Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 9, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PDT

2:00 am
that would be helpful. >> in terms of starting building construction, is that like what we do where you have to pull aside permits? is that what building construction actually means under this law? >> it is not terribly specific. we will have to see how we define that. >> the other thing is, we have two situations here today where there are tenants and buildings that will be demolished, which speaks to saying, well, these things are happening. and whether there are tenants in their because we had a tenant registry as part of the protected piece. it didn't pass, so i guess all jurisdictions will have to pass tenant registry. i think we are looking -- working on one here. it would've been nice if the
2:01 am
state passed that. i think lastly, in terms of the timeline, does this include building and planning, or planning gets 30 days, then it goes to building and they get 30 days, is this permits in general , or specific permits? >> the housing accountability act is about the entitlement. if it is a project that doesn't meet the standards, or if it is a project that needs conditional use, that is your purview. the bill is not about the post entitlement timeframe. it is about getting the project to approval. >> that makes sense. lastly, objective design standards, i think we have talked about that. it is so much easier. some of the community housing -- we develop it. they kind of go away. i kind of look at this and say,
2:02 am
we can develop all the design standards we want, we have a project that was going to waive five of them. it is understanding that the design standards don't make any sense if you can just waive them away. >> the waivers come into play when he of a stand -- estate density project. under the housing accountability act and others, the question is, are the standards objective? if they are, there is no real discussion. we are not compliant with the planning code, here you go. the question is, how do we make sure that the design guidelines have objectivity to them which we will be able to implement? if there is something that is written down on paper that anyone can understand what it means, the only time it is getting waived is when they come to the planning commission for some sort of condition. >> one last question. can i start a pacific --
2:03 am
petition at the farmers' market where all my neighbors ask about down zoning? >> the bill only talks about down zoning for housing. if there is a local initiative or an ordinance at the board of supervisors that would down zoning particular piece of property, that would not be allowed for five years. any type of other action that the voters want to undertake, there is no change in that. it is just legislative action, whether by the voters or by the board that would actually limit the residential capacity on a particular site or multiple sites. >> just what i thought. the coastal zone, coastal act, a lot of it is local, not state. does is override the local portion of the coastal act that we have? >> my understanding is we have these local programs and it is a locality adopting that program and they have to get that approved by the coastal commission. it is basically delegating their state authority to the locality. the coastal act is not touched.
2:04 am
>> one last one. i keep saying this. we ups owned the port property -- we ups owned the port property. >> do we have laws in place that they have to be done by the voters? is that something we have? >> we have this anywhere in the city as a requirement if they don't approve it because it already exists, they don't have to open stone -- they don't have to up zone it? >> when did the requirement of voter approval come into play? >> that is one thing. it would also be an interesting question we will have to test when we get to that point as to whether or not something that requires voters to take action in order to initiate the development count as a down zoning or not. it is night -- not entirely clear. we will find out. >> anyways, it has been incredibly helpful. thank you.
2:05 am
>> acting zoning administrator? >> emily rogers. i just want to take a second to first of all commend staff for a brilliant presentation and an amazing amount of specific answers to the questions here. jacob has a great grasp of our existing procedures and policies and requirements and it was exceptionally well explained. also, state law is something that is outside of our ability to clearly interpret. that power lies with the state attorney general. there's some degree of uncertainty in our current best guess of how it would apply in san francisco. you have done an exceptional job trying to do that, but many things could change, including the way that the law is interpreted in that it doesn't change the way it is drafted. i would like to put that out there. >> the one thing i want to say is, up until this week, we were
2:06 am
the only jurisdiction in the states that did something like this people understood what it was. i commend you and staff for providing the resources to do that. we actually know what we are getting into. thank you very much. you nailed everything. thank you. >> commissioner hillis? >> thank you. i think it was a good presentation and explanation of the bill. we did have questions. again, i sometimes look at these through the lens of other jurisdictions. cupertino is not happy with this it is generally a good sign. if we have zoning and we are requiring a third level, we should comply with it and allow people to work on that level. there are two things that concerned me or i have questions does this distinguish between maximum minimum density? if i have an r.h. rhd zoning district, does it have a
2:07 am
preference for a three unit building on a lot more is a single family home equivalent to that three unit building and what our powers are over that? we obviously encourage maximum density instead of just building somewhere within that density. >> right. the housing accountability act is telling you what you can't do in terms of disapproval. as long as the project gets proposed within the density that is allowed, then there is no grounds for disapproving the project. this is where the other state comes into play currently. we implemented based on multifamily projects. the single family projects come housing accountability act and it would be a change in our practice in that area, but what ultimately the commission has to look at, is you have to approve it something that is below the
2:08 am
density -- >> so we couldn't push for higher density project under this? >> the bill doesn't say you have to, but correct me if i'm wrong, but if you are in our h3 in the proposal is for two units, then what you are looking at is two units. you can say you have to build three. >> right. >> at times we have encouraged, and i think staff has, too, encouraged project sponsors to maximize the density. >> absolutely. we have added language into our public service announcements. [please stand by]
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
>> mo mierins >> commissioner moor . >> commissioner moore: -- that good planning should allow us to have, to defend for and fight for. i believe the one-size-fits-all law coming down from sacramento is not good planning. san francisco has led the state
2:12 am
for decades in planning and the nation. i would -- i could strongly believe, particularly for san francisco, that it limits its sound in community voice, and i want to comment on this very general level. i commend staff. preserve your strength and voices for other things, if you can. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i have a different take, commissioner moore. when these things come up, these guys know what they're doing. they can call up nancy skinner. in the reasoning of
2:13 am
transparency, they know what they're doing. we require a developer to put a rent controlled unit back in addition to the b.m.r. units. >> so it is accurate that the replacement unit requirement that's state law would come out of the inclusionary policy for the requirement. however, the way that the bill's structured, it says if you're going to do the replacement units, it needs to be affordable. the low-income unit would be
2:14 am
affordable. it's very complicated. i don't have a definitive answer, but i think what the state law is saying you would provide a unit that's affordable as well as the right of first refusal. if you were in a protected unit for one of the separate reasons, you would get the right of first refusal for the unit. >> commissioner richards: two things. i think we're getting less, so it's a step backwards. two, as these things are coming forward with the right of first refusal, can we take a look at what's happening as they come through? >> vice president koppel: commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: just to follow up on that. that was a little different answer than i thought you gave me. state's got that requirement. they've got tenant protections. ours sometimes are better or more, you know, favorable to the existing tenant.
2:15 am
can we continue on to do that? >> yeah. i think the phrase is stronger or more stringent in state law. i think that's us to figure out if a market rate is more beneficial to the tenant than a unit that meets the definition under state law. >> commissioner hillis: we can go beyond where there's an issue -- where there's a c.u. for demolition of a particular building, we can continue to do the things that we've done in the past for the conservatory and music building. >> right. it specifically carves out the ability of the city to pass further types of restrictions with respect to other units, so that's something we can continue to legislate on in the future. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: that's a great thing, but i
2:16 am
don't think we have anything written legislatively that says when you demolish a rent controlled unit that you've got to replace one. >> commissioner hillis: but we've still got that discretion. >> right. and sb 330 requires a replacement unit in that place, and we can back that up or do it a different way. >> commissioner richards: i thought it had to be law. thanks. >> vice president koppel: just a couple comments on my side. these aren't addressed to anybody, but if skinner's looking for certainty, who's the certainty for? is this good certainty or bad certainty? and i don't know how these can get so confusing and so crossed over each other. i think that these updates -- thank you again for the great report. if you can answer every one of dennis' questions, i'll give it up to you.
2:17 am
thank you for answering our questions. i am -- we have a lot of questions up here, and i'm sure the people in the public are getting a lot of their questions answered. it does seem like the goal posts are moving on a daily basis. we can hear one thing on monday and the opposite on tuesday, so just keeping the public abreast of what's going on i think is very important. >> commissioner richards: commissioner, just to repeat the thanks to jacob. he does excellent work. just to put it out there, i'm increasingly concerned about the amount of time that we're spending on the analysis of these bills. and i get the state doesn't do this level of analysis and almost no jurisdiction does, but i am increasingly concerned about how much time we're having to put into this, so i would like to meet with the president of the commission and vice president and talk about this in a holistic sense just
2:18 am
to keep track of it because i'm very concerned about how this is diverting attention from other work. i just wanted to put that out there because it's taking up a hell of a lot of time right now. >> clerk: okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item number. case 2014948 e.n.x. this is a large project authorization. please note, commissioners, on april 4, 2019 after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to june 6, 2019 by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fung, you were not yet seated on the planning commission, and in order to participate, you would need to acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> commissioner fung: i have. >> clerk: thank you. then on june 6, 2019, without hearing, you continued the matter to june 27, 2019, by a vote of 6-0.
2:19 am
mr. chair, how much time should we afford the chair? three and one? >> vice president koppel: yep. >> clerk: okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is to permit construction of a new seven-story 78-foot-tall residential building within the rh-1 zoning district. the project includes construction of a new seven-story, 78-foot-tall residential building with ground floor commercial approximately measuring 86,630 square feet with 60 dwelling units, and 61 class 1 bicycle
2:20 am
parking spaces and six class 2 bicycle parking spaces. the project consists of a mix of units. to date, the department has received significant opposition to the project. the concerns are centered on the proposed building height and creation of new market rate housing in the mission. the project sponsor has hosted public outreach meetings with the community. subsequent to the planning commission's direction encouraging additional public outreach, the project sponsor hosted a community outreach meeting on april 30, 2019, inviting more than 1500 owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project. 16 of the invitees attended the meeting, including members of the united to save the mission and the mission economic development agency.
2:21 am
seven neighbors from the woodward street, two neighbors from 18 street and amy binart, assistant to supervisor ronen. subsequent to the planning commission on april 4, udat provided additional design for the entries and the cat walks. the project sponsor has elected to utilize the project density bonus law. the project requires an inclusionary housing rate of 18%. the project sponsor has volunteered to contribute one additional percentage for very
2:22 am
low-income households. since the previously scheduled public hearing on april 4 of this year, the project sponsor has updated the project as follows: per planning commission's comments, the p.d.r. small work space building was removed from the project. the additional height permitted for nonhabitable elements was removed and the parapet reduced to the regular safety height. per comments from the planning commission and feedback from udat, the cat walk unit access was revised to include two communal seating and planting areas on each level. privacy screens were added in select areas. additional sample unit plans are included in the drawings submitted to you all. three large bedroom units were replaced with smaller units. the introduction of the junior
2:23 am
studios, and two bedroom units. per the neighbor's comments, the parking eliminated all of the parking in the basement level. the retail space is now shown as demise as street at the point. per udat's comments, the side of the windows along woodward were reduced. the ground floor unit entries remain unchanged and comply with state requirements for accessibility. a mezzanine is provided in these units. the department recommends approval with conditions as the project is skints with the general plan and the planning code. the department finds that the project is on bound consistent with the policies of the general plan. the project results in new rental housing including new market rate units for rent, which is a goal for the city
2:24 am
and are more diverse uses than the -- consisting parking lot -- existing parking lot. this concludes staff presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> vice president koppel: thank you. i do have one speaker card for steven scherr. >> clerk: we should hear from the project sponsor. >> vice president koppel: oh, okay, sorry. mr. scherr, can we hold off for one second? >> sure. >> vice president koppel: i forgot to hear from the project sponsor. >> my name is manus 14h, and i the project sponsor for this project. this project dates back to 2014. my first planning commission
2:25 am
meets was set for february 2014, and cancelled, rescheduled, cancelled, rescheduled until we got to april. april was rescheduled to june. we then sent out 1500 invitations to all the neighbors within 500 feet. we received four e-mails in comments. one was a proposal to purchase the property. the other three was to support the production of this building. we've had multiple meetings with everyone who showed up at a meeting for the past few years. as mentioned before, we moved the package, we turned our retail spaces into smaller spaces. we completely eliminated the 20,000 square foot p.d.r. buildin buildings. we had multiple people commenting that they didn't
2:26 am
want a garage and digging down might disturb the water table, so we completely eliminated the garage and basement of this building completely. we installed the walkways between the buildings and apartments. basically every single comment that was made was implemented in the floor plans. we meet -- 1500 invitations were sent out, and we met with people that came to our meeting, some people were from the building on 17 and stevenson streets. a couple of the groups wanted to meet. the residents of woodward street, we met, and we greagre that they had some concerns, speed, bumps being reinstalled.
2:27 am
we said okay, if the city allows that, we'll finance that. they wanted some other beautification to be installed on the street, install trees, install full brick paving up to the budget allows. they asked that a lobby be moved from woodward street to 14 street, and we signed a lobby with them, and they ended up supporting the project. we met with meta and offered them 1,000 square feet of rental space at $2 a square foot for 20 years. they wanted 1500, and we said fine. >> clerk: sir, your time is up. >> vice president koppel: okay. the only public comment card i
2:28 am
have is steven scherr. anybody else wants to speak, please lineup on the right-hand side of the room. >> good morning, commissioners, my wife and i live in 63 woodward street. so commissioners, thank you for encouraging the project sponsor to hold meetings with the neighborhood, including mitigating the impact of the high density. the project sponsor has agreed in writing to a number of mitigations, so i'd like to thank manush for signing this agreement. they've agreed to add three more furniture along woodward street frontage. i'd request that these agreed items be added to the
2:29 am
conditions of approval. the sponsor has further agreed to -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are back before you without -- without having reached an agreement with the project sponsor, but this is not for lack of engagement and sincere effort to reach an equitiable development agreement like we have many times for similar projects. we actually thought we had an agreement which even received an approval vote from u.s.m. membership, but then we found out that the fees for the new state density bonus law were
2:30 am
lower than those from the city and this new offer did not gain any support from coalition members. as part of that regroup, the project sponsor has put forth a new proposal, but as of this hearing, we haven't had enough time to reach an agreement and allow for necessary internal discussion review with potential administrators and agencies. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kelly hill with united to save the mission. i want to point out there are still concerns despite the cut-and-run changes to this project. there's concerns with the geotechnical report. we pointed out previously with the missing detailed from the
2:31 am
c.p.e. and a really strong geotechnical report to make this -- this commission must demand the exercise of reasonable due diligence in confirming these impacts on the historic buildings neighboring the project and within this historic district. you can send environmental staff here all day to say that all the regulations are in place and everything will be fine, but we see for ourselves that these rules are seldom implemented or managed. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> one minute, huh? geez, you guys are cheap. mar mar
2:32 am
mar marie sorenson, save the mission. what is rent right now? $3,034 for a one-bedroom? so we're going to have another development that's going to cause many people living together because who can afford $3,000 a month? we need more affordable housing, and this is just another big, ugly high-rise. and guess what? we -- if all those sb blah, blah, blah go through, maybe we'll lose the ability to protest these things. any way, please delay the vote. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> rick hall with united to save the mission. i would just like to say that
2:33 am
we with the last set of changes that are proposed, that we're discussing with this group, we're very, very close to being in agreement. we just need a bit more time to make it happen. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter papadopolous with meta and united to save the mission. i think we've had a good conversation with the developer and his team. one of the reasons it ended up taking a considerable amount of time is i believe this project and converted back to a state density bonus. we did environmental and came back again, so that's part of why we're still here. it's unfortunate that we haven't reached an agreement. like i said, we thought we had
2:34 am
one, and as we panned out the numbers, it turned out we didn't. i hope we can still reach a agreement, otherwise we can expect some gentrification and displacement impacts in this area both residentially and commercially from these high-end slips that are proposed. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you chlts ne you. next speaker, please. >> this is a very large, modern building in our neighborhood which consists mainly of victorian-era romeo flats. and i -- i have just one request, which would be to extend the paving to that we discussed with the developer that would integrate the modern building with the romeo flats, which is a textured-type faux
2:35 am
brick paving to extend the length of woodward street. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thanks. any other public comment for item 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? all right. i'll take a little stab at it. i pretty much have seen almost all the items we brought up previously addressed and am in support of the project. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: couple of comments, since i went there at the original hearings. i reviewed what was discussed, and if you abstract out the
2:36 am
issues, especially those that are still brought up today that are remaining, it really reflects on what they want is a change in the zoning there. the question of whether it's designed for the height these days, with the density bonus, these tall buildings are going to be the norm. with new york exceeding the existing height building based on that bonus, you're going to get tall buildings. it reminds me of when i lived in new york, and you know, it was six-story walk-ups everywhere, especially in the poorer areas. but the questions that are still coming up today as an
2:37 am
example, some technical questions whether it's the underwater streams -- and this is not the only area that had that. i mean, geary has that, also, so it's a question for building, and in terms of the structural designs to accommodate that in the water treatment design. but there's been significant movement by the developer. i'm not sure i would have supported reduction of the parking, but i'm supportive of the project. >> vice president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i still have the same questions i had before. the quality of the parking, the seating creates an element of open space use on the cat walks, with exterior residential corridors alongside bedroom units is, i think, a real imposition on quality of unit and privacy, and i generally do not believe that
2:38 am
is an appropriate building type, and we have had that discussion in previous projects. the second thing is i do have questions about the building's size in the location that it is. just it's primary market-rate units, and with our concerns about the mission, this project leaves many of those questions unaddressed. >> vice president koppel: commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: yeah. i think this is a good place for housing. i'm generally supportive. a question, miss jardines, i think we've run into this before with the project on mission street and the density bonus project, and there wasn't much we can do. we've got a fee -- and it's the only option for the denisity
2:39 am
bonus units -- >> the project is electing on-site. >> commissioner hillis: for the -- >> for the inclusionary housing requirement, and then, the fee would be assessed on the bonus square footage. >> commissioner hillis: on the bonus. and this is the project that fell under the legislation that we had. >> this is that project. >> commissioner hillis: this is that project, so the fee that we implemented going forward, this one is paying it. >> that is correct. the fee became effective on june 18. >> commissioner hillis: i'd rather have the inclusionary units on-site, but it's -- i've had a discussion -- >> well, commissioners, keep in mind you get both. eight of the 60 -- since they're doing the state density bonus, they have to provide 8 units. >> commissioner hillis: for the ones on the nondensity bonus. >> yeah, correct. >> commissioner hillis: because
2:40 am
there isn't an option to do them on the density bonus. >> correct. so out of the total number of units, which are 60, 8 of them have to be provided as on-site inclusionary units, and then, we will get a bonus on the state density bonus. >> commissioner hillis: and miss petrucelli, could i ask you a question on that? >> this saturday, the project sponsor made a new proposal where very -- we feel very positively about this new proposal? but it involves us talking to agencies and people that can help us administrate part of this proposal. and we haven't had the time to
2:41 am
work through that and had the time to work through new language. >> commissioner hillis: so what's kind of -- what are you still discussing? >> well, there was a proposal about possibly giving money? >> commissioner hillis: okay. so this -- we don't do that here. >> yeah, exactly. we don't do that, either. so we're trying to figure out how we -- we had a great conversation with the project sponsor a few days ago, but this isn't enough time to work out the things that we actually do do from project sponsors, and how we can channel what he'd like to offer into something that's constructive for the community. >> commissioner hillis: are there specific items that are being negotiated that would
2:42 am
specific affect the project that's before us? >> it could potentially actually because he -- he's given us an either-or type situation, and some of this situation could affect the ground floor, but if we choose option b, then ground floor gets pulled away from us. so these things that are actually could affect that, and we did ask the the project sponsor to allow us to -- you know, another week. we really could wrap this up. we're very close? but because of his -- the timeline, he didn't feel that he could do another week. >> commissioner hillis: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis: again, i -- i think you can continue these discussions. i know we've seen these discussions a couple times. i'm disappointed that we don't have the p.d.r. having a stand-alone p.d.r.
2:43 am
would be really good, so hopefully, we see that coming back. but again, i think it's a good site for housing. i like the changes, taking away the parking just for that street and where it is. it tends to be congested and it's close to transit. i get it's kind of a big kind of building here because of the state density bonus, but we're also limited in what we can do because of the state density bonus. so those are the issues that we have before us, but generally, i'm supportive. it's a good project, and i would move to approve. >> vice president koppel: second. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could you tell me about the size that was previously looked at for p.d.r. that is now basically a parking lot. >> yes. so the project sponsor elected not to pursue the second building which was previously
2:44 am
going to be ground-floor p.d.r. and two stories of small enterprise work spaces. so as of this date, it is the department's understanding that nothing is proposed in the p.d.r. parcel, which is a separate unit than where the building is being proposed. >> commissioner moore: i find it very disappointing that this is now going to be a parking garage next to a residential building instead of billing in the block, but as you recall, commissioner hillis, the mayor's office did not find the offer financially and programatical programatically feasible. >> commissioner hillis: i don't. >> commissioner moore: you don't? the mayor's office said, at that time, can you fill in -- >> yeah. so because they were doing
2:45 am
small enterprise work space, they had to complete a p.d.r. business plan, and the mayor's office in reviewing that business plan did not put the plan put forward. it was dealing with the s.e.w. units above, which are looser, they're basically smaller kind of, like, mini units that can be anything from retail to office. i think basically active space is the kind of model for that. >> commissioner moore: and i appreciate them taking the tact. however it leaves us with a land use that is less desirable than if we had a building there. and since there are no ideas, i consider that a question -- an unanswered question that begs a lot of question. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so help me here.
2:46 am
we're not approving the building as planned? help me, please. >> it's not that we're not approving the building as planned. what meta had proposed was 2,000 square foot for the building, and to build a brand-new building that cost $13 million just didn't make sense. so what we had proposed is that each 250 square foot unit to be rented at $1400 a month which is still below anything that's available for offices, but everybody was against it. okay. i said i can't afford building it. the land is $3 million, and the building is $10 million, and to rent it out for $2 a square foot just didn't make any
2:47 am
sense. >> commissioner richards: they came back and asked for... >> 2,000 feet for the whole thing. >> commissioner richards: okay. miss petrucelli, can you come up and answer to that, please? >> that is absolutely incorrect. in the mission, we do want p.d.r. what we asked for is he -- the project, they were wanting to use almost 14,000 square feet of the p.d.r. building overall to have a high-end tech manufacturing off-site processing of drawings shipping out to other fabricators, and then tech accessory office. and we asked for the remaining
2:48 am
portion that they didn't want to use -- they weren't going to use for that purpose, which was roughly $7,000 square feet at $2 a square feet to offset what was happening in the other 13,000 square feet. we certainly did not expect the entire building to be leased at $2 a square foot. >> commissioner richards: so you're close to an agreement just putting it out to your neighborhood colleagues? >> we're close to an agreement based only now on the residential building. the p.d.r. has been completely removed from negotiations because the project sponsor removed it from the project. and, you know, that parcel, honestly, could also be used to build affordable housing -- 100% affordable over p.d.r.?
2:49 am
and we have asked that to be a possible part of a negotiation, either a donation or selling it at a very low -- you know, low price based on the money that was being offered to, you know -- as another proposal, and that was refused, as well. but that was really only discussed as early as this week, so i don't know if that could possibly go somewhere. >> commissioner richards: thank you very much. project sponsor, one more question, please. what do you intend to do with that other portion that's zoned p.d.r. >> for now, we're not doing anything with it. there's a parking lot operating on the whole site, and just operating that whole site as a public parking. >> commissioner richards: okay. thank you. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a -- >> commissioners, if i just
2:50 am
may, i want to clarify one item in the motion. i just want to make sure it's clear that the inclusionary percentage is 18% of the one of the conditions mistakenly writes it as 1, so just to be sure we have it noted in the motion as 18%. i also want to make sure that the motion is clear that the voluntary -- the project sponsor is voluntarily contributing an additional very low unit out of the 8 units that we're providing, and that way, we distinguish that condition separate from the required inclusionary amounts which basically require them to scale the units accordingly. >> vice president koppel: commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: just a question on the p.d.r. is it possible that zoned p.d.r., could you build 100% affordable housing on that? >> no. housing is not allowed in a p.d.r. >> commissioner hillis: okay. >> vice president koppel:
2:51 am
commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: the motion that was provided to us last week has been revised as part of those changes, and the drawings that were provided were also changed proposed. >> correct. so everything you have in front of you is reflective of the project in front of you. the items i read in the record were clarifications, basically. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just one other question for the project sponsor one last time. i don't want to get into a private agreement, but we vote here today, we vote, that offer still stands. you can follow through on whatever it is you signed? >> the condition of my offer is that they support the project, and they just kept on dragging their foot and not sponsoring. obviously, we're going to go back to them and talk to them and see what it is that we can do in order to support them. it seems like the goal posts
2:52 am
keeps on moving, moving, moving. the offer, 1,000 square feet of retail, we offered them 1500. we offered them 1500 on stevenson, they wanted it on woodward. then, they asked us to give them a free piece of land that's sitting right next to it, so i've got to really find out, it seems that every single time we agree on something, it just keeps moving back and changing their minds. i think there are too many people that are trying to make a decision. i am talking to one person, that one person goes and talks to many, many, people, and they come back and decide to keep on asking for more stuff. i'm fine with let's end here. >> commissioner richards: understandable. miss petrucelli, one question.
2:53 am
the project sponsor kind of makes a compelling case to just move this out. i mean, if we were to continue this for a little while, like a week or two? >> we could definitely reach an agreement. yes, he has offered certain things, but when -- there was an issue where we did reach an agreement, and we had voted on it, but we found out that the fees that we were including the affordability -- the density bonus fees that we had gotten from the city were incorrect, and that changed the nature of the agreement, and so it couldn't pass, and so that's how we came back to negotiating. but when things are offered, he pulls things back, and it makes it a little more challenging, and we don't just accept money, as you all know. you can't just offer us money and hope that we're going to come here and stand here and support. we're looking for community
2:54 am
benefit, and we are looking to work with all of these options. and i think very much so, that we could reach an agreement, and u.s.m. very much wants to reach an agreement on this project. >> commissioner richards: okay. thank you. >> vice president koppel: mr. sucre? >> commissioners, i'm sorry. the percentage is 17. i've learned to listen to the staff planner. >> commissioner moore: i couldn't hear you. >> i mistakenly read into the record that the percentage for the affordable is 18. it's 19, as they just corrected us. >> clerk: if there's anything further, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended by staff. [roll call]
2:55 am
>> clerk: that motion fails 3-2 with commissioners more and richards voting against. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: move to continue to july 7, next availab -- 11, next available hearing. >> commissioner moore: second. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes, 4-1, with commissioner fung voting against. items 13 a and b were continued, as was item 17 in case anyone's here for that, discretionary review matter. >> i can't be here july 11, so if you want to move it further back, i can only be here somewhere around mid-august.
2:56 am
commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: were you open to the last item to discuss it? >> clerk: item 12. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: okay. project sponsor please come back up. we want . >> commissioner richards: we wants to make this as fast as possible. >> i'm leaving out of the country. i'm out of the country. >> commissioner richards: there's no way they can come? >> they can come, but i won't be here. >> commissioner richards: do you feel like you need to be here? >> no. >> commissioner richards: then we can keep it july 11. and he can appear in your stead. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, that brings us to item 14. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: please note on march 7, 2019 after hearing and
2:57 am
closing public comment, you continued this matter to may 9, 2019 by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fung, you were not present also, and if you could acknowledge that you reviewed the previous materials to participate today. >> commissioner fung: it was a long discussion, but agreed. >> clerk: and on may 9, without hearing, you continued it today. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeff warren, planning department staff. this is for the demolition of an existing 1,240 square foot one-story-over-garage single-family home and the construction of a now 3,716 two story over garage single-family unit with an accessory dwelling unit.
2:58 am
the project requires conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 317 for the demolition of a residential unit. the project was heard by the commission on march 7, 2019. earlier on that march 7 hearing date, the commission approved legislation to allow for the inclusion of a.d.u.s within new construction of residential projects. after the public hearing for this project closed, the commission continued the project to may 9 to allow time for the proposed legislation to be adopted by the board of supervisors. on may 9, the item was continued without a hearing because the board had yet to take a hearing on that item. on june 19, the board adopted the legislation which the mayor will sign today or tomorrow, which will result in the resolution being law by the end of july.
2:59 am
as a refresher, the subject property and the adjacent properties are located on uniquely wide and upsloping lots within the rh-1-z zoning districts. the existing home to be demolished is a one-story over garage single-family home originally constructed in 1924. the home immediately adjacent to the south is a two-story single-family home and to the north is a two story single-family home similar to the proposed dwelling. since the last meeting, the unit will be entered via private courtyard at the front of the structure. the courtyard does not meet the usable open space requirements for the zoning districts of 300 square feet, so there are, this
3:00 am
a.d. -- therefore, this a.d.u. will seek an exception under resolution 304. also earlier this week, the commission should have received two separate e-mails from the neighbor at 215 vasquez with materials in opposition to the project. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> vice president koppel: thank you. project sponsor? >> my name is jeff burroughs, and i'm the architect for the project. let's do the overhead. good afternoon. i'm here to speak to the two issues regarding the continuance. that's the density and the shadow clarification