tv Government Access Programming SFGTV September 7, 2019 12:00am-1:01am PDT
space. i think a lot of people assume that means green space that was shown before on the picture. it doesn't. it means any space that is not a building. any inch of concrete he is putting it where there is grass. he is putting in concrete slabs. i take my dog up there. i just think we can compromise a little more to keep the old trees and still have green space and still meet the housing needs. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> . >> i am david. thank you commissioners for consideration on all of this. i live six blocks from the site, and i very strongly support the need for more housing. i have concerns about the current project which have not been completely addressed. first of all, inclusion of
flexible retail concerns me. i don't think businesses should be open past 11:00 p.m. in the neighborhood. that was a recent addition. i would like to look out for the interests of the neighborhood when considering the nature of the retail. related to that we need to consider if this is a retail destination clogged with traffic with people coming to shop. is that appropriate for the neighborhood? the proposed lengths of time for the project. i have a 6 year-old daughter. when i saw 15 year-old timeframe my daughter will be a junior in college when this is finished. that is mind bo mind-boggling. 15 years of disruption to the neighborhood for that amount of time, i would argue this is not a fair or equitable or just or project to the neighbors currently living there.
lack of affordable is a justice and equity issue. we can't solve that in a way that is just or equitable to the people living in the neighborhood. i would ask you look out for the rights of the people in the neighborhood is the retail too much of a destination? is the timeframe of the project appropriate for the neighborhood. thank you for looking out for all of san francisco including this neighborhood in your decision. >> next speaker, please. >> i am barbara. i live a block and-a-half from the project. i have lived here over 50 years. i qualify as senior. i hoped to be able to live in my house for many more years. however, given the amount of construction proposed, amount of traffic incurred because of the retail and the late hours, i don't know if i want to keep
living in this neighborhood. those are consideration to be made and i support having the extension, 30-day extension on review of this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am christina ortega morris, i live in the heights. fan does not represent all of the residents of the height. we are diverse and we don't necessarily agree with what mr. ferguson said. i oppose the project as proposed by the developer. i do support the community alternative for the following reasons: one, no retail. we don't need any more retail. target and trader joe's are overwhelming us. we have the village. the merchants are very concerned about the impact on their strip.
some of them are considering leaving because they feel this over whelms them. i know they have submitted comments as well. the neighborhood cannot support a 15 year project as the developers have envisioned. we want the historic green space protected, honor the historic nomination as classic mid century architecture. there is nothing wrong with that. it is beautiful. think about the traffic and congestion if the plans are not modified. evaluate seriously whether the developer's reliance on tech dominated economy supported this concerning the future economy of the city. many new developments are selling because the market is over saturated. more people are fleeing san francisco due to taxes, expense,
crime, political mismanagement. many businesses are out of state. i have two adult children in the city and two are thinking of living. one lives out of state and one in southern california. they don't think san francisco is livable. not because of housing but the environment is not supportive of their life goals any longer. i ask for a 30-day continuance so the proponents of the community alternative can present arguments against the flexible retail idea which is totally unacceptable to the quiet neighborhood. the idea social services and the facilities are being considered. theser not considered in the original e.i.r. finally, please consider what the residents want. we know the neighborhood better than any developer. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello.
i am barbara brenner. my husband and i live a few blocks from the proposed development site. we support a plan to provide for the same number of units as the developers' plan. if you are concerned about the impact on the environment and the neighborhood, have the developers' plan reduce the size, itthetic and scope. it leaves a larger carbon footprint by excavating deeper to the hill and demolishing more buildings and removing more trees in exchange for increased paining. it takes twice as long to complete as the sensible neighborhood alternative. please allow for 30-day extension to renew the plan. thank you. >> next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a life-long resident of san francisco. i live in the laurel heights neighborhood. i ask you consider regarding the proportioned alternatives. i ask you support the plans for the same number of housing units. they are supper your because they do not build an historic green and they limit disturbance to seven years rather than 15 years proposed buyer developers. protracted construction would jeopardize locally owned businesses in the shopping area. regarding flexible uses which the e.i.r. did not evaluate they fail to evaluate the impact on traffic, noise and air quality
from sharing the same retail space. they only evaluated single use and restaurant. flexible retail is not allowed in district two. the e.i.r. needs to be revised to consider the impacts of flexible retail uses. regarding the limit on retail operation hours, the hours every tail operation should be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to not allow retail to operate to 2:00 a.m. prohibit the outdoor amplification of sound, prohibit not respect uses fast foot restaurants and -- fast food restaurants and i request you continue to allow time to review impacts on information and the final e.i.r. thank you. >> next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon, i am gabriel. i am an outsider. we moved to the city three years ago. we have been living right by civic center bart. previously we lived at buchanan street in a big development there. as a young person who is eager to start a family and eager to establish a lifestyle that can be sustained, i would surge the committee to avoid delaying projects like this as much as possible. it is so difficult for people in our position. i am a freelance artist. my husband works for nonprofit. we are spending a ridiculous amount of income on rent. we can barely afford a one bedroom let alone a two bedroom. projects like this with housing for seniors and child care are
so important for people like us to stay in the city. thank you. >> next speaker, please. thank you. >> i am wendy. i have lived in san francisco for 30 years. i have lived in laurel heights for almost 20 years. i live directly across from where the development will occur. i am absolutely in support of housing as is everybody in the heights improvement association. get that clear for the record. we are not opposed to more housing that is not what we are objecting to at all since we learned about the development. as i have been sitting here. to live hear what does that mean to live in a place? i live in this place, my neighbors live in this place. to say this property is disconnected from the neighborhood could not be further from the truth.
we know our neighbors because of this place. we are on the green space, on the top big open flat of the green space, all of us several times a week, many of us we know the neighbors walking up and down the sidewalks. it is connected. i know who is on the bottom part with dogs in the afternoon, who is in the top later in day. it is very connected. my kids went to jcc preschool. i used to cut through the parking lot that comes out in front of the jcc. i think i am taking issue with the idea this is an eyesore and disconnected. there are all kinds of ways to be integrated to make it livable. what makes it livable are the large sidewalk that allow people to walk on them that are inviting and open to us. i am a little concerned the developer is saying they want to integrate the property to the community because if you have been to the location.
i don't know how many of you have been there. there are signs all over the place saying we reserve the right to keep you out. that was in direct response to understanding this has been used as public space. some of our neighbors lived here for over 50 years and have grown up using this space as part of the community. i am a little concerned they don't really want the community to use this space and don't really understand what does it mean to use the space? families don't want to just walk on hard scape. families need grass, open areas, kids need to be able to run and take dogs out somewhere besides a little batch of grass next to a tree next to thousands of feet of hard scape. i think that there are all different approaches to making a place livable and becomes part of the neighborhood, again, when i think what that means to be
livable especially for one who wants to raise a family that is what they are interested in doing in this neighborhood. we take issue with mixed use retail. we don't want a lot of activity in the neighborhood late at night. it is not the flavor of the neighborhood. >> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you we support the community plan. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your patience. i live in district two. i represent the group of residents who promote lively neighborhoods. we support this project. we believe the project provides more places for people to live, to eat, enjoy, to shop, and this will be a boone and asset to district two.
on a personal note as someone who came to the city as an adult, people sometimes ask how long do you stay in often times as a young person in the city it is an expiration on how long you can enjoy san francisco. at some point you might want to buy a place and find housing security. it is hard to find that here. most of the homes in the heights are unaffordable to people who are under 35. please consider the needses the younger folks when you think about this project. this has been discussion for over three years with so much community input. i implore you to respect that and to respect the time that went into it and approve the project. the community alternative as far as i know did not have an analysis of financial feasibility. it is possible that without the retail this project will not pencil. therefore, instead of any
housing we will have no housing on his site. the last thing to say. i hope you have time is i have an overhead. this is the city's housing balance report which i am sure you are familiar with from april. i want to call your attention to the past 10 years district two build no low income housing. for a city that says we need more housing, the fact districts two because of the zoning and project has no affordable housing that is a real shame. in front of usa chance to build 186 units of affordable housing for seniors. if there is something the highlights and people opposed are able to at turn the lots into affordable housing. because of zoning in the 1960s
and 1970s this has not happened. this is one of the few places in district two to build affordable housing immediately without delay. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am jay. for the purposes of today i am a board member and resident of richmond. i am familiar with this location. i go by it quite a bit. i am speaking in support of the 744 proposed homes and specifically in support of the plan. i hope you will approve them as is. i want to share a couple quotations from a book that i have been reading recently. the review process is highly political. the people with the greatest steak in the outcome -- stake in
the outcome plan play no part i. we don't know who they are. they may be people coming from elsewhere. also, hearings like this they demonstrate there is no local constituency for the people who will live there. people talked about considering the people already there. i agree. that is an important consideration. we need to consider the people who will be there in the future. i came to san francisco six years ago. this is the place that called to me. it is a place i knew i wanted to live and be my best self and fully live. i didn't know about the housing challenges other than offhand jokes. there were reasons to be here. there are so many people like me. they want to come contribute to the fabric of the city. they want to be a part of san francisco. so many of them have come and
gone in my time. i have seen so many friends get here and leave with the same hopes and goals. there is a lot of people who contributed to the city for a long time who need affordable homes like senior housing. there are people in need. we need to say yes to projects like this. this book calls the future residents of new homes like the ones we are discussing today unorganized probably unorganize ability. that is not the case. i come before you to speak on behalf of them. so many others have come before you. i was that person. i know what that feels like. i was lucky. i found a place here. i want the next generation to say they have lived here for 40 years to have that opportunity. i implore you to approve these homes. >> next speaker, please.
>> hello. i am adam mic done notice. i live across the street. i support the construction of new housing in the community especially senior affordable housing and look forward to welcoming new neighbors to the hood. i don't support the loss of green space, removal of trees, the density, traffic, additional retail flexible retail and 15 year construction. if you are pro-housing you should be for the community alternative plan to get housing on the market faster, not in 15 years. the special use district filing which came out after the draft e.i.r. was published allows for flexible retail on california street. flexible retail includes adult and nighttime entertainment. we need a 30-day continuance to study the impact.
until then the e.i.r. is not complete. the community has proposed an alternative plan to get housing sooner and save trees and won't jeopardize the retail businesses. i am not why that is not getting attention. i urge you to listen to the community and send this back for redesign taking into account the tremendous advantages of the community alternative plan. the urgent calls for more housing are drowning out housings in support of neighborhood character this is an opportunity to satisfy both sides. get housing faster and preserve neighborhood live ability. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am caroline bush. i am a part of northern neighbors. i want to first talk about supervisor sevstephanie.
i was touched by her story about her father diagnosed with an illness and that was importance of senior housing to her. i have recently tried to keep my mother housed over the last three years investors have bought her property three times leading her to experience stress-related psychosis and hospitalization related to schizophrenia. this is relevant because the nice thing is here we all agree we have a housing crisis. my mother's experience and supervisor stephanie's father's experience we need more housing. that is refreshing about this hearing today. second point i would like to make we disagree how it will get done. last week the uc berkeley wrote a paper about if it would
pencil. this will explain better than i can why i support the development. i believe the community alternative plan will not get financed or built. i leave this with you guys to look over. this goes back to the second point why my mother's story is relevant. investors bought her properties they were unable to build properties of their own. if you cannot make a return on properties. you buy existing properties and buy natural leo curing affordable housing and effect tenants like my mother three times. i implore you to look at that study and to accept developer's plan as is. thank you. >> than thank you thank you ver.
i will read a few more names. patrick kirby, adam, cathy, drew, jared davis, natalie, herbert wiener, larry mat matth. >> i am linseed way. i lived in san francisco and in the area of this project. i am a real estate and urban economist. i am here in support of the project. i am very impress pressed with the developers. i have seen their work. they are here for the long run, which is important. this project addresses both major city and community needs. i urge you to approve this project. it is the highest and best use
from the standpoint of the city and the community. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, good afternoon. i am jake. i am here as a neighbor. i lived on fourth avenue and lake street in town. i was born at 3800 california street. my grandparents met at the old jcc across the street from this project. i commute past this site twice a day two and from work at least. this used to be a cemetery. i don't see what they are doing right now as any different than what happened in 1939 and 1940 when bodies were exumed and the land was re-purposed. i support more housing in district two and this is long overdue. this developer was putting forward this project long before
the increased affordability legislation was proposed by supervisor peskin. they got hung out to dry on the grandfathering provisions. who knows this may already be in the ground if that hadn't happened. this should be a certified e.i.r. and we should move forward. >> next speaker, please. >> i am bob. i live in the richmond district and frequent california street in this particular area a fair amount. i am here speaks in favor of the proposal as proposed by the developer group because they build housing and know what it will take to finance and get it built. i understand and agree with some of the things they have proposed. at the end of the day i support getting things done and build. i have seen nothing to indicate
the proposals are going to get financed and get produced. a personal story i currently rent in the city. i rent from a family member of mine. that family member is giving meal a good deal on rent, he is my dad. it was arrangement because he didn't want me moving away from him. he lives in east bay. i wanted to get out of my parents' house he bought a place and let me rent for below market rate. he wants to sell and move on. fine. that is his right. it is his condo. the city is in a dire housing short age. we do not have enough housing and the time to delay and do not have the time to pursue community alternative plans that we don't know if they will get financed. housing is expensive. i costs over $700,000 to build a
door in the city now days. i don't know what my future holds in the city any more. i don't know where i will go after my dad sells. i hope to be able to find a place at similar rent or maybe a little more expensive. for all i know i will have to move to vallejo. i earn enough to qualify for bmr housing. there are more people of need. i hope you take the things said here today under consideration. these decisions are not easy. at the end of the day i hope you certify this as proposed by the project sponsor. we need this housing when it was proposed years ago. i attended meetings? 2016, 2017, 2018, not all of them but most of them. they have taken a lot of things under advisement. they have left more car parking. i wish they would have taken it all out. we are in an environmental
crisis. please approve this proposal. one last note. it echoes what my friend michael said. if you look back on the below market rate housing in district two over the last couple years it is in th the single digits. the proposed housing is zero for 2020, 2201, 2022. i will be back here for more proposals i guarantee it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am cathy peck. i am a neighbor for 40 years here. also, i was the founder of the foundation that had its offices
at 3333 california for many years as well. pardon my voice. we are asking as if neighborhood community to ask for a 30-day continuance. i think we are very close to being on the same page, and we would really appreciate that. some things to our concern which you have heard, it is to remove the flexible retail that would keep, you know, in our neighborhood to 2:00 a.m. if we need to build more housing affordable housing as well. also, to consider removing the loophole in the development agreement that do not require the applicant to build senior affordable housing. we would appreciate that. remove the loophole that would allow the developer to build 386
market rate units and reanything on senior housing by transferring walnut land to the city. that is very important. it is really even in the e.i.r. we felt really understand the impact of the flexible retail that would be coming in to our community and to the businesses and welcoming our neighbors. we feel that the community has been thoughtful to try to keep the same amount of housing. we would like the opportunity for the 30-day extension. we appreciate it very much. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> eileen, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods in support. the coalition has passed a resolution in support. i will read the clauses into the record. be it therefore resolved the
coalition for san francisco neighborhoods supports the community alternative and community and opposes the project and variant including re-zoning requested by developer. we further oppose the 15 years requested by the developer to construct the project and opposes the conditional use authorization and planned approvals. because the developer's proposed uses will not provide a developmentness or desirable for or compatible with the neighborhood or community. the commercial uses proposed by the developer in this rmi zoning district are not necessary to serve residents of the immediate vicinity and under no circumstances may it be exempted from any height limit. further the members are familiar with the village shops and
restaurants adjacent to the project site. the sacramento street and trader joe's one block away and target in city center and finds the existing commercial uses sufficient to serve the residents in the immediate vicinity of the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i am cathy. i have been living on jordan park for 27 years. we all agree we need more housing. i support the community plan because they do build the same number of units in affordable senior housing. the greenery of the property. this area is a quiet mostly residential area. i oppose retail businesses open until 2:00 a.m. with all of the
traffic and noise in the neighborhood. there is sacramento street, trader joe's. the construction of the community plan is 15 years, that is way too long. i hope you consider keeping the character of the neighborhood by not allowing this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you for your time today. i am larry matthews i live at 3326 california street across from the project. i lived there for almost 20 years. i support building the housing. i was pleased to learn there is an affordable plan for seniors. this is a great neighborhood. i strongly believe this should
be an all residential project for several reasons. first, this is a residential block and should retain the residential look and feel. one of over 30 homeowners between walnut and to add retail would change in a negative way the residential street. california street is much narrower on our block than to the west in front of the village. this proposed project two put commercial use close to us with increased traffic. residents have driveways with curb cuts which is not being done any more. it would be challenging if there were a busy commercial sure row fair. they are asking to exceed the height limit of 40 feet on the north side of the street. it would have commercial space facing a building taller than
what causes crisis and homelessness to begin with. it was a developers and hustlers, who snapped up and through people out of them. i was one of them. this is being proposed as a social welfare measure. it is being packaged as that. but, what has happened with the eviction, from the developers is boomer ringing on the neighborhoods. the neighborhoods are made to pay for something that is not their fault. what i really wonder about, what is the living space area going to be like in these proposed units. as far as i can tell, the average square foot is 1314 square feet.
i am wondering, you know what previous units have for living space. there might actually be less living space than in previous housing. also, with this drilling, construction that is going on, i am wondering if resident should be compensated for the dust, and the noise. the same way that happened with the central subway. this is going to take 15 years, i will be 95 years of age. i propose we extend this to for days, and the rate we are going, city hall may be proposed for housing units. who knows? i think we should put a cap on developers. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i will read off the remaining speaker cards.
>> hello. my name is sheba. i live in the nobody of straight. i drive down euclid, every single day for work. every single day, i look over at that empty lot and i get sad. i get sad because it is not being utilized. we all know its potential. this project is amazing. the developer cares about the community. it will do wonders for the area. i want to say without a gentleman that's it earlier, and, you know, got very upset and said shame on all of us for calling him a nimby because he had questions about the project, but then went on to say that he knows we need housing, he knows the housing crisis in the city, and supports it. but went on to say that he opposes this project, because it would take away approximately 75
square feet of dog park space. that is shameful. i've heard that sentiment for the past two hours, folks saying knowing we having a housing crisis -- we have a housing crisis, the fact of the matter is that his nimby is on. it is not fair. that is all i have to say. i strongly urge you guys to support this, as it is proposed. we need it. we all know that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi there. my name is melanie stein, i'm a resident of san francisco. my offices in district two, and i know this project will be a great addition to the neighborhood. i've heard many of you mentioned that you've own homes lived in san francisco for 20 plus years, i want to point out that you standing up and speaking up against projects like this,
pushes my generation and future operate -- generations out of that opportunity. we all know we are in a housing crisis. that will only continue unless we continue to see projects like this. i urge you to approve this project, exactly as proposed, so we can talk about something else and get this built. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a 67 year resident of san francisco. at a 47 year resident of laurel street, between california and sacramento. one of the little victorian homes that was built for gravediggers when there was still a cemetery there. my husband and i, as i said have lived there for 47 years. we are about 100 feet from the proposed project. i want to say, that in respect and deference for the community group proposal, we have decided
to be largely in support of the developers proposal. we have one major exception to that support, which has been discussed a little bit, but i would like to go into that exception. parking, as you may know, if you been in the neighborhood is already at a premium. we have one residential parking permits, and i know the mta has restricted the number of permit per unit, or per person. but, we are in one of the neighborhoods, area f, for the residential parking, which is already more than 100% oversold, based on the number of residential parking spaces available. to area g residential parking, which is a big 124% already oversold. so, i know the goal of the city, which we agree with long-term,
is to reduce people who have cars come in and to have other means of transportation. i don't think we are there yet, based on how difficult parking already with the addition of 744 more units, many of which have two, three, four bedrooms. i think we will see a couple of cars per unit. if all of them, or even half of them park in the garage provided, you still have 700- 1,000 cars seeking residential permit and competing for the already and community -- incredibly emitted parking spaces. i know you know it is an issue of safety, access, carrying groceries. we often have to park already 3-4 blocks from our home. these small homes, unlike the larger homes, did not have adequate's, and not required to have adequate garage space. we would ask you to consider, for congestion traffic, all of
us driving around the blocks, if that increased double, with so few parking spaces, we ask you to consider the economic impact, and perhaps expanding the number of offstreet parking spaces in the new proposal. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is leonard. i am a field agent with a local 22 right here in san francisco. this project, they are using the union general contractor which is going to give a lot of people work. carpenters union is nondiscriminatory. we have women, minorities, we have hardhats, helmets, we have veterans, we have everybody there. a lot of these people are going to come here in the city, most of them will be here working close to home. we will be putting a lot of people to work that, you know,
always needing jobs. i was going from one job to the next. this will put them to work. these people live here. carpenters union fully supports this project. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? if anybody else wants to comment, please line up on the left so we don't lose time in between speakers. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is javier florez, i am with the labor union, we feel that this is one of the unique projects where, you know, our members, apprentice, community, san francisco residents, have the opportunity to work on this project. you know if you understand, the way the union works, whether you are a laborer,, carpenter, we
all have our way of survival. the way is, having projects like this. i believe we have one of the best companies out there. to work with the community, city built, and some other -- entities, or communities from the neighborhood. i encourage you to vote yes, that is all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> bill hudson, resident of presidio heights. i want to complement the developers, for the work they have done over this past several years trying to interact with the community. i urge that you support their project as proposed, and i know it is not perfect, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
let's get this thing built as quickly as we can. >> okay, with that, public comment is now closed. go for it. >> commissioner hillis? >> sorry about that, can you hear me? thank you all for coming, first of all. obviously we have had a robust public debate on this project, for many years. i think it is good -- i think i don't hear any disagreement that this is a great place for housing. i would wholeheartedly agree with that. it is a suburban style, i would call it a planning mistake, that we made from so many years ago. to put an office building here, not use this site for housing. i wish there were 100 of these around the city that we could
convert to housing. unfortunately there aren't that many planning mistakes, commending the planning department. this is a great place for housing. it transitions from single-family homes, down to multi family, as you go east there, and towards trader joe's. i think, generally, the plan works. it is a good plan. it is denser than laurel village, but we transition across the street to townhomes, then larger homes. but, some specific questions. first, on the timing, the project -- maybe i can ask the mayor's office, the 15 years that we have. can you explain that versus construction timing? why is that in the development agreement? and why something shorter doesn't work? why we shouldn't push for something shorter than that? >> certainly, thank you commissioner.
the development agreement has a term of 15 years. that is the vested timeframe during which the developer is able to build out the project. it is unrelated from the proposed construction timeline. we don't anticipate that the project will be continuously under construction 415 years. that is not the point of the vested term. the vested term provides them .-dot timeframe, under which they have to build out their projects, and they must build out the it allows them time to weather market cycles. the developers proposal is to build their project out an overlapping seven-year interfaces. obviously we know the real estate market goes up and down. these projects have a lot of upfront costs that require them to put together investors. we see this on every large scale, multiphase project, generally they need time in
between phases to get ready to build. obviously we hope they build it as quickly as they can. the purpose of the contract term is to allow them to fully have the best chance of building out all of those benefits. >> the primary reason we have a development agreement here, it is relatively code compliant, the project, is because of the affordable housing. >> i just want to be clear, when we hear 15 years, or the community plan is going to be less construction, it is just not true. the fact is, the community plan, if there is less the buildings, but if they are still licit same footage, with a number of units, were talking about on this site regardless. those who think it is going to be less construction, i want to be clear, that is not the case. we will have the same general building mass with the exception , i think, you cut out some of the buildings like the
masonic building. the construction timeframe is the construction timeframe. you know, being -- there will be more impact if you're on california street when the california buildings are being bit then when the masonic buildings are being built, or the buildings to the south or the west. i think that is a clear distinction. we have heard that a lot. you and i have talked about this i just think that needs to be corrected for the record. on affordable housing, which i think is the gist of the da. can you just explain, clarify, we heard public comment on this. the affordable housing will comt by the developer, at what phase are they required to do that? >> the development agreement term, or the terms of the contract say that they must build and to complete it and
open the affordable housing building before they build anymore than 386 market rate units. they are allowed to choose which market rate buildings to build first, you know they certainly can build the affordable first. the point of that clause is to allow them to develop the capital to be able to find the affordable housing buildings. >> if they just built 386 units, it's basically 50% of the development at that point. they can walk away, but we would be left with 50% development project. if they build 385 units, and walk away -- and the city doesn't get that building, what does it get? what is the protection of affordable housing? >> we have a few measures of protection in the plan. from the first building permit .-dot they pulled, they have to transfer the parcel to a housing entity that is going to build, with a nonprofit partner.
they have to demonstrate they are doing that transfer. anywhere on the project. also, from the first building permit anywhere on the project, they have to give the city a deed of trust over the parcel, which gives us the right to acquire that parcel under certain conditions, as being the for every market rate unit they are building prior to building the affordable, they are feeing out into an escrow account. they are feeing out that the normal code required fiat level. the point of that is really to have them demonstrate that they are collecting the funds that they need, to finance that affordable housing building. if they build 385 units of housing, and the project is stalled, starting in year 12 of the term, the city can exercise its rights. we can actually take the ownership title to the walnut parcel, for no cost.
we can use all of those funds in the escrow, and we can build the building. they are not allowed to build any market rate units after that. >> the issue of possible resale came up a lot also. can you just clarify -- the retail controls we have, we are not expanding the types of uses that would be allowed under flexible retail versus the allowable retail on california street as it is now? >> this is a confusing topic globally. flexible retail is a land use category that former supervisor tang was the author of that legislation. essentially it creates an umbrella land use category for six sub use land categories. relatively benign in terms of our understanding of the uses. limited restaurants, arts activity, general retail sales
and service, trade job, all of these, all six of them are retail sales and service uses in the plan to go. right now, flexible retail uses are not permitted in the ncs zoning district. the special use district would permit flexible uses on the subject property. >> what types of uses would be allowed that would not have been allowed prior? on california street, like laurel village, or across the street? >> the benefit of the retail use , is the s.u.d. at large, allowing other retail uses. a much larger umbrella of other nonresidential uses. flexible retail is one sliver of the category with those six named uses i named. currently, very limited, you can have essentially any retail use on the subject property.
that is why, piggybacking off the ncs controls under the special use district will provide more flexibility for retail uses. >> correct me if i'm wrong, it doesn't actually expand, anymore than what typically would be allowed in ncs district, is that correct? >> yes. >> to clarify that again, the uses remain the same. if there was a vacancy in laurel village down the street. the uses that would be allowed in laurel village are identical to the uses that would be allowed under the flexible retail category here? >> i hear what you're saying. my response would be, the uses that are currently permitted in laurel village will be permitted here. >> what additional uses would be permitted here that are not permitted in laurel village?
>> arts activity, trade shop, retail, professional service. those three. currently limited restaurant, general retail sales. >> can you put it on the overhead? >> sure. there we go. the three that i tagged as principally permitted, those are currently permitted. >> can you talk about what would be an two arts activity or trade shop? >> i would have to pull up the exact code, it's a long definition. it's an exhaustive list of uses. generally speaking, retail related arts activities, selling jewelry and things of that nature. >> how about trade shop? i know we have encountered trade shop here, i know that. >> out have to pull of the code. >> it's good to understand,
because this came up a lot, what flexible retail would entail. and then okay, i'll turn it over now. i have other questions, i will give others a turn. >> commissioner richards? >> picking up on the flexible retail, ncs controls 6:00 a.m.- at 2:00 a.m. that is for anything? >> that is correct. currently ncs controls already 2:00 a.m. there is no difference in what is already with ncs. >> that would be laurel village, right? i want to open up a bar and service spirits or alcohol, what do i need to do? is a permitted? to become back to the commission >> excuse me, ma'am, he is asking staff questions. >> principally permitted. >> until 2:00 a.m.? >> that is a land use category.
>> i understand, i can approach him as i want to open up a bar and i am entitled to 2:00 a.m.? >> correct. conditional use between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. >> that is for hard drinkers. senator weiner is going to expand that. so, it is true. it's in the paper. it is. we have two adopted. the question i have on the retail spaces themselves, the developer, mr. safir, we've got a lot of large spaces, in my neighborhood that have been sitting there up to ten years. prime corner locations, 15th on market street. can you go over what your sizes of your retailer going to be, now that you have the flexible designation. what do you envision what are your sizes? >> thank you, commissioner richards, dan safir, project
sponsor. we are going to queue up a slide that i think would be helpful to discuss this. the retail along california street, which is where the retail is limited, is approximately 35,000 square feet. it is broken into spaces that are intended to be approximately 1500-2500 square feet and it is designed, the way you would find typical shop space. there is one exception, in that layout, which he was seen on the screen. which is actually the corner of laurel, california. which actually is closer to the square footage, of some of the medium size spaces at laurel village shopping center. so, laurel village, i would say is a general rule, you see about 2500 square feet, 23500 square
feet. our intent is to actually have narrower depths, so laurel village is about 100 feet deep, and actually two-sided. we will have one-sided retail that we will be facing on california street. that's space that i referenced on the corner, is if you were to look at it as a single, you can actually see it appear on the screen, it is in the blue on the left-hand side of our project. i'm not sure whether you can point to that, cindy. that space is intended to be either single and 500 square foot space or demise into two spaces of about 3700 square feet , which are ideal for a neighborhood serving restaurant like a sitdown restaurant and it's anticipated that there will be some food uses there. the remainder of the retail you can see is actual