tv Government Access Programming SFGTV September 28, 2018 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
silence your mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you care to, state your name for the record when you speak to the commission. would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] first on your agenda, consideration of items for continuance. item 1, 2016-000378cua, 1600 jackson, proposed for continuance to october 4, 2018.
item 2, 004644cua, 619 divisadero street, continue to october 11, 2018. item 3, 0107 dine pca, mission alcoholic beverage special use district, proposed continuance to october 11, 2018. item 4, 2018-007507map, 1650-1680 mission street, proposed to continue october 25, 2018. items 5a and b, 1037c and 1037v, 650 divisadero street, proposed continuance to november 8. 2018-002007cua, 318 main street, proposed continuance to november 29.
no other items for continuance and no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any public comment on those items up for continuance? seeing none, i close public comment. >> commissioner richards: i'm wondering why continuance calendar for item 2. >> 619 divisadero? >> commissioner richards: correct. >> we're planning to bring the case to full calendar item. i will have an approval and disapproval motion prepared, depending on how the commission decides to move forward. >> commissioner richards: is this standard practice, where if we hear something and we make a
motion, project sponsor gets a second chance at a second hearing? >> president hillis: if we have a motion to disapprove, we'll have a hearing on the motion to disapprove. that's always the case. sometimes we put it on consent. i think the project sponsor indicated they would pull it off consent, so i think that's the reason not to have it on consent. one of the reasons we asked for it to be continued is i realized we had a heavy calendar today. so we asked a couple of projects to continue so we could clear some room on the calendar because we knew we had mission and central soma back. so that was some of the calendar reconfiguration. we can have it on consent, but i think that people would want it pulled off consent. so we took that step in advance.
>> commissioner richards: i will make a motion to continue items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the dates specified. >> president hillis: you want to hear item 2 now? >> commissioner richards: i do. >> president hillis: is there an alternative motion? >> commissioner moore: sorry. i second. >> clerk: on the motion to continue 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. [roll call vote] motion fails 2-5. commissioners fong, johnson, kopl, hillis against.
>> make a motion to continue to the date specified. >> second. >> clerk: to continue as proposed -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. motion passes unanimously, 7-0. item 5b is rear yard modification, so will continue to date specified. commissioners, that places us under consent calendar. all matters here 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 unless a member of the public, commission or staff requests, in which event, the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered a separate item at this or
future hearing. we have one speaker card requesting the removal of item 8 off consent. so we'll take it up at the beginning of the calendar. >> president hillis: so we just have item 7. any public comment on item 7 or would anybody like to remove item 7 from the consent calendar? okay. public comment is closed. commissioners? do we have a motion for that consent item? >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve item 7. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to approve item 7 -- [roll call vote] >> commissioner moore: 7 is off consent. >> clerk: no. 8 is pulled off consent. >> president hillis: someone requested that 8 be pulled off consent, a member of the public,
correct? >> clerk: yes. >> commissioner moore: sorry. >> clerk: on the motion to approve item 7. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. as previously stated, item 8 will be considered at the beginning of the regular calendar. placing us under commission matters, item 9, consideration of adoption craft minutes for september 6, 2018, joint hearing, as well as regular hearing and regular hearing for september 13, 2018. i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on the motion to adopt the minutes for september 6 and 13 --
[roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 10, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards: we've been gone two weeks and i have a big file to talk about it, but i will spread it out. i will just talk about two items. we've had several incidents where we've had what i would call fraudulent behavior before this commission, one where the structural engineer did not build the building to plans and we asked it to be pared back back to the plans and i've asked the zoning administrator where we're at. 214 states, a garage didn't exist but showed on the plans. this past week, city attorney, accuses official of cheating.
being pursued on three specific projects, none of which we heard here. i think the interesting thing is, even given the fact that this individual went and did these things, justice catches up with you. what struck me was a quote from the city attorney, this person put humans in harm's way, the workers and people occupying the structures. i really look for a good resolution to the case and that justice be served. my second item is, on sunday, headline in "the chronicle," real estate could drive job boom away. we talked about tech companies, despite the fact that technology allows people to work in multiple locations without having to be under the same roof, now taking a look at what we call support staff, people that are not making $200,000 a year doing coding, moving them to indianapolis, austin, st. louis, new york, etc., and i
think i mentioned this a few months ago. a lot of the issues that i've heard and a congressman talked about this, the resentment on the coastal cities, especially here in san francisco on the winner-take-all attitude of getting all the jobs and getting everybody here and let's drive up the housing prices, cost of living and overcrowded, while the rest of the u.s. is left behind. supply and demand might not be a bad thing. demand for workers here because of a lack of supply of amenities they need at a good price is pushing supply of workers out to other areas, which makes sense. i don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: there was one slight bright spot in the national news over the last
week. it was the introduction of the american housing mobility act. it was introduced by senator warren and the atlantic described it as a bill that does more for housing or does as much for housing as the fair housing act bill did. it does a complain asian of things. the first is that it provides downpayment assistance to low to moderate income folks. the second thing it does, it puts around -- i lost the number there. it puts millions and millions of dollars into creating affordable housing, both in cities and in rural areas. and the articles that have covered this have talked about housing not only being an issue in the cities, but all over the country and becoming kind of the top issue of the next
presidential race that we will have. so we're really excited to see this bill and hoping that we might have a glimmer of hope of getting some funding from the federal government in a way that can really help us with the housing crisis. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, department matters, item 11, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to call your attention to a couple of memos from therese o-hada, one is the current pipeline and one is the seventh housing balance report. it's imperative to us that we're almost close to 70,000 units in our pipeline. to remind you what the pipeline is, it's everything that comes in the door with an application to projects that are under construction until they receive an occupancy permit.
so it's anywhere from application to completion of the project. 7,100 of those are under construction. another 6,500 have had building permits approved. and another 5,000 have filed for permits. there's an increasing number, as you know, of projects that are approved that are not moving forward into the permit process. it appears to be about 20,000 of those, and we have almost 21,000 that we're reviewing in the department right now. so those numbers are very high, but they're also slowing down a bit. the new applications are slowing down in light of construction costs, i think, and other factors. i wanted to call that to your attention. i will turn it over to zoning administrator sanchez, who has an announcement today as well. >> thank you, commissioners. one minor announcement today and i would like to let you know that i will be resigning as zoning administrator this fall. it's been a privilege to serve as zoning administrator for the
past eight years. there's a tremendous responsibility in this position, which has increased over the years. i don't know how all the planning codes got through, but they did. i have taken it incredibly seriously and done my utmost best to fairly and consistently apply the planning code and enforce the planning code. i feel tremendously lucky to have had this opportunity, the first one in my family to go to college and starting at the planning department as an intern and having the opportunity to work with tremendous staff in the department to ultimately have this opportunity. want to thank director ram. i could not have done this job in a way that i feel appropriate without him. and the staff and the compliance
division, enforcement team, corey teague, who has been an incredible assistant d.a. and filled in over the years, tina tam, our current enforcement team manager, who i have the utmost respect for her and, of course, chris hall. i think the enforcement team has only improved over the years. i have a tremendous amount of respect and i respect them. and last but not least, aftair taylor, who has taken better care of me than i have of myself over the years. she's been incredible. without her, i wouldn't have made it the eight years. thank you to the commission for your support over the years. i will remain in the department, working a reduced schedule and focusing on certain items like board of appeals. [applause]
>> president hillis: thank you, scott. i've worked with you back when i was on board of appeals and then here. you are invaluable to us as we muddle through some of the issues we face here, especially when there's variances involved. i've sought your advice. i'm glad you are staying with the department. thank you for everything here. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items -- excuse me. i apologize. item 12, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and there was no historic preservation commission meeting yesterday. >> thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, legislative affairs. two weeks of board report for you. last week was simple. land use committee continued all the items related to the indian
basin special use district to this week. at the full board, fees for certain permits and transportation analysis, ordinance sponsored by the mayor, passed second read. health services on ocean avenue passed first read. the board considered supervisor kim's ordinance that would allow affordable housing. the original ordinance passed first read and duplicated file rereferred back to planning. amendments added by supervisor kim were not considered by this commission and was considered substantive enough by city attorney's office to acquire rereferral. in addition to allowing the demolition of buildings used for parking lots it, would allow 800-square-foot building on lots larger than 18,000 square feet to be demolished to construct affordable housing. the overall intent and spirit is
the same, and viable spaces would be protected. therefore, staff is not planning on bringing the ordinance back unless we hear from you otherwise today. at the land use committee hearing this week, the historic designations associated with central soma and india basin-related ordinances were continued to october 1. and then at the full board, supervisor yee's health services on the ground floor ordinance passed second read. the original sally legislation passed second read. next on the agenda was appeal for e.i.r. for central soma. central soma is a comprehensive plan for all areas surrounding much of the southern portion of the central subway transit line. the plan would change allowable land uses and zoning controls and increase heights on many
parcels, proposed substantial changes for multiple modes of travel and provide additional recreational resources. the plan is projected to provide 8,500 house toing units and 32,000 jobs. the appeals were brought by five groups including central soma neighbors, s.f. blue, south of market community action network, and the yerba buena neighborhood consortium. the issues brought up include that the planning department did not adequately analyze vehicle miles traveled and the e.i.r. did not evaluate air quality mitigation measures and the planning department did not study the effects of gentrification and misplacement and that the department should have studied an alternative and e.i.r. did not adequately review seismic impacts. the staff showed that the plan did address the concerns or they
were not required to be analyzed by ceqa. there were 34 speakers in favor of at least one of the appeals and 8 speakers in favor of denying the appeals. supervisors raised questions regarding air quality analysis and how metering new development could reduce air quality impacts. supervisors raised concerns of the soils, transportation network companies, t.n.c.s, and lack of available data to analyze that data. other concerns were raised regarding the merit of the plan and whether the plan met the infrastructure needs of a growing central soma population, specifically in relation to schools. the board felt it was adequate, 10-0, with supervisor yee absent, to uphold the e.i.r. and appeals. indian basin mixed use was continued to october 2. that's all i have for you.
>> commissioner moore: i would like to ask if you could have an informal meeting with commissioners that be interested to see the changes in sally. i'm personally concerned that buildings that are 15,000 square feet could house small outfits and what comes to mind for those of us on the commission for a long time is mr. damico who brilliantly fought for the p.d.r. spaces. it operates in facilities that are of lower rent. and in this case, affordable housing. so we could, perhaps, spend an afternoon talking about what buildings in particular would be affected. because i'm sure you have a map where you can pretty much show
what buildings would be affected, what size is available and what is in the buildings. >> i believe it would be one building. sorry if i wasn't clear. it's lots over 15,000 square feet and buildings under 800 square feet. >> commissioner moore: so small p.d.r. space would not be affected? >> no. >> president hillis: mostly vacant lots. >> commissioner moore: that parred -- part i understand. we're talking about buildings taken down. i want to be sure those are not buildings that wore protective of because they're the d.n.a. of sally itself. >> it's 15,000 lots, not buildings. it's only buildings up to 800 square feet. >> commissioner moore: like a shed almost. >> why don't we send you a summary of the legislation, so
you understand the changes. >> commissioner moore: i would appreciate seeing it. >> it's my understanding that 15,000 square foot lots are in that division and only one has a building of 800 square feet. >> commissioner moore: send it to us and i will support it as long as it does the things that i'm asking. >> the board of appeals met last night. there was an appeal of the planning commission denial of building permit application for 1015-1033 van ness avenue. it had been approved and authorized by the redevelopment agency. it was a competitive contract that was won. had to provide 112 residential care units, 20 dementia beds and 25 affordable care units. they've, as far as we can tell, never provided the affordable units. in 2007, they began to legally
merge units for what was stated to be the assistant director, who the appellate admitted was her son. on a side visit that we performed on tuesday at the request of the appellant, provided the commissioners and agencies to visit the site. on the site visit, i noticed that the assistant director's license expired a year ago. but we reported all of this information to the board of appeals last night. they ultimately decided to uphold the commission's denial of the permit. there is active litigation. the city sued the property owner earlier this year and it continues to move forward and we'll continue with the enforcement actions on the property as well. thank you. >> clerk: now we are in general public comment. at this time, members of the public can address the commission on items of interest
to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect it agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. >> commissioners, coincidentally, when zoning came on board, i said a few words to you and you've done well. and i watch you a lot. you are very diligent. and i think that comes from what you said today that you're proud. your family taught you some values. and we appreciate it, the people of san francisco. i represent the first people of san francisco. from time to time. i come over here to state to the
planners that you have to pay attention for empathy and compassion. and we'll look at our city and we see so many seniors living in tents and then we see the congestion on our streets, hotspots everywhere. much of the land, which is landfill, prone to severe flooding. and then we have the example of the building. and some of us cannot answer this question straight because we haven't done due diligence. in the old days, when i think only one commissioner is left from the old days, and we would come here and fight about all the bayview hunter's point and
uranium was tested, where large animals that took part in the experiments brought to hunter's point and buried all over the place. none of us know that history. but i write about them. some employees were caught cheating the manifest and now are in jail, everybody has awoken from their slumber. in this planning department, we would give five points holdings llp a pass. commissioners, on this alone, we cannot put people on contaminated land. we are not the purveyors of that. we are not the purveyors of
>> my name is jerry giler, 49 hopkins avenue is an important part of san francisco's architectural heritage and it's owned by 49 hopkins, l.l.c. corporation. tim brown's statement that ross johnson owns 49 hopkins avenue is false. you have a copy of the property deed and his name is not on it. 49 hopkins avenue acquired the grant deed on january 17, 2017. on that same day, the llc entered into an agreement with a second llc, who loaned the first llc $350,000 or 20% of the purchase price. it appears that the downpayment or equity was provided for the
purchase of largent house. when 49 hopkins borrowed the $350,000, it executed a deed of trust, which you have. 49 hopkins agreed to keep the property in good condition and repair and not remove or demolish any building. in the event the borrower refuses, they can declare it due and payable and cause the property to be sold or required a borrower to restore the house. did tab notes declare 49 hopkins l.l.c. in default when it destroyed largent house? if not, why not? the only person who can answer this question is tim brown, chief executive officer of tab notes l.l.c. tab notes filed a form 12 with the state of california listing timothy brown as chief executive
officer. it's on the overhead. and you have a copy. the address on the form is 77 monterey boulevard. the address of brown and company real estate group. tim brown owns brown and company. public information on 49 hopkins l.l.c. is brief. the legal address is 775 monterey boulevard. address of brown and company real estate group. the legal representative is marc brown, broker associate at brown and company. in conclusion, we don't know who controls the largent house today. we do know that the answer to this question resides at 775 monterey boulevard, office of brown and company real estate group. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment?
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jonathan perlman. i'm here to talk about a code section that's kind of problematic to me and a lot of my fellow architects. it has to do with what can be in a building above height limit, section 260. and what are exceptions to that. so typically, we have a maximum of 20% of the roof area that can be above the height limit. on many buildings, it's a stair tower, elevator penthouse, something like that. so many of our projects nowadays, the only place we can put our exterior, outdoor space requirement, is on the roof to meet the requirements in the bigger buildings. so that then requires the elevator coming up and stair penthouses. the problem is, we're not allowed to put a vestibule to protect the elevator because you have an elevator opening up on
seventh, eighth, 10th story of a building, wind whipping in and water and debris gets in the elevator shaft. one of the things that's in section 260 is, a, mechanical equipment pertinent to the building, that can go above the height limit. on a number of projects that i'm doing, the planner says, no, th vestibule -- you can not have the vestibule, because it's not included in the text of 260. what i found and we talked to a number of architects. one told me that they couldn't get a warranty on their elevator, because there wasn't protection. i know a lot of people have concerns about these additional spaces on the roof because maybe they will become a sun room or something on the roof, but i think it could be fairly simple to add into the code that this
is not only allowed that it would have to be a minimum, maybe 50 square feet, something like that, so it can meet a.d.a. requirements for getting in and out of the elevator and on to the roof deck. and there is a subsection here that talks about in the eastern neighborhood mixed-use district, which is almost 1/3 of the city, enclosed utility sheds not more than 100 square feet for the storage of landscaping and gardening equipment with a maximum of 8 feet above otherwise applicable height limits. if we can have a shed for landscaping, we certainly should find a way to protect the elevator, which is the most expensive piece of mechanical equipment in a building. so i ask that it be investigated and maybe there's a way to provide code refinement to allow that kind of vestibule at a rooftop elevator.
thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is paul webber. i'm here to discuss the c.u. for the lombard east site at jackson and polk to open a formula retail, whole foods-related market in the vacant building. i and many others are opposing it. i would like to identify what i believe are two key reasons to deny the c.u. there's a whole foods at franklin and california, a short drive from polk street. and from the western flanks of russian hill. in addition, there's free delivery for amazon plus members for orders over $35. this does not even address the traffic problems with the polk street store, which would be more than likely offering delivery services as well. secondly, as you know, through the efforts of many in san
francisco and elsewhere. state senate bill 827, was barely defeated. that bill did two things. it upzoned land use around transit-centric locations, which would have included polk street, by the way. and included land use by local governments the sponsor believed that the state needed to take over that function because the locals were not doing the job. a new version of 827 is likely to emerge in early 2019, along with a round of housing bills. here sits a site at a perfect location to build with no loss of housing and a multi-centric location, which could house seniors or low- to middle-income seniors, so it would fit right
in. on october 4, you will be advised that housing on that location is not before the commission. that may be technically crew, but consider that individual local land, not with housing needs being as prominent as it is. granting the c.u. would have consequences beyond the market in the neighborhood it. could contribute to san francisco losing control over land use decisions and it may even be exhibit a. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. webber. >> next week the case of jackson will be before you. i continue with the comments
that mr. webber made. it will be before you for a second time. the case was continued because the developer was supposed to come up with a solution that included housing. you will be hearing the unfounded claim of, it doesn't pencil out, for the second time next week. a few months ago, something interesting happened and bore a hole in that claim. overhead, please. as you can see, the site was -- you don't see it on the overhead, but the site was purchased for $13 million, which is twice as much as 1600 jackson was purchased for. nevertheless, this particular project is attempting to build
43 units, as you can see on the overhead. this is not about profits. it's about convenience. so long as the developer has the option of renting to whole foods and amazon, they will avoid building what needs to be built here. every thursday, you hear the same usual suspects about our housing crisis. they call for upzoning in this and that neighborhood. they dismissed the impact on tenants. here we have a site that doesn't involve tenant displacement or require upzoning. and it's a perfect site for housing ground floor retail as well as housing atop. this is the right place. and this is the right time to build here. so, please, don't fall for this bogus claim, that it doesn't pencil out. reject the c.u. incidentally, next week, there will be another project before you and that will be in my name,
noe valley, real foods same story. we're against the conditional use operation for just stores. if we're going to spend money on building retail solutions, it has to come with housing. we earth have the same mantra of gentrification for everyone or we're going to have select developers or select projects that will have to comply with that. so if this is the policy of the planning department, please do require developers to do this and do the right thing. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is patrick hostile. i have lived in dog patch for 30 years and i'm a long time member of the dog patch neighborhood association i've witnessed the
transformation of the once-low income neighborhood with a mix of industrial warehouse and modest residential buildings to high-density, luxury apartments, condos, with a vibrant trip made up of restaurants and bars. to this day, we don't have a major grocery store in our neighborhood. to shop at the nearest whole foods, i have to go to portrero hills. and it's not walkable. now compare that to the case of the proposed whole foods at 1600 jackson that will be before you next week. here's an opportunity to use a soft site to build 62 units, give a few to below market rate
housing and make good on our mantra that, no, we're not doing that, because the developer claims it doesn't pencil out and they want their second whole foods in an area rich with numerous grocery stores, large and small. but it does pencil out the proof in the pudding is the nearby project mentioned that was initiated just a couple weeks ago. if we give into unfounded claim of developers, we're giving up city planning it always pencils out to build lunchry universi rr rry dark -- dog patch because renting to a major grocery store is not on the table, but not in russian hill or pacific heights. if we need more housing, let's not squander the opportunity of building on a soft site where there is no displacement and no
upzoning involved. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional general public comment? mr. paul. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. first of all, i would like to just throw something out there for my own self-interest being somewhat hearing impaired not strictly from last night's metallica concert but from concerts like that in the distant past. so please do try to use the microphones when you address the commission hearing. it makes it a lot easier for me to follow what's going on secondly, i would like to thank mr. sanchez for his efrm lent work in these years. it's an incredibly difficult job and it's been a pleasure to work with him and i've found his delicacy and elegance as he works with incredibly complex
issues and very disparate personalities impressive and it set a tone for the department that should remain. on to other things. i want to continue my updates to you on the cannabis issues. if i go to the overhead -- this hit the internet last friday, i think. and there's been a lot of buzz. haight street now has a cannabis store. why has the city selected a store without public input on the question? there are many districts in the city where there are conflicting applicants for the same retail location. you do incredibly important work
here. we honor the time you put in. i look through the calendar and it's hard for me to find something that will affect as many people in their daily lives as many as a wrong choice for a cannabis retailer in a busy neighborhood, commercial district like the haight, like north beach, like parts of the mission, like parts of the sunset. this stuff needs to be handled delicately, not by an algorithm based on who pressed a button quickest to the office of cannabis submitting an application. some people in the upper haight contacted me about this and i quickly put together a petition for them that states the following. "we're the neighbors of the 1600 block of haight street. we request a public hearing to
consider the granting of adult use cannabis. the retailer unknown to us has taken place without input from the community. there is is unacceptable. we know our neighborhood and we will not have such an important decision made by and for those who know nothing about haight street or our local concerns. please allow our community to be heard before it's too late." so they got this on tuesday. they got 75 signatures. and they're getting more. i will submit this through the commission secretary when it's ready. thank you very much for your attention. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. paul. any additional public comments? seeing none, we'll close general public comment. >> we would hear a dispensary going into a neighborhood commercial district as a c.u., correct? >> it might be helpful to have
the office of cannabis give a presentation as to how they make their decisions. >> good idea. >> president hillis: and that's in the works to do an informational hearing to talk about the process and what's coming before us and how prior to the first action we take on recreational cannabis. we can move to the regular calendar. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. we'll take up item 8, that was pulled off consent for 2018-007452cua, 2401 taraval street. >> gabriella pantoja has joined us and has transitioned to the
southwest team. prior to joining the department, gabriella worked for the city of berkeley, where she reviewed building permits and managed the housing data. she has a bachelor's in political science and geography from u.c. berkeley. welcome to the commission. >> president hillis: welcome. >> good afternoon. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization for the conversion of existing single-family dwelling unit into a child care facility, doing business as casa dei bambini. location is 2401 taraval street. the project includes minor internal and exterior alterations originally constructed in 1924 to accommodate a childcare facility. the project site is a 3,250
square foot property on the south side of taraval between 34th and 35th avenues, not 34th and 35th streets, as indicated on your notice and agenda. the immediate surrounding neighborhood is 2 to 3 story and mixed use, with commercial tenant spaces at the ground floor and residential units at the remainder of the floors. the neighbors include a mix of land use, including residential, retail, restaurants and institutional uses. the item before you is required by section code 317 for an existing dwelling unit. the proposed childcare facility
is committed to prouding a carefully planned stimulating environment that will help children develop with themselves the fundamental habits, attitudes, skills and ideas essential for a lifetime of creative thinking and learning. it will serve children between the ages of 2 and 6 years old. dropoff and pickup will be designed to alleviate traffic congestion during dropoff and pickup hours. the project sponsor had received 24 letters in support including from district 4 katy tang and mark berman, assembly member. it has provided documentation of
the immediate area and san francisco residents, approximately 75 is aing signatures and contact info was provided. one letter in opposition was received. the concerns with loss of dwelling unit. it is owned by the childcare facility operators and the home is vacant. it's been vacant two years and review found no evictions. the project complies with planning code section 317 and recommends approval of conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the project is found to be consistent with policies with the general plan and meets applicable areas of the planning code. it will convert into a childcare facility and provide a service
that's in need in the immediate neighborhood and the city. the proposed project will not displace existing tenants or removed rent-controlled or affordable housing from the city's housing stock. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? welcome. how are you? you have 5 minutes, if you want to present here. >> hello. my name is sandra balsoretti, director of casey dei bambini, seeking approval for our project at 2401 taraval street.
>> we felt we really needed to have a permanent home in order to do this. realized that children thrive in really small environments, especially between the ages of 2 -5. so with that in mind, we acquired the property. we made no changes. it is not a remodel at all. it is a conversion. we kept everything that we needed to keep for a dwelling in the future. my husband and i wear teen parents. we had our first child when i was 16 and he was 17. we see education as a lifesaving
draft. it may need a big in our lives. we really wanted to bring that to san francisco. we have two teachers that have commuted to our campus for many years. i do the commute every day. i am on the road about three hours a day. this is a great opportunity for the neighborhood, for education, and also the fact that life has taught me that things can be unpredictable. so we went above and beyond in maintaining this dwelling opportunity. we have growing children. for us it was really important to maintain the second story for a livable space. we kept all the character and did a voluntary seismic retrofit and a lot of the original panels had to be removed around the
fireplace where beautiful bookcases were built in. and the carpenter thought we were a little bit crazy when we said he had to take it a little bit at a time and put it back. we did the same thing with the side. a beautiful building sideboard in the dining room. everybody knows that licensing appreciates a lot of square footage and we were willing to sacrifice that with the idea that it may return to being a home either for us or our children or depending on how things go in san francisco. lastly, i just wanted to say, that the neighborhood has been very welcoming to us as we had got to know our neighbors and a lot of the businesses. they get excited and we have a karate place right across the street. we are promoting physical education in our program and
music. we are trying to find the same element. and just lastly, while we are a for-profit organization, as you no, just because you are nonprofit does not mean you are not profitable and vice versa. we are very much tuition dependent. we don't do any fundraising. we think that families have a hard time enough raising the money to pay tuition. but should that pass, it allows us to get substantial scholarships for people in need in the community. we have done that in every city that we have been. we are not familiar where we can have a high impact in san francisco but i can promise you that we will. we have done so with the job training which is an amazing organization in the park and we offered to them 10% off of our enrolment for children in need that they could identify through the organization. we have done the same with our palo alto campus.
we have families on many scholarships and full scholarships. we provided a service for family students enrolled their children they have to be children, for up to three years that the courses go through. we had one of the children for two years. it was about a 50,000-dollar investment in that child's education and we had the other child for about six months. unfortunately they lived on the other side of the bay and they couldn't come to school. otherwise we would have continued giving them the scholarship. that means i have to say bye-bye , right? [laughter] >> president hillis: thank you i have one public comment speaker. if others would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room.
>> hello. sorry, i just want a few hours ago i would be the one who would speak. it will be a little disorganized i want to start saying i am a sunset resident. my younger daughter is in preschool. i definitely get it. i definitely know that we need our preschool slots. so i'm here on behalf of west side. i know it was not on the consent agenda, but we wanted to come today to say we told you so when the trend that we started describing two weeks ago, has actually become a trend. we should be giving the same consideration to home removal down the consideration to home addition. here you have a decision that is likely -- that will be based on the need for family amenities
that is family-friendly. but when you have businesses competing and outbidding families, there won't be a lot of families remaining in the sunsets. again, there is 40 storefront vacancies. 150 in the sunsets. you have other local players who know with the sunsets. for example, story book. they choose to be a repair shop for tvs. they will be able to serve 40 kids. it was not a dwelling unit. there were also -- they will also be able to serve 40 kids. so what they did, they took vacant commercial space on the commercial corridor and turned it into a preschool. that is what they should be doing. once again, today we are not talking about permitting childcare and preschool his. it is already permitted on the ground floor. they are licensed to serve the