hotels. we don't want that to happen. they're in the fabric of the neighborhood, but don't interact with the neighborhood in the same way as two-unit or single-family homes do. so from a planning perspective, i would like to see some thought about sort of geographic distribution of these things. and you know, the other thing that i was going to ask is about the cap in terms of not just the number, but also the length. so i know that a lot of times during times of economic upheval sometimes, we're all about the hustle in san francisco, but sometimes our economy is good, sometimes it's not so good. i know that developers sometimes use these intermediate length rentals because they have to the pay the mortgage on the construction loan, but they're not quite ready to do long-term leases, so i'm wondering if there is way to think about it as a temporary designation that after the certificate of occupancy, maybe for a year or less, or more, i don't know, but it might be worth looking at. and then after that disallowing it all together. perhaps. so just stuff that i've thought about. but i really appreciate that you addressed our concerns. and i'm wondering where it's going to go for now. and i appreciate you took it on because i think the regulation is necessary. thank you. >> commissioner fung: the picture of the proposed legislation is quite broad. as has been discussed, i think there is probably some consensus among people that certain groups of people, whether it's for compassionate care or whether it's for interim uses for arts and cultural are probably not going to have much agreement as those on acceptable types of residential use. i'm supportive of the interim in order to be able to procure data, but i would offer an amendment. while that data is being aggregated, i think we should allow and one potential way of allowing certain units and types would be those controlled by 501 c-3 nonprofit. so if that is an acceptable amendment, i think it allows some of these things to continue because there will be a lot of detail. >> president koppel: did you want to respond to that? i sense that, whether it's the compassionate care or potentially organizations or the 501-3-c that would be exemptions at a later point. >> yes, that is currently an exception that is already allowed in the admin code portion of the legislation. we're more than happy to extend that to the planning code portion as well. i think that commissioner melgar brought up the hospital use. if we needed to, we could further -- if folks were concerned that there might be interpretation that patient family housing was not affordable housing, then we could be more explicit. i also was thinking a little bit about the arts sort of nexus and you know, there are -- there are some providers that are actually in rent controlled housing that have talked to us about, could we do a grandfathering provision in the rental ordinance. i think it definitely we need to see the data. i mean, this is the opportunity for the operators to come forward and really work with the city and be honest about what they're doing, what they're pricing things at. i think it's all about the pricing. so you know, it may be, i mean with the inclusionary legislation, we're really clear about what the different area median incomes are, for both rental and ownership. we could delineate some allowable, what is the definition of affordable in this instance. so that is something that we're also very open to. but currently, though, 501-c-3 and 4s, they are exempt from the rent code portion if they are providing affordable housing. >> we'll find out. >> short-term -- >> we'll find out if they are also abusing the process. >> i hope ronald mcdonald house isn't, but thank you. [laughter] >> president koppel: anyone like to publicly comment on this item? >> already closed public comment. >> commissioner melgar: so i make a motion we approve with modifications. >> which modifications. >> staff modifications. >> will you entertain my amendment? >> can you restate it again, please? >> commissioner fung: the supervisor's representative indicated there is a clause in the administrative code change which has not been provided to us. that deals with the exception for 501-c-3 -- if you look, planning department staff, if you look in the packet, substitute ordinance included, it's on page 15, lines 19 through 21. the provision that was the discussion right now. >> thank you. so what i had heard is that we wanted it to be a little bit tighter. so you know, saying affordable housing, it's affordable because it's cheaper than staying at a hotel, but the families that stay are not necessarily low-income. they're under duress and their kid is sick. what i would ask, that we make that definition tighter. so 501-c-3 and 4 you asked, so the definition, what kind of housing perhaps? >> i was very supportive of commissioner fung's amendments regarding non-profits, arts and the care facilities. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: would you like to add a comment about geographic, or was that implied for you? >> commissioner melgar: for me, it was like a study. not necessarily, because i don't know off the top of my head, i think of examples, but we can add that as a request. >> commissioner moore: comment, okay. >> commissioner melgar: yeah. >> president koppel: do i hear a second. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to confirm that scott's recommendation is for interim moratorium or control. so that's the modification. okay, great, thanks. >> president koppel: very good, commissioners, if i understand the motion correctly it is to approve the proposed legislation with modifications including the recommendations from commissioner melgar and adding the nonprofit and 501-c-3 and 4 to the planning language itself. on that motion, fung aye. melgar aye. moore aye. koppel aye. that passes unanimously 4-0. commissioners that places us back under the consent item pulled off. item number 3, 901-911 union street. this is a condominium conversion. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is a condominium conversion request for 901 through 911 union street. it's conversion of a existing building into residential condo units. the subject property became available for conversion on august 10, 2017 after the 10-year period of ownership without eviction passed as prescribed by the city and county code. given that it provides homeownership opportunities in the city. the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and is necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. that concludes my presentation. >> project sponsor? >> does the project sponsor wish to make a presentation? if not, we have one speaker card from teresa. >> i know this building well, however i was first alerted to the fact that this was going to be up for condo conversion when a friend had sent me a picture, saying, my god this is the home of tina, the famous photographer had once lived here. as well i looked and saw the name zirken as a well known eviction attorney in the city. so that made me look more deeply into this. so i want to draw attention to the fact that this was purchased on the whole building, july 13, 2007. and ellis act eviction notice was filed 27 days later. that meant that 12 tenants were evicted. so when one says there have been no evictions in the past 10 years, that is true. however, could i get the -- however, it is about 12 people trying to find homes and they had attempted -- i did speak with one of the former tenants there. they had tried as an entire building to purchase their building, but, again, how do you compete with a corporation who then paid $4.5 million for the entire building back in 2007? to place this in context, we know that we are losing so many units during different periods of time and this happened right around the first dot.com boom as it was starting to end. and especially in the north beach russian hill area, we had speculators buying up and evicting. this is not your classic mom-and-pop elderly now wanting to go out of the business of being a landlord. rather, this is about corporations. this is about whoever has some money from somewhere to go in and purchase a building and then turn them into tics and then condos. i just want to alert you to the fact that there is another building that also went through an ellis eviction in 2017, and those units are now also being sold as t.i.c. what i think is missing and what i'd really like to ask this body for, if planning can actually have a map showing -- [bell ringing] -- where exactly have buildings been sold as t.i.c.s and where the condo conversions, so you can see that, like in this instance, a half block away, there is another building becoming t.i.c.s. this is not moderate income housing. not when you pay $1.8 million for a three-bedroom unit. families such as new immigrants from italy will never, ever, be able to move into a place like that in the city. [bell ringing] so again to have a map would be great. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: move to approve. >> second. >> president koppel: thank you. on that motion approve, this condominium conversion. commissioner diamond aye. fung aye. moore aye. koppel aye. that passes 4-0. that places on back on the regular calendar, items 13, 14, a, b, c, d, e and f, for case numbers 2017-011878env. for the potrero power station. you'll be considering the environmental impact report, findings and statement of overriding, planning code amendments, design for development agreement, zoning map amendments as well as the development agreement. we are calling up these matters together to accept one session of public comment. but then you will be considering item 13 separately before you take on the remaining entitlements. >> good afternoon. planning department staff and coordinator for the environmental review on this project. with me, lisa gibson, chris kern, john francis, josh, maya and alison from the planning department. i believe carly from the sfmta is also present and we have john and ken from the mayor's office of workforce development. members of the project sponsor team are also present as well. as the commission secretary has indicated, the item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report, or eir, for the potrero power station mixed use development project. so before i walk you through the environmental review process and the ceqa findings, my colleague john francis will provide you with an overview of the project. so please allow me to introduce john francis. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john francis, project manager for the potrero mixed use project, 29-acre master development site on the waterfront. pier 70. over nearly three years, the project sponsor has collaborated with city agencies and the community to develop a comprehensive master plan for the power station site that includes numerous public benefits and community amenities that will transform the central water front from the polluting industrial past to a mixed use future. over that period, they've presented the project to you and historic preservation commission numerous times, both prior to and after publication of the draft eir. we have shared updates and the project has evolved. most recently in september, 2019, for initiation of the general plan amendments related to the project and for informational presentation. the purpose of today's hearing is to present the final project and consider a series of motions to certify the project eir, to approve the foundational documents that will regulate and guide the implementation. >> excuse me, sfgovtv, can you go to the computer. >> the presentation will cover the following items. i'll provide a summary of today's proposed actions. my colleague rachel schuett will provide a ceqa impacts. my colleagues will provide an overview of the key terms of the project development agreement. the project sponsor will summarize the key project elements and i'll summarize at the end the key project approvals under consideration today. noting any changes that have occurred since publication of the commission's case packet on january 16. >> the proposed approval actions for the consideration today include certifying the eir, adopting ceqa findings and recommending approval of general plan amendments, planning code map amendments, project development agreement. i will now return the podium to rachel. >> sfgovtv, thank you. here we are. thank you, john. >> before you start, folks, those of you entering the room, you can't stand in front of the door and block it. you're creating a fire hazard. if you're not here for this item, you may want to just wait outside, but if you are, i will call and try to arrange for an overflow room now. >> thank you. and thank you, john, for the overview. as john has discussed, following the publication of the draft eir, the project was refined based on comments from the commissioners and from the public. the refined project is called the project variant. you can see the comparison of the proposed project and the project variant here on the slide. the primary changes were reducing the maximum building height from 300 feet to 200 and the partial retention of station a, which the project sponsor team will discuss in more detail later on in the presentation. chapter 9 in the responses to comments to the document provides a full and complete environmental review of the project variant, at the same level of detail as the proposed project in the draft eir. ultimately, we determined that the significance of the environmental impacts that we identified for the proposed project were the same under the project variant. although some of the litigation measures have been tailored to be more specific to the details of the project variant. another issue is raised between the draft eir and the rtc which is related to the area of the project site. as we stated in the draft eir, the project sponsor does not currently control the pg&e subarea which means that the development of those 4.8 acres would occur only when and if pg&e determines it's feasible to relocate their existing facilities and to transact the site. since this was raised, we thought pertinent to look at the area. as shown on this slide, the developable potential for the overall project site would be reduced by 4.8 acres. this generally reduces environmental impact, however, as shown on the slide, under the no pg&e scenario subair scenario, the access points to the site would be reduced to 23rd street. so we explored the scenario with the help of transportation consultants and with sfmta. and ultimately, we determined that no additional or more severe environmental impacts would occur under this scenario. so the project variant both with and without the pg&e subarea would not result in additional significant adverse environmental impacts beyond what was identified in the draft eir. consequently this does not trigger the need to recirculate the draft. i will summarize the comments on the draft. which included the period of significance associated with the 3rd street industrial and the adequatesy of mitigation measures to address impacts to the historic resources. we received comments on the transportation analysis, including the methodology, the findings and the impact to transit and site circulation. lastly, we received comments on how sealable rights was addressed. so all of these comments have been addressed in the responses to comment document. moving on, i'll give you a summary of the eir findings. the final concluded that the project variant with and without the pg&e parcel would result in cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts as follows. in terms of historical resources, the project variant would result to the demolition of two eligible historic resources, meter house and the compressor house. station a would be partially retained including the south and east walls and portions of the north and west walls. this would not meet the secretary of the interior standard. we've showed mitigation measures. historic american building survey, or have documentation, video record of the video and setting, salvage materials. and installation of a permanent interpretive display. however, these impacts cannot be mitigated to a less significant level, therefore, the project variant would result in a project unavoidable impact to the three historic resources. also, future residents of the project site and the adjacent pier 70 site would be subject to elevated noise levels during the construction of both projects for a period of 1-5 years. post construction, the project variant would result in traffic noise increases along several street segments. as you can see, several mitigation measures were included, however, even with the implementation of day time and nighttime noise measures, these impacts would be significant and unavoidab unavoidable. for transportation, the project variant could result in a substantial decrease and delays to muni. this would be due to increased vehicle trips and the fact that travel lanes would be shared by cars and transit vehicle. this is cumulative impact. in the existing post project condition, impacts would be that to the 22 fillmore, quinn tara future routes. the 22 fillmore route and the 48 quinn tar, 24th routes would be delayed. several mitigation measures are included as on this slide. however, transit delay impacts would be significant and unavoidable. for air quality, there would be a significant and unavoidable impact due to criteria air pollutant emissions during the project and operation of the project, particularly when those two phases overlap. also, during operations, the project variant will contribute to an existing or projected cumulative impact to regional air quality. as you can see on this slide, we have included a variety of mitigation measures, and yet these air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. lastly, significant and unavoidable wind impacts could occur during the phase development of the site. mitigation has been incorporated as shown on the slide, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. i would like to point out that once the site is fully developed as planned, wind impacts would be less significant. all of this said, significant and unavoidable environmental impacts could occur with implementation of the variant. they would need to adopt overwriting, to the california environmental quality act should the commission choose to approve the project. okay, to recap. our process. you all receive the documents. public hearing on the draft eir was held november 8, 2018. the public comment period closed november 19, 2018. and the responses to comment documents was distributed on november 11, 2019. the responses to comments document which is volume 3, in combination with the draft eir you received, volumes one and two, those constitute the final eir. we believe that the eir is adequate and provides decision-makers to understand the impact of the project. we request that the commission adopt the possession before you, which certifies the report is adequate and accurate and that the procedures to which it was prepared, the ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation on this portion. and i will turn the podium over to ken rich. thank you. >> good afternoon. ken rich with oewd. some of you, this slide will be familiar to some of our commissioners and maybe not so much to the newer ones, but this is a reflection of an effort that we call the southern bay front negotiating framework that over the years recognizing how much development was going to happen in part of the city. i've got this up here at this juncture to point out that this project is the last of the major development agreement type large projects along this part of the san francisco waterfront to come through in front of you at the commission. and really represents kind of a milestone in terms of planning for a lot, a lot, a lot more housing other than community benefits, open space, along this part of the waterfront. just to take a moment. personally, it's nice timing for me. this is probably my last time in front of the commission, other than every week i'll be here in public comment. [laughter] and it's fortuitous timing for me to bring it in front of you. i wanted to point out -- and this is very important -- even though we will have, assuming this project gets through -- approved that many housing units and a whole bunch of other things, our work didn't done. we have to make sure we get these things built. they're challenging to build. as i think you know, the city is gearing up under mayor breed's leadership to solve the problems that occur after you entitle the projects. the other thing mayor breed would want me to say is it's critical as we move forward, we have a renewed focus, that the benefits we negotiate on these projects, that you spend more time -- we don't take for granted we approved affordable housing, but we're going to spend time going forward through new staff in the office and new initiatives to go out and connect the communities to the benefits and explain that, for example, in three years from now, we expect affordable housing to be available. here is how you apply. here is how much money you need to make. this is how much money is too much money. all the rules. the same thing for the workforce training and other things. that's a really critical piece along with -- even though we get a lot of money for transportation for the projects, the city has to continue focusing a lot on moving people around this part of the city, because it's the part that is growing the most. with that, i'll turn back to john. i'll be back in a moment to do another part of the presentation. >> thanks, ken. john lau. i'll take this moment to wish commissioner melgar the best in her future endeavors as well. each prior time we've been before you commissioners on this project, i think we're up to a half dozen, the theme that i started off with is transformation and i think it's worth doing that again for the moment. obviously, the suite of projects you saw on ken's slide seeks the broader transformation of the district that happened in the projects over the past 10 years, and it's very applicable to the site in particular. and the central waterfront neighborhood. this site as you know, in particular, was home to a power generating facility for other industrial users for over 100 years. that site was the focus for many voices in the community and some in city hall to urge and work towards and urge the close ever ott facility -- closing of the facility. some of those individuals are no longer with us. it's really only because that effort over ten years to close the power plant through a number of ownership changes, and attempted expansion, that made this project possible. so i think transformation is an affable term and in particular, sort of physical manifestation of that, this site is an area that has never been publicly accessible. to it's a powerful component of the project, it is literally opening up 20+ acres of san francisco that has never been accessible. it's an incredible waterfront site as well. we're going to go through highlights of the public benefits package. then we'll hand it back to staff in the sponsor to talk about. you'll see how those look and feel going through the program. and the centerpiece of the public benefits package we've negotiated is the housing program. and ken will speak to that. >> thanks, john. so the housing program is obviously central. it's fairly complex. i tried to boil it down to the simple elements, but of course we're happy and expecting to get questions from you on these. if we've left anything out. so to begin with, the project -- >> excuse me, i've been informed we've ranged for an overflow room on this floor. if you're standing and can't find a seat, you have to exit the room to 421. you'll be able to watch and hear the proceedings. and when we open up public comment, you'll be allowed back into the room to make public testimony. but you need to make your way to room 421 now. thank you, i appreciate your cooperation. >> as i was saying, the project -- actually, i'll wait, because there will be a lot of noise when people go out. >> again, if you can't find a seat, you need to make your way to room 421. >> so the project requires 30% below market rate units and significantly and importantly in each phase. and i think as all of you know given the cost of building housing these days, 30% is a significant number. we worked hard to make sure we got that level of community benefits. the below market rate units are restricted to cost as affordable households earning not more than 72% of ami for rental and 99% for ownership. that is the average amount, that section 415, that is the requirement comes out to. this project parallels in most ways what is required in section 415. no rental bmr unit can be rented at ami higher than 130%, or 150% of the ami for ownership. that is also the top end of what section 415 requires. so going on, the housing plan provides three ways for the developer, given that we like to engineer flexibility into the agreements. the developer has three ways. it can use one, two or all three of the ways to get to the affordable housing. the first one is as simple as by providing inclusionary units in market rate projects and administering those conforming to mocd procedures, the lotteries and all of those things. there is a provision for preference for a small number of the units to the homeless prenatal program. i'll allow the developer to explain that program. so going on, the second way that the developer can provide affordable housing is to convey one or more parcels on site, has to be on-site, to an affordable housing developer and not only to convey the parcel, but also to pay for the affordable housing. so whatever the gap is after tax credits and all the other funding that an affordable developer can bring, that has to be provided also. that parcel needs to be deed-restricted for the life of the project. the way we've negotiated this, the developer will receive two-thirds credit when the land is conveyed and remaining one-third credit when the actual units are built. and there is protections in here in case the units don't appear. after 10 years, if the develop is not able to perform, the title to the land can revert to the master developer, about you the deed restriction for affordability remains. if by the end of the development agreement period the housing is still not been provided, which means by the way that they would have had to meet their 30% in some other way. they still have to do the 30%. but if this parcel has not been developed by the end of the development agreement period, then the city will take possession of that land and use it to build its own affordable housing. the third way that the developer can provide the affordability is by paying the in-lieu fee, as you know from section 415 of the code, to the mayor's office of community and housing develop. we've restricted that amount so that there was a desire among some of our decision-makers and the supervisor to make sure that not too much of the project would be feed out. so only one-third of the project, or 258 units can be feed out. that 258 is one-third of the 30% would be if the project is built out. they're payable as normal as building permits for whatever building is generating the requirement. and they go up, they adjust by the index, that most impact fees use, which is in planning code section 409b. the last piece, which is a little complicated, but i'll try to make it simple. we need to deal with the eventuality, that the develop are might be for building commercial space, because, for instance, as the economy we're in now, commercial space pencils out better than housing. we said to ourself, well, we can't have a bunch of commercial space and not get the primary benefit from the project which is affordable housing. so we negotiated a scenario that basically says, even if you're not building market rate housing which generator the 30% inclusionary. if you're building life science or office space, you owe us bmr. the way we figured that out, for every 500,000 square feet of the total $1.5 million allowed in the project, if it's office space, we need to get equivalent of 128bmr units. if it's life science space, we need equivalent of 84bmr units. in terms of providing those, the developer has the same three options i just went through. so i hope that made sense. it's a little bit of a unique situation since this project has so much project space in it. i'm going to stop there. and happy to answer more questions that may exist on housing when we get to questions. >> if we don't hear from you, thanks for all the work on this project and every other project before it. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner moore: can i say something. >> john lau with o.e.w.d. we'll go through a few slides on the overall benefit package. transportation an important one. we have negotiated both a rigorous and comprehensive t.d.m. plan, transportation demand management plan, the sponsor is obligated to adhere to, which includes transit cafe to transit passes, shuttle service. from day one, we've kind of baked into the design of this project, the extension of the new muni bus service that will be serving this site in the future. so both the route layover facilities. and then close to $65 million in t.s.f. fees from the project. transportation sustainability fees that will be directed to a menu of projects in the district. we've had a very active dialogue with the community on needs they see in the neighborhood. those are woven into the agreement. on workforce development, something we're also proud of, one of the pillars of the benefit package, and somewhat unique we've tailor it to take advantage of the opportunities, that being tech and we hope bio-tech employers. so in addition to the hiring agreements for construction, and local hire on construction where appropriate, in addition to construction work, we've tailored programs that will partner with future employers on the site in the fields of tech and bio-tech, and stem more largely, so for source agreements for those opportunities in those fields, in addition to ongoing partnerships with those future employers. and then actually funding leveraging other city and grant money to support job readiness and training programs to get people trained and ready for that pipeline that we'll be creating with the future employers. in terms of open space, the key point as i messaged earlier, the -- mentioned earlier, the entirety of the site is becoming publicly accessible for the first time. within that, we have a suite of different experiences and types of open space that the project will provide from active recreation in the form of a soccer field. and more passive in shoreline opportunities as well. preservation, as noted, the project will be readapting, reusing station a and the stack. and attempting to -- and this is desirous of doing the same with unit 3. none of this happens easily. and we stood before you in one of the first presentations and talk about the challenges involved with this topic, that the project is only so big, and we need that pie to address a number of needs. this is something we heard a lot about from community conversation. i know you have, too. it's been a challenge, but we've landed, i think, in a good place making these commitments around stationing in particular the remnants of the former building has been a challenge to get right, but we're happy where we landed and look forward to an ongoing conversation. these are not typical, if there is such a thing, preservation projects for san francisco. they will be very unique utilizing old power infrastructure, old brick walls, frankly, but we look forward that ongoing conversation. a few quickly, facilities that are part of the package we negotiated a commitment to build a 25,000 square foot community center. conversations involving the ymca continue as the possible operator, if not, someone like that. to partnership with the public library if they indeed locate in a nearby community project, or on site, there will be offer made of space made on site along with t.i. improvements. in addition, two child care facilities, 6,000 square feet each. in terms of sea level rise, adaptation, again, both things that are baked into the project. the engineering of the planning for the infrastructure on site. there has been reviewed by a multitude of agencies. and then longer term, the project will be contributing through payments of an assessment that will be placed on the property to longer term, perhaps city-wide certainly, interventions that may be needed relative to future sea level rise. and then lastly on my slides, the pg&e subarea, i know there have been a lot of community questions on this. and commissioners questions as well. so try to clarify again. as was mentioned i think in the environmental planning piece, there is a broader pg&e subarea that encompasses parts of block 1 and 14 in the project. we hope and expect that those are on a more accelerated path to being acquired and folded into the project. block 13 is a longer term prospect. if you know the area, there is existing switchyard facility which is still sited there. there is the desire and some exploration of how a reconsideration of that entirety site operated by pg&e might look like and may free up the corner of the site. but that is a longer term prospect. ceqa analyzes all of these scenarios, has been covered. 2600 units will be the grand total of the full project. 2000 roughly units if block 13 is not able to be acquired and added to the d.a. and then total of 1400 units if the block 14 and block 1 piece are not added. i think in terms how the mechanics of that, the d.a., the owner of those parcels actually joined the d.a., become a party of the contract with the city for the zoning that is now before you. we can talk more about that if there are questions. and i think it's on to the sponsor. >> thank you, project sponsor. >> good afternoon. project sponsor for the power station. that on which the sugar factory sat. it was later a power station and served the needs of san franciscans for more than 100 needs. it's inconceivable to think we had manufactured gas plants in the marina, fishermen's wharf, but we did. the city had 37 of them. over time, technology evolved and we used better energy resources. these are now reabsorbed and well loved residential neighborhoods. this is an important milestone as we come before you to redevelop this site and reopen 29 acres of san francisco to the people. more than 20 years ago members of the community came together to oppose the building of a new fossil fuel power plant. through the efforts of neighborhood activists, city staff, regulators and supervisor maxwell, an agreement was reached to close the power plant. as a result of this effort, we have the opportunity to reweave these 29 acres of waterfront san francisco into the fabric of our city. [please stand by] [please stand by] variety of urban form in a mixed-use neighborhood. the buildings in our neighborhood vary from 65 to 200 feet, and they're set with offices and homes next to each other to be vibrant throughout the day. there was a strong desire to keep the stack and other aspects of the site's industrial history. in working request the neighborhood and presidenter -- with the neighborhood and preservation neighborhood, we're happy to confirm building a. our site provides seven acres of open space along with 1200 feet of open walk. briefly, i want to go over how the site was planned. the site was organized to connect dogpatch with the neighboring neighborhood. with the rights-of-way in place, we designed seven acres of parks along the shore and middle of the site. dogpatch is a neighborhood of discovery, and there are buildings set alongside victorians, other homes, and open spaces. unit 3 will be reimagined to serve as a gathering place along the water and will feature hotel, cavesfes, and offices. what remains of station a will be the foundation of a new building that will rise above the beautiful decay of the found art wall. the balance of the site includes 2.6 million square feet of housing, 1.5 million square feet of retail. uniquely, we've also done 48,000 square feet of community center. we have a 240,000 square foot hotel and 25,000 square feet of assembly space. as we will have a lot of speakers today i will briefly say this project has a commitment to sustainability, and we were one of the first projects to adopt the commissions sustainable outlook. we want to ensure that everyone who comes to the power station has a myriad of transportation options, and we have created a robust t.d.m. program as well as others to bring buses, shuttles, and possible future water transit. -- we look forward to having y.c.d. broadly market these units to these residents so we can broadly share the community. when we first presented i.c.r., it included 2100 units of housing but proposed to demolish station a. station a presents many challenges, and little remains but walls, but these walls are beautiful. so i'm proud to say this project includes station a, and we will move to redevelop this as soon as possible. dogpatch was the first neighborhood to welcome a neighborhood center, and we want to help the homeless. we're very happy that we found a nonprofit homeless prenatal to serve them. another partnership we're incredibly proud of is the ymca, with whom we will be building a 25,000 center at the front of the site. it will be joining the embarcadero and bayview in providing senior opportunities and job training. another thing we're incredibly proud of is we're building two of the largest child care providers in the city. finally, the project is creating -- joining a partnership with la cocina. in total, the community benefits to the power station will be more than $862 million at a level on par with public private ventures yet entirely funded by the power station. we're deeply grateful to the planning department, the office of economic and workforce development who have helped shepherd this project along, and on behalf of my colleagues, i want to say thank you. we've worked really hard to find a project that balances the -- >> president koppel: are you almost done? >> i am. you've got to say thank you after all of that. >> president koppel: i will say thank you and we are very likely to ask you up here for questions. >> okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. i've got a large number of speaker cards -- oh, there's more staff? >> thanks, henry kay. i'll try and make this quick. john stewart, planning department. staff recommends general plan amendments to ensure that the project and general plan are in indictment, to ensure that the general plan reflects new community resources proposed for the project and provides future planning guidance for heavy industrial sites such as the power station. the proposed amendments are in the central water plan, the urban design element, the recreation and open space element, the transportation almost, and the land use index. these fees were initiated on september 5, 2019. the project also requires planning code and map amendments. the proposed amendments would guarantee the power station or s.u.d. which codifies planned use for the project. the amendments would rezone the project site from industrial and light industrial use to a new mixed use and range of height from 45 to 65 and 240 feet. as is customary for a large project such as this, it will not require further action by the planning commission with plans for future buildings handled by the planning director. major modifications, confined as those in which a requested deviation is numerically greater than the percentage determined by the planning commission, will be determined by the planning commission. all open spaces in the project would require a minimum of two public meetings prior to submittal of a design review application. i would like to take the opportunity to mention two updates since the plans and supporting documents were published for your review. in response to community input, the project sponsor has agreed to provide a rooftop publicly privately open roof space on floor 18. third, also in response to community input, design review of the above grade pedestrian connection structure that is permitted between station a and block 11 has been enhanced such that the restructure would be the same as the building a itself. also for your approval today is the d for d. d for d requirements are categorized as standards, generally quantitative, and it also contains element called considerations which are recommendations to further the objected values, conveniences, and values of the project. the d.a. includes numerous exhibits, one of which is now included with the supporting documents published on january 16. specifically, you're going to see a printed copy of which is before you articulates the process of improvements on port of san francisco property and commits the planning department among other city agencies to approve and issue approvals after conferring with port staff. before wrapping up the presentation, i would like to take a moment of noting some of the city general goals and policies embodied in the general plan. first, the site which was still in active plan which was still in use as a coal-fire power plant ten years ago will be transformed and eliminating a major source of pollution for decades. second, by making a significant contribution to the city's affordable and market rate housing staff, the project will help address our housing affordability crisis. we will provide clean grocery, child care, and recreation center to meet the daily needs of residents and workers. third, the project will contribute nearly seven acres of public parks and open space, helping to reduce the large deficit of open space in the neighborhood, and serving the new residents and workers. fourth, the project will open up a portion of the central waterfront that's been closed for 150 years. the new waterfront park will be a major new amenity for the region and further our goals on making the waterfront more accessible to all. lastly, the neighborhood includes a new open green space and a new transit line. the project potrero power station will enhance mobility options to the district and help connect san franciscans to jobs, parks and every day amenities. finally, i'll end the presentation noting two items. first, the last slide is a list of action items proposed for the project today, and secondly, i would note that the subsequent to publication of the case packet for today's hearing, the planning department receives four comment letters from various organizations representing residents in proximity to the project. this concludes our presentation, and i thank you for your time. >> president koppel: thank you, mr. francis. >> clerk: great. commissioners, we've received a large number of speaker cards, so through the chair, we'll be limiting public comment to two minutes. if your name is called and you're in the overflow room, you can make your way to room 400 to submit your testimony. when i call your name, if you could lineup on the screen side of the room. former commission president ron mcgill, christina sandoval, jul julie cristenen, tyra finnell, michael robinson, deva devali magnus, charles collins, takesha gardener, and tim mueller. >> before i start in, i ask him to stay f-- tim to stay for a moment and thank him for how much he's done for the city. [inaudible] [applause] >> commissioners, i'm ron miguel. i have to start, as i was going to before that, with thanking commissioner melgar for her service. i personally understand how arduous it can be at times. i'm here representing s.p.u.r. don't hear from us very often as we only support items of regional importance. the item before you more than qualifies, and we have enthusiastically endorsed the power station project. the 29-acre location is long overdue for intelligent development. we believe the proposal provides the appropriate mix of land use, residential, commercial, retail, and open space. the goal of 2600 residential units, 90 per acre, provides sufficient density. the high level of affordability, 30%, including the missing middle, is something s.p.u.r. has encouraged for a very long time. san francisco's new waterfront projects cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be created others integral parts of our city. the power plant street grid connects west of the adjacent dogpatch neighborhood and directly interfaces with its northern neighbor, brookfield's pier 70 development. in addition, for the first time in over 100 years, 3.7 acres of our waterfront will be open to the public, completing a portion of the blue greenway and providing an extension of the bay trail. the development is in a unique position being on private land. it allows for the proposed 250-room hotel, a use prohibited on the rest of our waterfront. s.p.u.r. would like to see the waterfront buildings and the open space in the earlier rather than the later phases in order to strengthen san francisco's awareness is that our waterfront neighborhood is not only a vibrant neighborhood in itself, but a vital part of the city. i look forward to your approval. >> president koppel: thank you, mr. miguel. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name's martha ryan. i'm the founder and executive director of the homeless prenatal program here in san francisco. the program has been around for 30 years. we've worked to help end the cycle of -- intergenerational cycle of homelessness and poverty. we are located on potrero street in district 10. next month, we'll be opening up a transitional housing program for homeless pregnant women for the city. we have -- over time, we have gone from focusing on pregnant mothers and helping them deliver pregnant babies, and we realize that the foundation to ending the cycle of poverty and homelessness is housing. so we are thrilled to be part of the power station. what we will use these 36 units for is transitional housing. typically, transitional housing is 12 to 18 months. that definitely is not enough for families who have experienced trauma throughout their lives to turn their lived around. this will be four to six years, including financial development, so when they move out, these families will be able to continue forward on their path. we have given four hours of paid time to our staff if they will use it towards higher education. my staff have their bachelors in education, but its taken them 25 years. imagine what their lives and the lives of their children would be like if they could have done it in four to six years, and they could have done it if they had the opportunity. so the power station provides an opportunity. it provides opportunity for the families that need it. next door on potrero street, on potrero avenue, is a building that we plan to purchase now. we plan to build five stories of affordable permanent supportive housing. associated capital has not only helped us with the power station, they're helping us with phase one. they're helping us designing and developing this project. they're a great partner, and i hope you will vote yes today because this is a fantastic community partnership, and we're proud to be part of it. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and on your transition out of the commission board, i hope it's a pleasant one. we were delighted to hear about the community benefits plan, associated capitalists bringing forth which demonstrates due diligence of concerns being brought forward of residents. i encourage you to approve e.i.r. and subsequent amendments. it's also good that we're seeing a good project come out of something that was environmentally unjust. among other amenities, the over 2500 units of housing this project will produce are very much needed. once again, please certify the final e.i.r. and approve subsequent amendments. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. is. >> hi. good afternoon. let me just start off by saying happy new year. i am so excited to be here, but not only as a district 10 bayview mother but as a mother of seven, a grandmother of three. this is so up my alley. i was actually -- i'm actually a c.h.p. graduate project. the hotel project has many components which you've heard about. as best i can describe it in my nonexpert terms is the guts of the old station will be removed and the skeleton kept, and the hot hotel poured back onto it. so it's quite a feat, and when that hotel is constructed, and it operates, the workers there will have a path, a fair path, a neutral path, to choose a union, which will allow them to have a job with dignity, respect on the job, a living wage, and health insurance, and all of the other aspects that are so crucial to having a life -- living a life with dignity in this very expensive city. that has been reached with the project sponsor. the project sponsor reached out to us early on for this agreement, so they are setting the tone that everyone should choose to bring when they bring a hotel to our city. so we support the project and we ask you to support it, as well. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is mark koppel. i want to make you aware of some developments. i'm not a cynical person, but being from new jersey, the first thing i thought of was what's the catch? well, in the past year, we've met with the people from associated capital at least half a dozen times. they've met with our board of directors, laid out how this project is going to go, and there hasn't been a catch. as a matter of fact, the more we hear about it, the more we like it. there will be 36 units that will be available at minimal to no rent. they were homeless people who now will have a home and will now be undergoing education and hopefully will be able to find work that will break them out of the cycle of poverty. so because we trust by veriut , we met with some folks with the neighborhood association, and they verified everything that we had heard. so i stand before you, ask you you to approve this project because the people who are behind it are, from everything we can tell and from the people that we've met, who they've also spoken to, are acting in good faith. they're trying to create an enhancement for the community, the dogpatch, and what i've seen on paper, it's going to totally transform this community, so i ask you to approve this project. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. laura foote, yimby. this is a dream project. it's providing everything to everyone. it's going above and beyond. it's got bells and whistles. it's got some historical component. how wonderful, how wonderful. i want to actually put a note of fear because every time we've had a project like this that has become, "the new high watermark," we have raised our expectations about what any one project can do. and we know that in the pipeline, the projects like this, the amazing outlier projects are stalling because we've put too much on them. we've expected them to solve every single problem that san francisco has. we've expected them to solve all of our needs from nonprofit fund. he ha we've expected them to solve every problem that we have. they're not all going to be able to do that, so appreciate this amazing outlier of a project. don't slow it down. it will stop if you slow it down. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thanks so much for taking the time to listen to so many folks who will be speaking today. but going to start by introducing myself. theo ellington. i am a proud homeowner in bayview. in my full-time, i do homeless housing for the salvation army. a lot of what we do around san francisco centers around three things. reuse, reduce, and reutilization. really, really excited about the community benefits. a lot of times, you see on the southeast side of town some of the disparities as it relates to things like jobs, things like transportation, things like homelessness, and this project hits on all cylinders, so super proud of the work that the city has done to move this forward. hats off to the developers who have stuck through -- through countless hours of meetings and input sessions and etc. i also want to just take a couple seconds here to give a special shoutout to the elders of our community who fought so hard to shut the former power plant down, and now, today, to see the possibilities -- someone mentioned hope. i heard a dream, i heard a couple different just words used to describe this project, so i am in full support. you know that we've got a community that supports this, and we all urge you to move this project forward, so thank you all so much. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tara finnell. i'm a resident of the bayview-hunters point but i'm president of a nonprofit that's based in the dogpatch. i've been privy to the detailed plans associated capital has used in this process. as an arts person, it's also not lost on me the amount of arts organizations and initiatives they have provided a platform to by allowing them to activate their very large space, welcoming thousands to the neighborhood which benefits local businesses and builds community get well. i look forward to having amenities such as the ymca, open space, augmented transportation which has always been an issue in my neighborhood, in the southeast sector, an arts facility, and a much needed grocery store that everyone is long waiting for, amongst other features. needless to say, i'm in support of this project and hope it's approved to move to next level. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name's jordan wing. i'm a resident of the mission, and this is my first public comment, so forgive me if this is a little rambling. i just want to remind everyone, if you haven't heard, we're in a housing crisis. san francisco hasn't built housing in decades, and the result is people who can't live near their jobs in the city. they have to spend hours and hours away from their family, and that's time they have to spend commuting and they can't do other things. so when i saw a project that was going to build 3,000 homes, many of which were affordable, as well as open space and amenities, i came out here to support it. to provide housing for homeless mothers, for children, this is a fantastic project, and i strongly encourage you to support it, to move it along as fast as possible. i want to remind everyone that delaying these sorts of projects adds to their cost. it makes them more unlikely to happen, and what we need in san francisco is housing, and we need it now. so please move forward with this project. it's a fantastic proposal, and please take advantage of this opportunity. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. emily loper. i'm the policy planning director at bay coalition. we represent about 200 employers around the bay area that collectively advocate for strong environmental growth and the quality of the region. we're excited to see this connection with the neighborhood, reactivating a portion of the waterfront that's been cutoff from the community for over 100 years, and we're very excited with the transportation improvements for this project that will dramatically improve the transit to this area. we're particularly excited about the innovative investments to set up a water transit pilot program that would service the san francisco waterfront. this project carves out some of the t.s.f. fees to start this water transit pilot program that will connect fisherman's wharf, hopping down the waterfront to mission bay, and we anticipate a robust build out of the system that would further serve the neighborhood as new developments come on-line. this would create a beautiful and convenient transit alternative in the city and not just for san francisco residents commuting in the city but will also provide a last-mile commute for workers there. we're committed to ensuring its success, not just for the duration of the pilot, but hopefully for years to come. and i'll say that san francisco aways been waiting for a water transit service like this for decades, and i'm thrilled that thanks to the work of this development team, that it's going to happen. thanks very much. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is julie chr christensen. i'm a director of a nonprofit board. the power station will obviously have an enormous impact on dogpatch. the team at the power station has made extraordinary efforts to coordinate their plans with ours, both long-term and short-term planning, looking for mutual benefits, for example, in the way that road ways and pedestrian ways will connect our two neighborhoods and draw dogpatch closer to the waterfront. i think they generally realize that the improvements to the dogpatch that they're helping to create happen will not only create a better gate way to their project but it will create a richer neighborhood to theirs. i think the group is unique in the extent to which they've embedded themselves in our neighborhoods, attending their events, our meetings, actually becoming part of the community. and my sense is they want to bring a kernel of that to the development, to try to bring a sourdough patch to the development. this has helped the neighbors see this development not as an intrusion into dogpatch, but an extension of it. so we're grateful for the amenities and the infrastructure that it provides, things dogpatch lacks as it gets wildly and quickly develops. so you can put us down as yet another organization that urges the project to move forward. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is susan eslick. i've lived and worked in dogpatch for 23 years. i'm also the current president of the green benefit district. i am in support of this project. no doubt the power station will have an enormous impact on our district. i believe it to be a positive one. over the past three years, the project sponsors have worked closely to coordinate their plans with our concerns. this will create improvements in dogpatch that have been sorely needed, specifically improved roadway and pedestrian connectivity, open access space, and of course housing and office space. with the development of the power station, dogpatch will have a chance to expand and extend to the bay and become a destination for all of san francisco to enjoy. i urge you to support. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name's ollie lundberg. i'm the principle designer at lundberg design. i should also note i'm the designer of the hotel project that's part of this, but i'm here as a member of the community and as a designer. ignoring the part that i'm doing, the rest of the project -- >> clerk: mr. lundberg, you've been hired by the project team to design part of the project? >> yes. >> clerk: then your time to speak was during the presentation of the project. >> oh . sorry. >> president koppel: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the assistant director for the northern california carpenters regional council. we represent about 3800 carpenters in local 22. i'd like to take my hat off just to staff, first of all, and the developer. they've reached out to staff and the community. that really speaks to the character of them as a developer and a group. that's not necessarily going to transform san francisco, but it's going to change what's already there and what will be there. this is a diverse development, and they've taken an approach to address all the needs for the city. primarily, what's important for us is the need of more housing. i know it's been said a lot, but it raises a tremendous amount of points to our membership that we have in the city and county of san francisco. this project will take an abandoned power plant and construct 2600 units of housing. and that's without taking any public subsidies. this project has a rich amount of other amenities and community benefits that i won't cover because it was an extensive amount of benefits that the developer's bringing to the community, and i just want to say that we met really early on with this developer to make sure that labor is committed on this project. they committed to using a labor general contractor early onto make sure that the general and the carpenters and laborers that were going to be on-site and have some representations on this project. another thing is this developer has taken an innovative approach to bring some new technology to the city and county of san francisco in the form of c.l.t., and we urge you to support this development. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is devali magnus, and i am the director of housing, development, and policy at young community developers. i'm here to show our support for development of this project. we are extremely excited at the opportunity to partner on one of the affordable housing sites that will be built on this project. it's a great opportunity for our organization as we expand our work into the affordable housing development space and build our capacity in reaching our goals towards that? and we are also looking forward to working together to make the affordable housing piece -- the marketing side, excuse me, of the affordable housing side piece of this to work, as well as people to access and benefit from the affordable housing that will be available on this site. and finally, i want to point out that we are discussing opportunities to connect our job training and workforce development side of our organization with the planned hotel for this project. so again, we urge you guys to support this project. thank you so much. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is michael robinson, a district 10 resident. to see this power station be transformed into affordable housing for the citizens of san francisco is something that we need greatly, and so i urge approval of this project. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is monica wilson. i am the program director for seely. it's an intern program based in d-10, and we place students in that environment. originally, i was going to attend an informational interview two or three years ago because my dad was an operator at the power plant when i was younger, and i thought this was going to be an opportunity to see the inside of the power plant. what's transpired is a multiyear partnership to help our teens learn about the development but really about sustainability, about how cities grow, about how sites get transformed, reused. and i cannot say enough with regards to the team, enrique and matthew. in our partnerships with them, we were able to subsidize five additional placements in our internship programs and nonprofit developers and san francisco local l.b.e.s. we were able to bring 60 young adults, many who had never really ventured east of third street to this site and just get immersed with information, understanding, and awareness. hugely supportive of their community and how they engage with the community was one of the most thoughtful and expansive that i've ever seen in years of doing community-based economic development. thank you very much. >> president koppel: thank you very much. >> clerk: i'm also going to call a few more names, so if you're in the overflow chamber, now would be the time to make your way to room 400. [names read] >> i'm darren cline, your second to last, and i'm with pacific gas and electric, and i am really happy to be here to tell you not only that we as a company approve of this project. we're very excited -- yes, we're very excited to be a part of this project to be here as this is going through the entitlement process. we are right next door. this used to be a pg&e power plant, and as we have seen this area of the city grow, we know that not only do we need reliable power which will lead to us upgrading equipment, but the best part of that is technology has made that equipment much smaller, so we now know that we can be a part of bringing more housing back to san francisco, helping the neighborhood become the neighborhood that it wants to be. we have another project, hunters point, where we are also redoing a substation. and some of the comments people have said is they feel that it's great that we're able to open up the waterfront to people again because the power plant used to be in the way, so the same thing that's happening here, we're happy to be a part of it. the other thing is the housing crisis that's going on in the city, we want to be a part of a good story, and this is a good story. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is james buetti. i'm a local photographer, and i've worked directly with the developer. but before that, i was a guest -- i did a tour. i used to live in the dogpatch area, and i think it's refreshing to have a developer that's so open and transparent, showing people what they're doing and talking about everything, like, really bringing the community together. you know, it's been great working with them, seeing the sites and seeing the vision that they have and seeing how the community has come together in support of them is really fantastic. i can't approve it enough, but it's up to you guys to approve it for us. please, approve it with us. thanks. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm chuck collins. i'm the president and c.e.o. of the ymca of san francisco. we are involved in every district in this city, none more important than where this project sits, at the intersection of opportunity. this is situated in the bayview potrero hill area and we have done an extensive amount of community outreach so we have a firm basis of supporting this projec project. what we can say is we're deeply committed to this also because the developer has made a commitment to place a community center there. it'll be a 25,000 square foot facility, really responsive to what the community has said, that there must be somewhere in this that the community comes together and really can sustain its energy in that way, and so it's a great honor to be a part of this project, and we really look forward to how it unfolds, and we urge you moving it forward. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is lisa zonner. i'm a commercial real estate developer, and i'm all about building up our city and economic development. in fact, for the last eight years, i worked in commercial and economic development, so i'm all about creating vibrant and commercially viable neighborhoods. i urge you to support this project. it is super exciting from an economic standpoint, associated capital's doing everything right. they've done everything they can to involve the community. the fact that we're going to have 2600 new units of housing is astounding. i'm so excited about what's going to happen with this power plant. when i was a girl, my dad used to work for bechtel, and he designed power plants. so this has been really exciting for me because i watched this being designed. this is going to be a major, major contributor to our area and san francisco. i urge you to support it. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is jim chapel. a member of the san francisco action housing coalition, as is lisa, speaking on behalf of the h.a.c., and also reiterating ron miguel's comments for s.p.u.r. i'm speaking on the seven agendaized items on the power plant use and development. i moved in san francisco in 1977' as a consultant to pg&e to provide a notice of intention to provide for the closing of the potrero power station and convert it to urban development, so i'm here today with great satisfaction that an astonishing 43 years later that i am here to support the development and entitlement of this long necessary development. i have followed this process in detail. and in fact in march 1998, i published a s.p.u.r. report for the area. i'm doubly pleased that today, 22 years after that report, to see this project come for approvals as an important contribution to serving our housing crisis which has only gotten dramatically worse in the intervening years. this excellent project provides housing for 2600 families with a very high 32% at 72% a.m.i., numerous community benefits, and major public transit improvements. i've studied the proposed plan in detail and ask that you approve all seven measures as is on your agenda today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ray hernandez. i don't have any fancy titles. i'm just a resident of the dogpatch. i've been following and working with ed, enrique, and matthew regarding this project and what they're going to release for the community. i believe in it so that i flew down from l.a. just so i can merge with the many voices in support of this project. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. my name's nathan apple. i own a metal fabrication business in the bayview for over 30 years. my paths crossed with the power plant team while the chase arena was being built. we needed a hard to put the roof trusses together. these trusses were 90 feet wide, 15 feet long. the requirement was i needed an acre for about eight months, and it had to be within six blocks of the arena and accommodate a 90-foot load, which was not easy to deduct, but after meeting with -- putting some feelers out and meeting with matthew and enrique, two weeks later, i had a yard and we're assembling trusses for the arena. so they definitely support local business, and i look forward to working with the power plant project in the future as an l.b.e., and i urge you to pass this. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is peter lyindenthal, and i direct the potrero project. potrero hill was the site of industries that grew in the late 18th and early 19 century which really put san francisco on the map, showing that our industries could compete with industries on the east coast, and we were a player in the world economy. at the moment, buildings connected to ship building and steel production on the northern end of potrero point have already been brilliantly restored. station a, on the southern end of potrero point is linked to power production, pg&e, the spreckels sugar factory, and it awai awaits adaption and reuse. i've been surprised at associated capital's partnership with the community and how they came up with plans that would adaptively reuse station a. i am, worried, however, that annual caps on office construction could delay work on station a for years. a development agreement should require stablization of station a as soon as possible, at least by the start of phase two development and an assessment process put in place -- excuse me. we endorse san francisco heritage's request that the mills act funding be tied to the landmarking. at the end of last year, enrique took me down to see the art wall at station a. there was a pile of bricks at the base, and i was given this brick, which had fallen off shortly before. i want to leave pictures of these with you -- >> president koppel: sir, i need to give everyone the same amount of time. thank you. >> thank you. there's the brick. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm tom steele, speaking in a few different capacities depending on how complicated my life tends to get. i'm a resident and fortunate to be a homeowner in the dogpatch neighborhood since 1992. i'm also a member of s.c.r.a.p., the environmental program located in the neighborhood. i'm a sometime artist myself based on the creative use of sustainable materials. recently, i've had the pleasure of engaging with this group, associated capital, around local community-oriented events and have been positively impressed by their long running commitment to engage with the community and how to thoughtfully evolve this unique site to the east end of potrero hill. and particularly, i had arrived at no notice and i was able to discuss with enrique and his team the possibilities at the site, and they listened and were enthusiastic about wanting to include part in their plans. regarding the general process for this development, i'm very pleased to see they have made efforts to retain key historic elements of the site, specifically keeping the huge chimney stack as well as repurposing the gas industrial structure into a modest sized hotel with very unique character. i feel this is in strong contrast to other areas of redevelopment that have happened in mission bay, which is now essentially all euro modern, maintaining none of the character of that area. specifically as we move forward into the future, hopefully embracing green energy forces, i hope the stack will act as a living memorial of dependency of fossil fuel, moving into a new area. >> president koppel: thank you. we have to give equal time to all speakers. [please stand by] the power station project will contribute to the greater part of the eastern district of san francisco. after all, eventuality has arrived to our community. i ask that you approve this. go dog patch and go 9ers! >> good afternoon. thank you, commissioner melgar for your service. i'm the president of the potrero association. over that time, we have been working to ensure that the project provides public benefits necessary to support the quickly growing resident's population of the eastern neighborhoods while ensuring that the rich history of the site not get lost. it's a big process. when you talk about, it's nice if they can be reconciled. have we? i think we've gotten as close as we need to. the project sponsor understands that the fine grained in the paren threat cals can be worked out. we can continue the matters and open up the portion of the waterfront for public use in building much needed housing. in order to get here requires a lot of people pulling. i want to thank the many neighbors who worked in good faith to bring the project to this point. i want to thank the members of the potrero members. there is a broad range of viewpoints on the committee. i have to thank the associate capital, matthew, we all know and enrique, who as often as we butt heads, i know did work to address the needs of all of they say constituencies. john francis in the planning department staff, john lau, the economic workforce development. i can't thank either of you enough for your work. it's a tight rope you walk on a project like this and we all appreciate the work you do. and finally supervisor walton and his office, thank you for your guidance and support. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm justin kaatz. for the past two years, we've had the opportunity to produce our decompression event at the power station, so we'd like to acknowledge that matthew, enrique and the team at associate capital have been really thoughtful and supportive partners to our nonprofit. they provided us with a much needed home for our community gathering when we were in need and made us feel welcome. at their encouragement we raised funds through the event to support projects benefitting the dog patch, such as the renovation of progress park and donations to the green trust. we appreciate that they have gathered community input in the development of their plan. they did that at our event. and have continued to take an inclusive and thoughtful approach to their plan. we wish them success moving forward. good afternoon. i'm an architect on potrero hill. i lived there since 1985. i thoroughly approve of what is being proposed. enrique and his team have worked very hard. i have basically no complaints, but i would like to throw just a little cold water this afternoon. we have the potrero station a project. if we choose to retrofit it and reuse it, we have to shore it up. it's falling down. and i think it would be great if the city could do anything it could to help see that is done. the second -- my second concern is one i've had all along. it's the transportation, transit interface. the impacts, i don't believe, are solvable. and i think we all need to keep an eye on that component of the project. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, good afternoon. i'm zack, here to speak in support of the project. i give historical walking tours of the dog patch neighborhood. i've been doing this for five years. this is one of the original industrial mixed use neighborhoods in san francisco. irish hill and dutchman's flat, a lot of the water area was housing, it was put up quickly to keep up with the industrial activity in the neighborhood. a lot of the housing was decimated during the wars and when the industry declined, it was never rebuilt. we're seeing activity there from the employee standpoint, but that housing has never been replaced. and as a city guide i notice that, but as a resident of san francisco, i noticed that this housing crunch as well, along with my friends who want to stay here and are struggling to do so. i look forward to the project moving forward and seeing the neighborhood return to its original mixed use live-work neighborhood that has been since the beginning. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. hi, everyone. i'm a former resident of the dog patch neighborhood as well as the director of development of hotels and restaurants. as a resident i was super excited to hear about the project, just the transformation it will bring to the neighborhood. all the new housing. everything everyone has echoed already, full support of that. as a kimpton employee i'm excited for the opportunity to partner with capital to transform the hotel. as some of you may be aware, kimpton was founded in san francisco, we're still based here and we love these historic adaptive reuse projects and the fact they're going to be creating this in this unique site and the historical area of the dog patch is something that is super exciting for us. fully support the project. we hope the project will get approved and move expeditiously. and look forward to seeing the transformation. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. the 49ers were in miami for a super bowl and beat the bengals, we hope for a repeat of that. my name is alex and work for prop. we're a small local business trying to bring new ferry transit options to the bay area. it astounded me that the san francisco doesn't have a water-based transit system. nothi but thanks to the spirit and diligent hard work of the capital, we're working hard to bring a water transit system to the bay. and of course we support this project and think it will be great for the city on many, many levels. that's it, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. flush good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jude and with friends of jackson park. we have been working with the project sponsor for well over two years. and we have had countless meetings at the project site, booster meetings, cafes and bars. because one thing we can say about the project sponsor, they support our neighborhood businesses. we've been impressed they have consistently made themselves available to talk about this project in all of its iterations and in the end discovering what does the community want and need. we haven't always agreed. as open space proponents, we'd like to see more of that. that being said, we're happy about the space on waterfront. it will open up a whole new experience for people. one thing that jackson park appreciates about the sponsors outside of the box thinking that came around community benefits for the neighborhoods. in our case, it's a minimum of $2.5 million of the project's transportation fees which are the last wording i saw on this. hopefully it's in exhibit i. john and enrique and supervisor walton's office have been working hard on this. this will be directed to safe streets around the jackson park renovation project helping to build a well loved community resource and park. one thing we know, we can always turn to the project sponsor for advice, resources and support as we move forward with our park renovation project. and we look forward to continuing our work with the development team. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is mark dwight. i'm homeowner and resident in dog patch and owner and operator of a small manufacturing business. i support the project and commend and thank the power plant development team for their proactive outreach and responsiveness to community input. i'm thrilled to hear support from so many initially skeptical. i urge you to approve the project. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm stuart morton. i'm here as individual, a citizen that has been a preservation activist for 49 years. next year is heritage's 50th anniversary. i was one of the founding board members. i'm a little concerned about station a. i've seen the project and its plans. it's only $105 million allocated to preservation, that's not enough if they do a proper job. station a has an incredible presence on 23rd street. if your project is called potrero power plant, why don't you emphasize the power plant? it's such a good piece. they call it a series of elements, because obviously it's not 100%, but with the proper preservation architect, that piece without office buildings on top of it, would be terrific. so could you, as a planning commission, see to it the process, to make sure this is done properly, because i don't think the current project, it's just a base to hold up a glass high rise above it. so that's my concern. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm an architect with dialogue. as a former resident of vancouver, canada, i've seen and experienced firsthand how a well designed waterfront community can improve the community that it serves. and to me this project has that tremendous potential. it has been so inspiring to see associate capital's commitment and passion to the community that they are trying to serve. and as an architect and urban designer, that is unique to see passion to this level. so i'm extremely excited for such a thoughtful and responsible development, not just the design, but also the process in a city that i now call home. i hope that you approve this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing coalition. best of luck, commissioner melgar you will be missed. we want to highlight the $862 million worth of fees and community benefits this project is going to put forward. $862 million. really incredible number. and ditto everything everybody else said. thank you. >> thank you. united nations -- next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioner, mike buehler, president of san francisco heritage. heritage has been engaged in a regular and productive dialogue with the sponsor of the community and the city on how to address complex preservation issues at potrero power station site. we appreciate the sponsor's collaboration in addressing many of our concerns in the final development plan. heritage is especially pleased that the boiler stack and station a will be preserved as prominent landmarks with additional policies and incentives. we have long championed station a as the centerpiece of the power station develop. as the brick structures ta remain, station a tells the messy evolving history of potrero point. it's uniquely challenging for creative reuse. at the request of heritage and the local community, the sponsor hosted a public design shred in june, to provide thoughtful concepts for station a, leading to the present comment to preserve and expand the former turbine hall. we feel that the redevelopment of station a has the potential to develop a truly unique landmark for san francisco. one that celebrates the industrial pass while looking to the future. given the extraordinary vulnerability and significance of station a, heritage supports extraordinary regulatory and financial incentives such as tax relief to spur construction and seismic strengthening at the earliest opportunity. we appreciate and support the sponsor's commitment and to apply for prop m allocation as soon as possible. we're especially pleased the sponsor has committed to nominate station a, the boiler stack for landmark designation if they apply for the contracts. city mark will -- [bell ringing] -- by the historic preservation commission. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm alison heath. these last few months our neighborhood has focused on securing a number of community benefits from this project and i think most of that details has been resolved. i share san francisco heritage's interest in protecting the integrity of station a. as stewards of our city's historic resources, heritage's efforts to preserve this relic are deeply appreciated. that said, i am not entirely comfortable with the proposal of station a protection as they do not address damage from an earthquake. since this is a hearing to certify the project, i want my neighbors to understand, not just the benefits, but also the significant impacts of this project. and implications moving forward. these include transit impacts that cannot be mitigated. similarly, traffic noise and the project's considerable contribution to decline in air quality will be unavoidable. this will take many years to complete. although station a and the boiler stack are expected to be integrated into the new development, some other historic significant buildings are slated for demolition and the fate of unit 3 is uncertain. at some point, we must take a hard look at the long-term implications of relying on office development to fund affordable housing and other community benefits. ending on a positive note, i'd like to recognize john francis and john lau, both of whom have been incredibly patient, accessible and insightful throughout a long and challenging process. thanks, guys. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm keith goldstein, potrero resident since 1974, president of the association and chair of the eastern neighborhood cac. we recently lost 400 homes at the corevan site which was stuck in an endless 11-year delay of hearing and appeals. we lost the housing. let's not see this happen to the potrero power station. i've heard a few concerns here. among the most, largely support about the masonry. i was a masonry repair contractor in san francisco for 40 years, working on numerous landmark masonry buildings in the city, including repairs to this very building following earthquake. i can tell you that the measures that -- as a contractor with experience in this field, station a is not going to collapse. the measures developers are taking are adequate and suitable to preserve and protect this building through the construction. i would urge you to move ahead now and get the housing and the public benefits proceed. >> thank you. anyone else from the public wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> commissioner diamond: at this stage, should we be asking questions that relate to eir and the project approval? i think you can deliberate, but i would suggest you certify the eir. >> do you want my questions on both. >> i'm thinking we can address item 13 as whole and move on. >> so just the eir first? >> right. >> i have a couple of questions on the eir. and fellow commissioners indulge me because i am the latest to the table here and was not here when the draft eir was published and not the beneficiary of numerous hearings and i've been spending the last five days doing a deep dive into this project, meeting with the ponce certificate, touring the site, speaking with staff and have come a long way and have a few remaining questions on this pretty extraordinary project. >> president koppel: understood, thank you. >> commissioner diamond: i'll direct them to you, ms. gibson, and you can allocate at necessary. on the draft eir, the final, a couple of questions. so in order to deal with the potential shortage of office space allocation we may shortly be facing, i understand that the project is contemplating putting labs in lieu -- or has the flexibility to put labs in lieu of office space on the site. so i would like comfort that the eir is sufficient to permit those labs without any additional work. and in particular, were all levels of bio safety analyzed? 1, 2, and 3 and above? i want to sense the parameters of the analysis, so if they choose to move in the direction of putting lab space instead of office space, there is no additional ceqa work necessary? >> thank you. john can come up and tell you all of the different lobbies that are permitted under the land use category. i don't know if you'd like to hear that first. or my response first. >> commissioner diamond: yours first. >> this is one of the instances where we rely heavily on other regulatory authorities to oversee certain land uses. for lobbiests they're primary agencies that oversee that. one is our own department of public health. also the department of toxic substance control. osha, both state and federal and the u.s. centers for disease control and prevention. we defer to those who oversee the laboratory uses. >> commissioner diamond: do you feel based on this eir, if they want to propose labs, whether they're wet labs, that no additional ceqa work is necessary? >> without seeing a specific lab, it's hard to say, but yes, i feel the land use in general we have covered adequately. >> commissioner diamond: any additional staff information? okay. >> can i get the overhead. sorry, this is a little bit small. i just pulled up the definition of laboratory use which is in the planning code. the planning code currently allows for bio safety level laboratories 1-3. so as a result, you know, any lab could fall into one of those categories. the actually categoryization goes up to four, which is the highest level. but planning code states that the only permit in san francisco, 1 through 3. >> commissioner diamond: thank you very much. second question has too do with the -- to do with the analysis of hazardous waste. this is an old industrial site and we hear so much in the news about other big projects in the city. i saw an article where after they built, residents moved in and had concerns about the safety of the sites. so i would like comfort about how you addressed the cleanup of hazardous waste, who is responsible for it? it looks to me from reading the eir, you're relying on regulations that have been promulgated and a cleanup overseen by other agencies in order to conclude there is a less than significant impact. if you could give us background, i would appreciate it. >> i'm going to refer this to the staff who can explain the complex overlay of regulatory oversight for the project site. there are multiple agencies and there is information that lays this out in the draft eir and i think rachel will be showing us that table for reference. but in general, to respond to your question, yes, we're relying on regulatory oversight and it's rather robust review we'll be conducting and investigations have been under way, cleanup is under way and further review will occur. >> again, i'm going to return to the list to answer your question as hazardous materials and waste are subject to extensive federal, state and local oversight. i'll refer you to a list of the agencies, u.s. environmental protection agency, osha, both state and federal level, u.s. department of transportation at the federal level. dtsc, state board, regional board, water quality board and the air district. and various agencies and that the city and county of san francisco enforce. as well as requirements of the city and county of san francisco. in addition, i'm not sure if your concern is more about the operations of the project or the remediation activities that are required before the project -- >> the remediation. >> okay, so there is a table in the eir that i'll put up on the projector. it's from the hazardous material section. it might be the case that the project sponsor team can provide you more specific response to that. can i have the projector please? this is a summary table of all of the various subareas of the site. which are at different levels of remediation activity. some are complete. some are planned. some are ongoing. so if you want more specifics on those. >> i did see this table. >> okay. >> commissioner diamond: okay, so maybe it would be helpful to hear from the project sponsor as to where they are in terms of cleanup and just give an overview as to what has been done and what remains? >> commissioners, gordon hart, the environmental council for the project. the site has been undergoing cleanup for almost two decades, more than a decade, by pg&e and is responsible for cleaning up the site. that's a separate program that would happen irrespective of the development. it's had its own ceqa review and is separately supervised by the regional water quality control board as the lead agency in consultation with all the other agencies that staff indicated. about 75-80% of the site has had remediation certified as being done. the remainder is in process in two areas. one of those areas, the physical work is essentially done. and that's being evaluated by the regional water board now to determine if it is indeed done and whether or not it can be certified, if not, whether anything else needs to be done. there is one part of the project, tank farm area, that when we purchased -- when associate capital purchased the property, it still had very large tanks and they had to be demolished and then investigated, with i is why -- which is why it has trailed. that investigation is done. and the plans for how to clean it up are well on their way. and very soon to be submitted to the water board. the one thing that i will know is that pg&e's cleanup is done to a commercial industrial level. they -- the closure documents when the water board says they're done, says commercial industrial level, if you want to do residential, you have to come back to us and do risk assessment and demonstrate that it is safe for residential. because pg&e didn't even look at that because their obligation to do commercial, industrial. our consultants, their indication is that they will be able to make that demonstration without any additional remediation other than standard barriers underneath the buildings. and -- vapor barriers. and all of this is described in the eir in some detail. is that a helpful summary? >> yes, but i have a few follow-up. how long will the rest of the remediation take until the entire site, including the pg&e land, is cleaned up and pg&e to the residential level, because that's what is called for the use on that land? that's one question. the second is, can you proceed with the first however many phases of the project pending completion of the cleanup? >> let me take the second first if i could. the no further action determinations take into account the potential for adjacent areas that may not be completely done. and they do allow for development, even though other portions of the project are not completely done. for the projects that are -- that are not completely done, the one area, the northeast area, should be complete within a year or so. and the tank farm area within a couple of years depending upon the way it is, whether it is integrated with the development activities and the way it is integrated with the development activities. in terms of what is necessary for residential, the -- we have ready to mitt to the water -- submit to the water board, a package of a risk assessment that indicates that the first couple phases of the site are suitable for residential development with nothing additional except for vapor barriers. that should be an administrative process that would take a matter of months and simply be done while other aspects of the building approvals are being done. >> commissioner diamond: and how long do you think it will take for pg&e to clean up its portion to the residential level standards? >> as eir indicates, any additional cleanup that would need to be done for residential, it will be done by the project developer and that is considered part of the project. it is analyzed -- >> commissioner diamond: again -- >> it's part of the project and is analyzed in the eir as part of the project. at this point, we don't anticipate that there will be additional physical remediation required for residential use other than vapor barriers. in that tank farm area, we do believe there will need to be excavation for commercial let alone for residential and a same amount of excavation for commercial and industrial. and that one area, which is a late phase of develop, part of it is in phase 3 and part is in phase 5, i believe, that one four-acre area of the site would definitely be cleaned by the time the phasing cone templates that the -- contemplates that the development would occur. >> commissioner diamond: maybe you said this and i missed it. when do you anticipate that the pg&e portion of the site would be completely cleaned up? >> the current pg&e schedule finishes in 2022. >> commissioner diamond: 2022? thank you. >> sorry for giving you a longer answer than you wanted. >> commissioner diamond: no. >> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: reviewing the eir is like pulling teeth, but i found this eir to adequate and prepare to certify it. >> second. >> commissioner moore: the eir is challenging. it's been thoroughly taken through a lot of public review and comments and i believe that the response to comments covers the majority of concerns in the very broad and thorough way. what is interesting that in comparison to other sites which do have ongoing remediation processes, this particular site is known for its history who was there and when, which makes it a little bit more easy to put particular borders around the investigations. and i'm glad -- i'm personally comfortable with how the eir was done, how it responded to challenges and i'm definitely prepared to support it. >> just confirming that was the motion, commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i so move. >> on that motion to certify the report? diamond aye. fung aye. melgar aye. moore aye. koppel aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. you do have the remaining entitlements. >> commissioner melgar: i make a motion that we approve items 14a over adopting findings and consideration, 14b, recommendation of approval, 14c, 14d and 14e and f. >> second. >> commissioner diamond: i do have a couple of questions on the project itself. the first one has to do with the number of residential units and the benefits that come with each and the viability of the project if for some reason the project sponsor can't control the pg&e property. and i mean all of the pg&e property. not just the very corner, but also 1 and 14, because i'm looking at page 9-4 of the rtc document. the second line of the table says the project variant has 2600 units in the no pg&e scenario which is without the large corner site and 14 is only 1466 units. so i'm interested, from both the city's perspective and the project sponsor perspective, worst-case scenario you don't get any of the pg&e land, does the project still work financially? and what benefits do we not get as a city if they can't control that land? >> john lau with oewd. several of us touched on that throughout the presentation, so i'll try to weave it together. the table you referred to as i touched on earlier, puts forth our best estimate on unit total for the entire project in total, or with none of the pg&e or with no block 14 of the pg&e subarea. and those numbers as you stated are 2600, 2000 and 1400. the eir analyzed all of those and the implications with each scenario. the first answer is we have adequate environmental analysis that looked at all of those. as to i think maybe likelihood or how the project would look and feel, obviously, the best project would include the entirety of it. that's why we've study it under ceqa in the first place. you heard from pg&e earlier today as well. they've been willing partner in that environmental review. the sponsor may want to speak to this piece more, but as i alluded to earlier, the acquisition of the portion of the pg&e subarea that underlies blocks 1 and 14 is a different conversation than the block 13 component. that is farther along. those conversations are more advanced. transaction is not imminent, but they're more likely i think we could say. as to the point on the benefits, yeah, it contemplates and describes where some of the physical benefits that would be provided on block 13 could be accommodated elsewhere if block 13 is not acquired by a certain point in the development. i believe it's phase 4. the community center, if it cannot go on block 16 because we have not acquired it by a certain point, that phase application, or the subsequent one would have to demonstrate where the community center has to go and where the developer would be responsible for providing that. >> a number of affordable units, the transportation payment, the water transit payment is all about proportional and to what? the number of units? >> yes. the easiest way to easy is proportional to the development that does occur. things are based on square footage. or number of units would adjust accordingly. the sponsor is obligated to adhere to the 30% bmr requirement. so we're always going to get 30%. and the proportionality clause always applies. so if the sponsor is developing only office because of market conditions, we hope that's not the case, they're still obligated to meet the bmr requirement defined in the housing plan. other fees we would not collect as much because there has not been as much development. >> commissioner diamond: is same true for the library payment and the water transit fee? >> the library payment is dependent more on the library making a decision on loch locating in the neighborhood. that's not a unit-count based. the water transit is still in the menu of options for t.s.f., we just have a smaller bucket to work with. >> the big question for the developer, does this work financially? >> thank you for your question. there were plans to modernize and upgrade the substation before we bought the property and we were aware of the plans out of physical necessity for supplying electricity to this growing part of the city. so we chose to plan ahead. that's why we put it in. but all through the process, we planned knowing that the timing and eventuality of the site would have questions to it. we're confident during the 30 years of this development agreement it will be developed. we've placed it in the later phases for that reason and have been working pg&e to be sure they're comfortable with the development and have it happen. the library, all of the community benefits are designed to be on the site and we'll honor all the commitments you heard today, whether pg&e is in the site or not. the one thing i have known in my experience as developer in san francisco for more than 20 years, sites that get entitled for higher and better use do get redeveloped and feel they'll have a very bright future. >> commissioner diamond: one question, probably for city staff. i notice there is a provision in s.u.d. that indicates that in lieu of the -- how the whole entire package of approvals was negotiated, they don't want the sponsor applying for density bonuses, that the height is what the height is and you learn to live with it. i was curious, whether they're doing 100% affordable site, whether or not that might be the reason why a state density bow gnaws right -- -- bonus might be beneficial and help move the project along faster? >> commissioners, planning staff. land use planning program. worked on many of these development agreements. this maybe my 10th. this is the first time we put this the language explicitly, but that's more for clarification reasons than for legal reason. first, i'd like to say from a ceqa standpoint, the e.i.r. does not contemplate or analyze higher heights than it has analyzed in the project before you. so anything that is taller, has more program than was contained in the eir would need further subsequent review. whether that provision is in there -- >> didn't the draft eir analyze a higher project? >> i don't believe it analyzed higher -- >> i thought it had 300-foot tower at some point. >> maybe that one -- on that one particular building for instance. but in general, the program that is before you is more or less the maximum. putting ceqa aside, this is a development agreement. and what it says is basically tied to the fact it's a development agreement, not an ordinary zoning plan. the development agreement is a bilateral contribute between the city -- contract between the city and the sponsor and it was a negotiated set of public benefits for a specific program. if there is going to be a different program in the future, even if that is more affordable units, the city needs to the opportunity to negotiate for how the project changes if there is going to be a bigger or different program. that includes changes to the height. changes to the design and all those things. so the state density bonus program is not just a program that is tied to 100% affordable housing units. it is open to any project that provides as little as 5% units that are below market rate on site. so we couldn't necessarily say it's only for this and not for that. second, the development agreement vests a certain -- to the developer the rights to build a program that is up to a -- that is laid out explicitly in the development agreement and the supporting documentation. and they're vest to build that much and only that much. as a result of that vesting, all the subsequent approvals for the project are streamlined and administrative and there is very little public review or commission review of the programs. that's the deal that we're make. and the flip-side of the investing is the -- vesting is the certainty that the public is certain about what they're getting, they're getting maximum amount of height, bulk and design of the whole program. the ability for the development sponsor to at a later date invoke a bonus program to build more or different or to throw out rules that -- to build something different is just fundamentally incompatible with the notion of this contract that the public and the developer have signed up for. and part of the state density bonus is not just about you get a little more bonus for providing this, it also entitles project sponsors to concessions and a lot of things they can unilaterally invoke and the city has little ability to push back on. it's not even tied to housing. they can get concessions for more office space, all sorts of things. so it's fundamentally incompatible with the notion that the city is undertaking this and that some sort of bonus could be invoked at a later date that hasn't been negotiated up front as part of the package. that isn't to say that it's theoretically impossible to include a bonus program, it just had to be baked in from the get-go. and all the rules and provisions for how that might play out and the give-and-take, how that might change, would have to be baked in from the get-go and i think we're, sorry to say, very far past that point. >> i don't want to throw a wrench in the works, i'm saying i'm intrigued by the possibility if we could get 100% affordable projects that i at least would have been open to, or would be open to some kind of additional density. i don't want to hold up this hearing. that issue. i'm just putting it out there. >> there are other projects approved that have proposed that very thing, 100% affordable housing project and that project to use the density bonus and consulted with city attorneys and agreed that was not a box that could be opened. >> commissioner fung: as a designer, it was interesting to discuss with representatives of the project sponsor how they can change their site plan. however, since i have rarely interposed my own thoughts of design on a project, i quickly backed off on that. it's interesting how the nature of this -- and it's a master plan and the site plan that is a portion of it is, actually quite comprehensive, although, you can't have a lot of detail, because there isn't specific designs for either systems or certain other things. and recognizing that, i'm appreciative of the fact that it's fairly comprehensive. i also was appreciative of the fact that the project sponsor will be attempting to develop the hotel as a net zero project. given the history of this site and the pollutants that occurred there. i'm sure that given the fact that most of their approvals in the future will not be coming to the vagaries of this planning commission, they will be going directly to the director and his staff, i would encourage staff to, however, push them to go beyond the levels of sustainability that have been discussed there. and if the pg&e representative is still here, the fact is, yes, electrical -- electric systems don't create necessarily the carbon footprint here at this project, however, it will create additional carbon footprint where they're generating, since they are not matching their renewables to usage. so i would encourage staff to do that. the -- and one last point. i'm accepting of it, even though it's not logical, is that the review by this commission of any portion of this project only applies to two of the three towers given their height because the third tower, is 20 feet short of that. but anyway, i'm acceptive of that and it's just not logical. >> commissioner moore: i want to step back for a moment, because i have to admit to everybody in this room, that i've been on the fence about this project from the beginning. and guess what? today, my vision about the project has completely changed. the project sets an incredibly high bar. i agree with ms. foot who pointed that out earlier, but what most -- what mostly amazes me and humbles me is indeed a developer who has really risen to the challenge of an informed community voice, of a persistent challenge that came from literally every angle you can be challenged and an incredibly creative response by ken rich and his team, by mr. francis and his team leading the planning. and by literally everybody else. there is something about this project which not only really convincingly completes the southern bay front strategy, but it really has become a project in context. originally, because the site is very difficult, it seemed to be hanging out there on its own, was really kind of having hardly any ability to connect. but i think that has all been overcome by the significant moves of how it integrates with transportation, not just land base, but also water-based transportation, how it brings an element of its own social infrastructure. i reflect on the homeless prenatal program. those are all incredibly courageous, deep-reaching points that few developers really have the stamina to get challenged by and then deliver. it's a depth of creativity that goes from relatively low and simple diagram in the beginning, to something that is very sophisticated and high level. i call that allowing yourself to go deeper. a couple of other points i wrote down. the fact that the historic preservation element, which was the biggest pain for everybody in the community, not really seeing an acknowledgment of history of the site from the very beginning, how that is now creating not only the signature of the site, but the continuation of the historic border front elements and all the other adjoining site is quite remarkable. station a is obviously, aside from its artistic value as incredible -- it's almost like the coliseum in rome. it's a fabulous piece of architecture, just a wall, but every part of the wall is an art piece if you allow yourself, standing in front of it and even take a moment to take a picture of it. how that is coming to light is, for me, just amazing. so i am -- i could go on and i have a couple of other points, but that's just taking it too far. i'm extremely excited. there is hope that this is one of the projects which will succeed and i want to call out mr. ken rich one more time. your housing strategy is absolutely amazing. and i wish you wouldn't go away and leave us at this moment. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded. shall i call the question. >> sorry, administrative item that the attorney asked me to pass on, if i may. attorneys have suggested is that we simply acknowledge that two letters you received were distributed earlier. you gave hard copies, i think we did earlier in the beginning of the hearing. there are some amendments and modifications to both ssud, in the motion you simply acknowledge what you're recommending includes that material would be helpful. >> in my motion, i am acknowledging that the recommendations in the letter be included >> my praise of the project includes the acknowledgment of these last-minute amendments. [laughter] >> very good. thank you, commissioners. there is motion that has been seconded to -- let's get this straight -- to adopt findings and a statement of overriding conditions adopt a recommendation for approval for the general plan amendments, approved planning code developments and design for development, zoning map amendments and development agreement as amended. on that motion, diamond aye. fung aye. melgar aye. moore aye. koppel aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> president koppel: let's take a little break. >> jonas: the commission will be tak we left off on the regular calendar for items 15a and b, 2 henry adams street. this is conditional use authorization and office development authorization. >> before we start, commissioners, i wanted to introduce you to a staffer you have not seen in the room before. monica started with the department as an intern in 2015 working on a historic survey of soft story buildings and commercial district. she worked in consulting on regulatory compliance for section 106 in chicago and philadelphia, before rejoining the department, she couldn't resist coming back -- in 2018 as a preservation spec on the southeast team. and the fact that her first presentation to the commission falls on her birthday. we welcome her and wish her happy birthday. welcome. [applause] >> good afternoon, department staff. nowhere else i would rather be on my birthday. before you is the request for conditional use authorization to allow office use in a landmark building and office from the small tap, authorizing up to 49,999 square feet of general office use. the project site 2 henry adams street is developed with five-story heavy timber frame encompassing the entire block. 2 henry adams is designated at landmark 283, under article 10 of the planning code. and is located within the p.d.r.1 d-zoning district. it converts 999 square feet of existing laboratory space to general office use. no off-street parking is proposed and the project would use existing bicycle parking, showers and lockers. the project utilizes section 2103b which establishes use within a zoning district with submittal of historic structure report, review of the report and proposed office use by the historic preservation commission and conditional use authorization from the planning commission. at its original hearing, the historic preservation proposed office use and found the project compatible with the landmark building and the standards for rehabilitation. exterior work and construction of a publicly accessible plaza was also entitled with a certificate of appropriateness. historic preservation has been included as exhibit in your packet. today, the department has received one request for general information about the proposal and no members of the public have expressed support or opposition to the province. the department finds the project is on balance. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the project will create additional office space at the top two floors of the subject building, which will increase employment in an area well served by public transit. the historic preservation commission found that conversion to office space would enhance the feasibility of short and long-term preservation of the property. it is only the article 10 landmark located in the zoning district and is the only that can utilize this to establish office use in pdr. based on the findings in the case report, the department recommends approval of the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation. the project team will follow with a presentation as well. and we're all available for questions. thank you. project sponsor? >> thank you. on behalf of the design center. we're excited to be here today to rehabilitate and restore the building. specifically the design center is proposing a renovation of the exterior, plaza at grade, street improvements and converse of lab use to office use on the upper two floors of the building. during the course of this project, former supervisor cohen sponsored the landmarking of the building as well as updating the use of offices in landmark buildings. it is the highest amount of scrutiny in flexible use controls in the planning code. historic structure report was prepared providing analysis of all work that is going to be done to the building. and the hpc reviewed and recommended the project in 2019. the results of the final approval will be the expenditure of $18 million on restoration of the building, including $5 million on the facade alone. the converted office space on the upper floors help finance the costs and today we're asking the planning commission to approve a conditional use authorization for the conversion in the landmark building as well as small cap prop m allocation. i have stan lu explain proposed work to the building. >> good afternoon. thank you for your time this afternoon. i'm take you through the project and work through a few slides. and thinks the -- thinks the building site and the building site is bound by vermont, henry -- can you speak into the microphone. >> i'll lean forward. is that better? >> the site is bound four streets, vermont, henry adams, alameda and division streets. thinks the survey plan. -- this is the survey plan. this shows a number of images around the block so we'll walk through the existing conditions for you who may be unfamiliar with the building. here we have images of existing building along henry adams street and that would be the top images. we have division street to the north. and vermont to the west. more images along the building here, vermont street and alameda street to the south. these are the existing conditions there today. and this is the proposed site plan. and the plan indicates that most of the uses in the ground floor are existing to showroom use today, but a couple of items to note on the site plan, utility enclosure planned to the northwest corner there. i'll just put my hand there. that is the part of the project. and a number of other scope items i'll walk you through. i did want to point out as part of the project, there are existing trees on site and we will be removing a number of the trees, but replacing them. removing 11 and replacing with 27. as part of the facade repair, we plan to repair brick, repair mortar rebuild the bulk heads and work around the four sides of the building to rehabilitate the building to restore its historic character. and front of the facade will include removing the fabric canopies on the building and replacing with signage that consistent with the rest of the building. as part of site work, we plan to replace the sidewalks on all four frontages and that will improve accessibility. and along vermont street, there is a steep grade, so we'll be providing accessible sidewalks and a way to ramp up to the loading docks on that side of the building. as well as replacing stairs, ramps, and making the building and site more accessible. like to just take your attention to the north end of the site. we plan to build a parklet plaza, which is a community benefit that all can use. to the right of the rendering you see the existing condition. the condition is a gravel lot that is used for storage and parking occasionally. this is rendering of what the building may look like when work is complete and you'll see some of the restored store fronts. the signage. and you see where the crosswalks engage with the new sidewalks. this is a close-up view. and intent to activate the sidewalks and make the building more engaging than it is today. so focus will be improving access. adding amenities to the site. and we'll provide a park and in the parkment, we have a cafe that is also shown here. adding amenities to the site is a main driver for the project. and lastly, i'll take you through the plans quickly. >> how much more time do you need? >> almost done. these are the first three, showroom, and there are two floors, laboratory and office use as mentioned earlier. and martha thompson is going to come up and read a letter. >> no time. >> okay. thank you. >> we're all set with the presentations. going to open up to the public. >> i have one speaker card, tony bernard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time. my name is tony bernard, i'm a recent tenant at the san francisco design center. we opened our showroom about a year and a half ago. when looking for a location, we were pleased to find the design center community thriving in the show case square. we're very happy to be part of the design community and, of course, we love our neighbors and support our neighbors at the design center, and we are also enjoying some of the new amenities that are coming to our neighborhood. we think we have found a permanent location for our showroom. new businesses is what will make our neighborhood sustainable. with new businesses coming into the center, i know i will see more traffic coming to the showroom. the plan that is set before you today is to sustain showrooms, the showroom community at the 2 henry adams location. this plan also improves and approves the historic building and allows new businesses to join the community. i hope you will support it. thank you for your time. >> anyone else. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> we'll go ahead and say this is an awkward-shaped lot and a little bit of odd location. i like to see what you have done with the design. commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: i also like the design. i must say i don't usually support turning pdr into office space, especially not, you know, in that area. however, i did support conversion of more office space in the armory, and this actually, to me, is a very similar project in that it's a historic building that requires pretty high maintenance costs to maintain it as a historic building. and you know, so for that reason, i sort of make an exception to my rule. and i do think that the project as proposed is necessary and desirable and i like the design. i like that you're adding amenities in the context of what else is around that building. so i am prepared to support it. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: following up on commissioner melgar, could you perhaps describe to us if you know what type of offices would be envisioned to be here? >> yes. and actually a little bit of clarification. the use of those two floors currently is lab. so it's already been converted from pdr to lab use. it's a use permitted though. there is a tenant there today. they are r & d company and they have both lab uses and office uses. so a portion of their space is going to be now dedicated to their office function and they will also be able to have their lab function in the space as well. >> commissioner moore: very helpful that you clarified that, because otherwise the contrast between showroom uses and lab is quite a big distance. i appreciate they're already there and adjusting to an additional type of use. and i am in support of the project. >> motion? >> commissioner moore: move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to approve the matter with conditions. on that motion, commissioner diamond aye. fung aye. melgar aye. moore aye. koppel aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> commissioners, that will place us on item 16, 2012.1384. one vassar avenue. this is an information presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is an informational presentation to introduce one vassar, it's a key development -- sorry, can i get the screen? one vassy kapelos -- vassar is a key development site. the central soma area plans project goals include creating 32,000 new jobs, 8800 housing units and $2 billion in public benefits. the boundaries of the area plan include 6th street to the west, townsend street to the south, stephenson to the north and second street to the east. one vassar is located along second street and other neighborhoods and communities which include yerba buena, south park, and south beach. to achieve the goals set forth in the area plan, one vassar's priorities include child care, open space, housing and a new hotel. the existing conditions include a four-story office building at the corner of second and harrison street. a four-story pdr building. as well as additional two-story vacant buildings along harrison street with surface parking lots. immediately south of the project site is interstate 80 and there are currently no residential uses on the site. overall, the project will include approximately 489 housing units, measuring approximately 482,000 square feet. 4 445,000 street of new offices, 41,330 square feet of retail, 14,000 of child care, 186 commercial parking spaces. 122 residential parking spaces. and one vassar is meeting the central soma goals by creating jobs and the public benefits envisioned in the area planned and is thus aligned with the area plan. i wanted to thank, on the planning commission and for leading it as president. we all know that representation matters and i cannot begin to describe what your contribution has meant to me personally and professionally, as well as what it has meant to many colleagues and the public at large. i wish you the absolute best. so, it has been a sincere pleasure working with you, commissioner melgar, and this concludes the presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are just going to continue with the slides here. i'm sharon lie, with one vassar. thank you. before i begin, i just want to give a brief introduction to our team. we're joined by plural r public realm and landscape, a design team and building architects for the project. to be efficient, we're only asking with som to be presenting on the buildings. we have different architects for every building to ensure compatible, but distinct projects, but they're here. our project context is within the physical bun dris of the -- boundaries of the central soma plan. it is to implement the evolved project goals through the years of the planning process that has led to our key development site goals. taking advantage of the transit that is very much in expansion right now in this neighborhood. we're two-and-a-half blocks south of the train terminal and block west of the subway. the project is intended to replace the existing commercial buildings with diverse set of active uses that includes a very significant housing component, diverse job opportunities, as well as a focus on neighborhood friendly uses. >> thank you. mark with s.o.m., on behalf of the project. looking at the site from above, you see the freeway to the south here. and the parcels in red. what characterizes the site today is really a very disconnected public realm. perry street dead ends into the rear of 645 harrison. vassar dead ends just north of the freeway right of way. so the first principle and framework of the project is to reconnect those public ways to the rest of the city. vassar place is extended to meet perry. perry extended to vassar. and then perry is further extended as a pedestrian way through to second street. at the center of the site, 645 harrison is retained. and just to the west of it, a new mid block public open space is created, running through the entirety of the block north to south. the buildings then are ranged on the three -- arranged on the three smaller parcels. each building has a different design team. i'm here speaking on behalf of my colleagues at s.o.m. the building in the east is an office tower placed on 2nd street where there is office development and commercial character. at the center, a new hotel is placed atop 645 harrison, set significantly back from the street. and mid block, adjacent to residential uses is the residential tower. so together, these buildings have been shaped, both in bulk to avoid casting shadows. their height and bulk is consistent with the central soma plan. they step gradually up the hill as the city's topography rises up to the significantly taller buildings at that peak, as well as the taller buildings beyond to the north. there is a view of the south and the project and the skyline. most importantly at the base of the buildings we've arranged a wide range of active uses from west to east on all of the public fronts. so starting at the office building on the east, the most significant space of the building, the prime corner of 2nd and harrison is given over to 3500 square feet of public open space, some interior, some exterior. that is flanked by retail space. the office lobby is separate, but adjacent to it to the south and the smaller retail space to the south. the base of the building is masked to respond to central soma's guidelines with a strong street wall. and the character of the building is very much inspired by the frame architecture of the south of market as well as having a finely scaled glass. we have the retained 645 harrison. the hotel bar is set back from harrison street and is activated by a rooftop bar. the lobby is at the roof elevation of the existing building, creating new open space. inside 645, the existing office and pdr uses are retained. at the base, in addition to small lobbies, a new retail market hall is created. this is a use that allows great deal of public engagement and vassar place from the east and hairston to the north and activating the new public space to the west. this is the entry of the hotel. the language of the hotel building itself, which is significantly set back to allow the facade of 645 to read independently, is distinctly new and modern. a metal facade who draws inspiration from the windows of 645. the residential building to the west gives the entire frontage on harrison street, add two levels to the child care. the slope of harrison allows two ground floors. one at the west, one at the east. it welcomes people into the new public space. the tower itself has a podium expression. tower set back. and the tower is clad with a composition of both masonry and glass materials to reduce its scale. here you see the child care frontage on the lower side of harrison street. and stepping up, the frontage on the higher side. with that, over to scott. >> how much more time do you need? >> a few minutes maybe. that's it. >> going to give you one minute. we'll have questions. >> sure. thank you. my name is scott i'm with the landscape architect. i'll walk you quickly through the ground level. at a high level we wanted to make sure that the open spaces support the new growth in the neighborhood. and that also retain some of the character and cultural identity of the neighborhood. we're also working with public works to make sure that all of right of ways tt are welcoming and inviting for everyone, so we're doing a series of complete streets around the site. the current conditions are not very welcoming -- [bell ringing] -- we have scary dead ends, narrow sidewalks, a few street trees. we're proposing two mid block connections to connect harrison to perry street. perry connects through to 2nd. we're widening the sidewalks, doubling the width of the sidewalk on harrison street, creating amenities and street funnishings and two key new public. the prime space as a determinous of hawthorne street. [bell ringing] >> thinks the exist -- thinks the existing conditions -- >> your time is up, sir. >> okay, thanks. now i'd like to open this up to public comment. anyone from the public wish to comment on the item. ? >> i have three speaker cards. john couldn't hang in here three hours, but i'm here. would the secretary distribute these handouts to the members? i'm john, i talked to group. and what i have, this is informational hearing on the project. and so what our community organizations, a half dozen of us that talked together recently, wanted information that you should have, is from the community perspective what public benefits, of what further public benefits are needed from this project. i'm sure you're all aware, i hope you're aware, and if you're not please be aware, that the community was never satisfied with the public benefit package of the central soma plan, area plan overall. there is a lot of good stuff in it. i don't mean to disrespect it, but there is also a lot of things missing from it. and it's the things that are missing that you now see us listing here in several bullet points. it's two pages, i apologize for that. it addresses various topics of great importance from the community perspective. i'm not going to try to explain each. some members of the community are here. perhaps they'll focus on a few. but for good example, child care space is required and we all welcome that, of course. but the obvious question is will child care space for who? for whose kids? and who is going to run it? it could be a for profit operator charging top dollar. there is not a policy about this. is it mixed income as the community wants it to be. will it be a san francisco operator who has cultural competency to do the job well for the children of the families of the city from all backgrounds? these are the kind of questions. as it stands now, the developer decides who the child care operator is going to be. that's the way it works. clearly, we think there should be a real public in the put, of course -- input and real responsibility to the developer to meet the needs of the community. both the folks that live in central soma and nearby soma and also of course the workers. and many of whom would really love to have affordable child care close to their workplace. that's an example of the further elaboration and public benefits that we really want to see work out, pin down, required with the developer before this project is approved next month prospectively. the developer has been talking with us. i'm optimistic we'll be able to come together on this, but it's important you know what is on our list. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, evening. commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. about a year and a half ago we reconfigured our score card because we were trying to best understand and exemplify, okay, when projects do more than the minimum and we have a very high minimum here, how do we evaluate that? and when the standards in san francisco are so high, we want to commend people for reaching the high bar, but also want to trying to figure out a way to give extra bonus points for those who go above and beyond. at my time, we re-did the score card, i'm not sure we saw a project that achieved the three full stars from the project review committee. rather than trying to get technical, i'm going to read. this proposal provides 110% of san francisco's city-wide inclusionary requirements. to achieve this, this project team split the requirements between inclusionary and land dedication. and that creativity is really, really something we value. so they're both paying a fee and have a land dedication. approximately half of the affordability program will be accomplished by paying that fee equivalent to 33%. half will be land dedication. so the total contribution is valued at just short of $32 million for this project. again, san francisco really does have really high standards. so when somebody is creative, we really do like to applaud that. on top of that, you know, we don't want to ignore almost 500 new homes along with everything else associated with the project. i know we'll be back again in a couple of weeks so we'll save the rest of the comments for them. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners, david wu, with the filipino cultural heritage district in the south of market. we feel that the current development at one vassar still needs to address community concerns. there needs to be more clarity around the site being dedicated for affordable housing and the intent to secure a site within soma for development of this site for 100% affordable housing, the developer should work with community organizations to advocate for priorityization of funds from their development at one vassar to go for the affordable housing side and uses of the affordable housing site that reflect the need of the community. as the project -- at the one vassar project, it's located within some of t-- it should reflect the history, culture and history of filipinos and filipino americans. the developer should address the lack of community space for organizations in soma. the rise of commercial rents such as the central soma plan, cause the displaced c.e.o.s and non-profits and we need strategies to secure place for these organizations. and plan for hiring, retention and promotion for the jobs should be in place to ensure that new job opportunities from the project benefit existing residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. i just want to say, i think there still needs to be a lot of discussion with the developer. we actually -- though we knew that this project is part of a key site, we didn't hear from them until a few weeks ago. i think that is a little bit challenging, especially a lot of non-profits are on the ground doing the work. and it's the budget season. and we -- some of the issues that we're worried about is definitely the land dedication, though the developer said they're going to do it, we don't know where it is and how many units are going to be built on the site. there is no clear plan of how they're going to outreach around the jobs with the commitment to actually have people have a career into those hotels. we definitely want people to have jobs, but we also want them to have good jobs that would provide them the security and ability to work up the career ladder into those hotels. there is also, it's unclear to us, there is a lot of things that is unclear to us. and i just feel like the developer and the community needs a little more time to really discuss these things. and we're worried to hear that this will be going up in front of you by next month or in a few weeks for a final approval. so i'm actually asking for a continuance until a lot of this project commitments are really hashed out and it's clear from the community's perspective. i feel a request of tnz is reasonable since we didn't hear from them until a few weeks ago. a lot of other developers have been talking to us since last year and their site wasn't even in front of you yet. there needs to be a thorough community out reach in our perspective. we hope that you continue this and not put it on the calendar for next month. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. nice to see you again. local 2, i'll try to be brief. you've been heard from different community members about different concerns specifically there are questions that we've heard here about the timing of the affordable housing, about affordable space for non-profits, targeted hire, and all things that are valid questions that we think that there is absolutely a path to get there. and these organizations are strong friends and allies of local 2 and we really want to give ample space and time for those to be discussed as they need to be. local 2 has its own concerns, but we're within a hair's breadth of having a path to resolve those and we're confident there is going to be a path forward. as far as the project is concerned, we're neutral at this time. as i said, very, very close to being able to wrap up all of those. but again, these are community organizations who have deep roots in the community, in the neighborhood where this project will be and we think it's utterly appropriate for those concerns to be given full weight. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a question. are you familiar with the details of central soma? my question to you, there are two other major projects. one is the flower mart and another one, i do not exactly have the project name, all are planning market halls as a major part of their ground floor. and while we all love market halls from all the world travels we do,ar

Related Keywords

Miami , Florida , United States , Georgia , Yerba Buena , California , Russian Hill , Philippines , Brookfield , New Jersey , Vermont , South Beach , Bayview , Togo , Canada , Jordan , San Francisco , Mexico , Jackson Square , Netherlands , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Mission Bay , Chicago , Illinois , Progress Park , Americans , Filipino , Dutchman , Filipinos , American , Tracy Thompson , Darren Cline , Tom Steele , Harrison Vassar , John Francis , Theo Ellington , Ray Hernandez , Ken John Lau , Ronald Mcdonald , Michael Robinson , Gordon Hart , Steve Vettel , Christina Sandoval , Laura Foote , Mike Buehler , Keith Goldstein , Lisa Gibson , Henry Kay , Henry Adams , John Lau , Martha Thompson , Charles Collins , Tony Bernard , Cory Smith , John Stewart , Monica Wilson , Alison Heath ,