tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 18, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PST
was the deal here? was it obstruction, down zoning, i want to understand why san mateo especially was an outlier and not producing any kind of housing or at least not enough housing. on page 4, it should be noted that not all projects go through the planning department entitlement process. is that a big portion of the portfolio are not? probably not. on page 5, we talk about what is already entitled, what is not getting built, and we talk about two years and five years and it will be a downturn. the question is, what is the plan to capitalize on the downturn. as things get cheaper, winning is the rainy day fund for the downturn to go by that land and hold it and secure it and be able to actually build more affordable housing on it with public subsidy? i would really want to understand -- there was a thing
-- hold on. i read this with great consternation. it was in the inside section of the examiner on sunday. s.f. needs to pick housing a fleet approval process. everybody can get behind that. they cited 1028 market. what i want to understand is why didn't that project get built when right down the street, the joy project that is bigger, they already have shovels in the ground. why do we single out a certain project, let's understand what the heck is behind that before we start making claims about how we should be the punching bag sitting up here. i feel like sometimes we are the punching bag. if truly we were the cause of 1028 market not getting built, we should look in the mirror and say, it's on us. i really would like to understand that. i'm almost done, almost done. this is an important hearing. this is a big one.
as i leave this, the big question for me is why. we have a lot of data, there's a lot of why behind it for me. why is this happening? why is this happening? and i think i went through a lot of that. if he could try to get that why answered, that would be great to be a clichéd clue just didn't -- judson true in on this because we'll be having a hearing in a couple of weeks with them and i think all of these other things. they are all tied together. this is a fabulous first start on a narrative of truth. >> thank you. commissioner hillis class. >> thank you very much. thank you for the report. this is great to see everything in one place. we often try to find the one problem. i wanted to ask you on, is that
presentation still up, can you still pull it up? i have not seen this before, the change of housing units by decade. it is shocking. if you look at the last 30 years -- >> what page again class. >> page 11 on your report, on the presentation you did. you can put it on the overhead too. in the last three decades, if you add those numbers up, it is somewhere around 500,000 units that have been produced throughout the region. in the three decades prior to that, it is more than double. it is 1.1, 1.2 million units,
for those that don't think production is an issue, production is an issue. it may not be in san francisco the biggest issue, or elsewhere, but we are in a production crisis in the region. is further complicated by the comment you made to. people are flocking more to cities and urban areas and less to where we saw that production in the past, which tended to be in the suburbs. why is this? what is causing a lot of this? i know it is a big question. >> or what is not? we had in the first three decades in the first three bars, substantial production, we had a ninth alignment of transportation investment in freeways of subdivisions and housing and services alliance with that pic we had an industry that could very systematically deliver subdivisions at a large-scale. when we started shifting for
reasons of sustainability, for reasons of cultural preference, for reasons of economic development, we have not been able to figure out how to align, in a very efficient way, a different pattern of transit. it's very difficult to move out of the automobile and into public transit systems. there are all kinds of efforts, but it is taking us a while. even with some of those efforts, our industry is really struggling to redesign the model , san francisco is doing great work and we have examples in redwood city, in mountain view, and other areas but it is very challenging to get to that scale. i'm very hopeful that the construction industry, the building industry is gassing -- is working very systematically to figure out what is the housing type that they might be able to produce more systematically at a large-scale. is this 4-6 story building that
can really make use of the transit infrastructure, but we are, as government, and is private sector, we -- it is not easy to shift from one pattern to the other. it is happening, but it will take a little longer. >> thank you. again, i think this is great in telling. it is a reason why the state is coming in and proposing laws that would require locality to bill to the zoning. so san francisco can't produce enough, but the region has a production crisis that has to be addressed. we have to be part of it. it is two forces at work and people are moving from urban areas at the same time in the region and we are not producing enough housing. it is obviously contributing sometimes to the issues that we are facing. but i think that it is good we are having these regional discussions. it is good we are having the
state come in and look at this at the regional level. i think left up to the individual localities, this is what we get. this housing production that is dramatically decreased from what it was 30 years ago. and then on page 23, he talked about the net housing actually being built is dwarfed by the entitlements that are happening in what is being approved. what can we do to try and get those numbers increased? i guess that is construction cost driving this. it is incredible, the gap what is being produced and what is entitled. i know you don't have the answer to that necessarily or we would do it. are you seeing in other localities or cities this being tackled? i know we can't bring down the
cost of construction and the mayor is making efforts to try to get the approval post entitlement done quicker, but it is an enormous gap tween what is entitled and being built. >> i would also remind you that we have a 7500 units under construction, which is a very high number, and san francisco has made a tremendous job in terms of gathering the labor that requires. this is towards maybe an item for consideration, it is very difficult to gather the construction labor that is required when construction picks up, and we lose that labor during a period of recession, and it demands certain skills. it demands certain training, and that is an area that we might want to consider. there is also the financing as
it has been discussed by several of our projects here, the alignment of finance for some of the projects is not that simple, and while the large projects are quite stable and we can gather some of the information for you, once a project is entitled, when we see the smaller projects confronting the construction costs, we can really change the ability to deliver those units. >> can i add to that briefly? this is also perplexing me. the interesting thing to me is most of what's under construction, almost all of what's under construction or individual building projects, and not the big multiphase projects. some of these units were in the shipyard, and perhaps some are reflected where we are seeing that put forward.
i have been asking anecdotally what is the difference, in one of the answers i recently received, which is interesting to me, is a very large projects require a class of investors, if you will, often international, require higher return on investment, and with the construction cost as high as they are right now, that is enough to keep this big projects from going forward. the other factor is their infrastructure costs, particularly in the first phase. those projects are almost always trying to build horizontal development, were an individual building project does not have that cost. there are those two factors. i have heard from several developers as to why at some of the bigger projects are not moving forward right now. >> one additional elements, the fires, there was very little construction or no construction in the north bank his, with have absorbed a lot of the construction into that community it is hard to compete or to challenge that immediate
response that was required. >> okay. thank you. i think it is not enough for us to just say, well, there is a big gap between entitled projects -- they are not getting built. we have to dig in. i appreciate the mayor's efforts on figuring out why they are not in trying to make changes. it is great if we keep entitling projects, but it eventually doesn't mean anything unless they actually get built. thank you for this presentation. >> thank you. >> to follow-up with commissioner richards and construction cost, mr landsberg was here and he is involved with the group calling smart cities prevail. they came up with a simple pie chart that breaks down the construction costs for example, wages and benefits is 15% of the total cost of the construction project. don't forget land in san
francisco will not be cheap whatsoever. and then you will try and build the highest project you can which will also not be a cheaper route to go. the materials are a huge component of the cost. those materials, the prices of those things, whether it is glass, steel, copy for electrical wiring, it goes up and down on a daily basis and is subject to federal regulations i remember that for a brief time there was no cranes available. if you want to divulge a project and needed a crane, there was not a crane on this project that you could buy. some started buying cranes. they are scarce and you just can't go to the store and buy a 400-foot crane. so there's a lot of things to consider. also this process also includes
land use attorneys and other parties involved. and architects are amazing, and i can't speak more highly of the buildings we build in the city, but i'm sure they do not come at a discounted or cheap price. that is the way it is done here. projects are still getting built , that there is certain limitations and i don't think it will ever be chief -- cheap to build in the city. it is good to have some information so we can stop asking why as much. >> commissioner fong? >> i think this is fascinating stuff, to audibly talk about these things, we can go on for hours and hours or days and days and come out well informed. i agree with commissioner richards that all of the pieces of the puzzle are coming together. there is more effects we are collecting. this report to,, a big piece of that. i still think there is a tied to job creation and housing production and a regional
responsibility for employers who are creating massive numbers of jobs to be chipping into the housing production piece. whether that is a financial participation, building housing themselves, and not for just san francisco, but spread out throughout the region. i don't know if that will ever come together to mandate that, but i feel there is a responsibility that they have as corporate citizens to participate in that. director ram talked about institutional investing. and i think much like we have talked about retailers, international retailers because of the process because of restrictions from the retail, i think the same thing is happening. whether they are looking at san francisco, you will take 18 months to entitled that thing, and another 24 months to build, i will just take my project somewhere else and come back when it has cooled off. the cooling off maybe coming. there maybe a slow down that we
are seeing and there maybe a recession. i kind of would like everyone to think about when we look at trying to solve these questions, that we look at it during a recessionary period. that might shed some light on go times where we can tackle some of these things when construction price is cheaper during a recession. and purchasing power is greater. last community i want to comment on, and it won't be a popular one, the only passed away i see out is height. going higher, and getting more density. that is an unpopular san franciscan notion, and even unpopular with myself. you have to get over the idea of a san francisco getting taller, but that is the only daylight i see is to go higher, and items with intelligence and with great thought. i know we will see s.b. 50, and have an opportunity to talk
about how local -- are san francisco wants to treat that. i think we should pay special attention to that process. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> a couple of closing comments. this is all really good stuff. on this one graphic, commissioner hillis got his hair on fire, and if i had fire, it would be on fire as well. let's say you got the quantitative data and you got the actual numbers by decade and by county. if you were able to put down here a grid talked about the population at those decades in the population increase or deep decrease, the zone capacity, the pipeline, the availability of construction workers and the cost of% as construction costs are stable and materials are going up, land was going up. the job creation, and each one of those decades would be key. i moved here in the mid-nineties
it was a sleepy time until 98 or 99 or 2,000 when all hell broke loose and we had the. com boom and you had the best. it was like, no one wanted to build because we were blessed. money wasn't here. same thing in 2008 and 2009. when i bought my house i was incredibly fortunate. i walked in and the real estate agent was bored out of his mind. i was the only person there the entire sunday afternoon. there were us -- the other thing i think would be incredible is the return on capital and the distant -- different asset classes. financing return on that cat commodities return on this, real estate investment return on that you can actually see, if real estate returns go in domino, why would money fall into real estate investment. i think some qualitative data that would be helpful. >> and if the future is first -- we can -- we have a budget
coming up. we can put money in for consultants. >> commissioner moore. >> i find this report to mind glowingly complex and wonderful. i am not mostly a person very steeped in looking at statistics , but if anyone has questions to understand this particular report does a hell of a lot more than we have ever seen before in the past year, i just have to say congratulations , and thank you to all of you, in addition to the fact that it was clearly in concise, the general audience wants to follow and on t.v. can understand what was say -- understand what was said here. the interesting thing is that on page 11, the one thing that we don't see, and the particular reports are what type of housing was built. it was basically inexpensive housing on a reasonably low base
cost lands, and areas where politically there was a lots of public support. i could not speak to subsidy, but definitely a preference for a type of housing that met the general economic constraints of that time. so it is very hard to compare that to today, although i think it would be interesting for us to tap -- to track what kind of density variances do we have even today, and then between the different counties, as they show large amounts of growth. santa clara is known for single-family housing, attract housing, and large expanses of outlying and undeveloped land. so that particular type of information would help to focus what we are doing, also out of the corner of my eye, how we are more seriously responding to state mandates. there is a big difference
appeared to vice president koppel's comment about cost, it is indeed a large gradient between single-family, single-story housing, and the type of housing we are building in the city. i would like at some point if you have access to it, to see the difference between the building height, the building size, and construction cost, air respectable to the cost of land. lastly, to the director, and people always asking, why is there such a lag between the many entitlements, and when it gets built? we have asked many times to help to look at expiry clauses. expiry clauses have definitely propelled people to do certain kinds of things. when you know that the warranty on your computer is expiring, you very quickly make sure you get a new computer which has an
extended warranty, and there is something here by which we need to create a slightly higher demand on what we are expecting when we entitle. i want to leave this hanging there, but we have touched on that many times before. >> okay. thank you. i'm not going to repeat anything that other commissioners have brought up, i just wanted to remark that we do have other departments that have the staff capacity to do economic and trends analysis, and my hope would be that this is well used by other departments, particularly oewd and the mayor 's office of housing, in terms of the strategy of leveraging the cyclical nature of the construction in terms of what gets projected for financing.
>> i don't have an answer. i thought about this. if there are ways that in our processes, we can look at how we can do things differently to not to be fuel that speculation. that will be really great. >> i want to thank merrian. we'll be back in two weeks. i wanted to let you know, we talked to staff. he'll be here in two weeks. he's getting up to speed on his demanding new job. he promise he would be here for your hearing in two weeks. >> commissioner moore: this type of presentation, i would
consider american planning association, material, the national conference is coming up in april. i hope that this department will have a shot at presenting to a national ordinance. we have certain types of tools and certain ways we describe thing. which could inspire larger discussion across municipalities. >> commissioner richards: just based on her comment, is this happening in other cities too? that will be really big -- i think so. >> the question was other cities are experiencing entitlement versus construction gap. what's little unusual here, we have very large projects that are kind of skewing the numbers little bit. i've asked that question to some of my colleague. they haven't gotten clear answer yet. i'll let you know.
>> president hillis: seeing nothing further. we can move on to item 12. -- excuse me, item 11. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon president melgar and vice president koppel and commissioners. the item is a informational presentation at 10 south van ness avenue. it's located at the southwest corner of market street and suite van ness avenue. the project site is located within the downtown areas. it's also with the anticipated hub area. commissioners as you recall the public hearing on the draft environmental impact report was before you on december 6th this past year.
the process when originally submitted to the department proposed development of the mixed used with 400 feet in height. this project site will be to allow for greater heights than permitted under current controls. the project sponsor has developed a variant to the proposed project that would result in single knif single 50. the draft eir project, propose in addition to five project a. -- the single tower variant could contain approximately 30,450 square feet of commercial space and would not exceed parking ratio of 0.25 spaces.
as timing of the project of the plan, the project would require amendments to planning code and general plan floored to allow for the greater height development. there's no required commission action today. this is an opportunity for the project sponsor to present additional information, should the commission regarding this desired single tower design. public comment and commission feedback about this proposal. with that,ly turn it over to the project sponsor and i'm available for questions. >> this will be shown overhead. good afternoon. i'm vice president of development of crestwood heights. i'm happy update you on 10 south van ness. we started the entitlements in
2014 in line with the market planned zone with two 400-foot towers been since 2016, we've been collaborating with planning and local stakeholders to develop a complaint version of the project. for both variants, we've made some changes to the t.d.m. measures. we reduced our parking from .5 to .25. we've included the option to build a new second elevator to serve the station. with respect to sustainability, we'll be first carbon high-rise residential project in san francisco. we've been certified by the governor's office. which requires emissions and other substantia sustainability
commitments. even though the last show was six years ago, we couldn't agree that the west legacy is arrival today and needly to so in the future. we are in talk with the foundation to provide permanent home to the exhibit. it's currently on nationwide tour. we're expanding on a series of community workshops to finesse these ideas. more information will be made
public on this aspect in the near future. we invite all interested parties to join the workshops. we committed to major enkind improvements including 12th street with green space. finally with respect to affordable housing, we are one the projects that have invested in 2015. it changed. we will provide 18% and $13 million affordable housing funding. we're working with the mayor's office of housing and local nonprofit providers to deploy these funds to the site. i will now turn it over to angela. >> good afternoon commissioners and i'm angela wu from k.p.f.
san francisco. we are a local farm dedicated to be part of the city's architectural community. the site today has honda dealership close located of market and south van ness. the up zoned area allows for more people to live and work in the rich district. the resulting height is complementary. by comparison, of the two compliant projects other than the height difference the residential number of units and amount of retail remains the same. today we're going to present the hub compliant one tower
development. the development, is valley, soma and the civic centre area. it's great idea to transform into a thriving mixed use residential project for people to live, shop and play. the location is a at the heart f 16 transit lines within five minute walk. it's perfect to bring people to live around the convenience of a transit rich area. the public realm as ground plan, it's designed to tie in with the future surrounding park to enrich the area. because of the local and zoning allowances, the development has the opportunity to become the first carbon neutral high-rise residential project in san francisco in addition to being lead. growing out of the urban fabric
it is clear to us that the project need to respond to the surrounding neighborhood, scale and materials. thus, breaking down to respond to the site and context is important. it is project's goal to enhance the support public realm and cultivate the community and culture it represents. being in between san francisco, twin peeks and downtown, 10 south van ness and the building topography of the city. much like the civic, mornings one end of the market street, will become the anchor on the other side reinforcing market street as a connector to
downtown. the evolution of form started with the reduction upper street wall for more human-scaled podium, the tower is rotated away from the street and the podium is pushed back to allow for more, open space for the public. the podium is further broken down in height and to meet the scale of adjacent buildings along market street. the tower is bundled with four components to reduce the bulk the tower has on the skyline. each component sponsors the sky guard and spiraling up the tower as each one is carefully positioned to relate to the surrounding buildings. the building employs rich materials and textures inspired
by the context of the neighborhood building. the building base is large garage doors between sidewalks and businesses. because the hub compliance single tower scheme left core on the ground plane it dedicates more area towards public home space. the single tower scheme opens and 40-foot instead of 20-foot wide arcade. the proposed location of the passageway linking the 12th street to market street is based on a pedestrian flow for ease of connection for future of open spaces such as grady park, oak plaza. as adam mentioned there will be a new elevatorren site for to
the muny station. with the enhanced public realm the project supports variety of use from art, culture, retail to make spaces and restaurants. the sidewalk and the additional building set back provide more spaces and plaza to reinforce the vitality of the public rel. design to work with the desire pedestrian flow. the double load retail protects passway to sponsor human-scaled active ground plano. the spaces provided will be flexible enough to allow for neighborhood and menties -- amenities with services such as child care services to support the change and needs overtime. today, along market street, there are barely any active
frontage. the new development will be filled with activities especially with mid-block connection by a variety of leesable area to allow for different access use desired by the neighborhood. the south van ness corner was will be replaced with a vibrant retail storefront. the building set back at this corner allows for additional 5000 square foot of open space. seating and planting at the key intersection of the city welcoming the public. today, the 12th street side, right-of-way is 80 feet. with the improved 12th street, pedestrian friendly street will be part of the development of 10 south van ness to 22 feet thus increasing pedestrian safety. a 40-foot wide promenade is
dedicated to the 10 south van ness side. this what the site looks like now. when the project is realized, there will be a variety of neighborhood serving amenities along the wyden sidewalk, street furnishingfurnishings. instead lifeless streets filled with meter parking, there will be removal street parking to be replaced with two 60-foot long passage loading green. the new development and making of the pedestrian prioritytized place with a active storefront and neighborhood serving amenities including art and entertainment reflecting the cultural significance of the place. we're very excited about this project. this will add additional units to the pipeline. we hope to bring to the
community. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: anybody else from project sponsor team. i like to open this up to public comment. anyone like to come up when you're ready ready. >> good afternoon commissioners. mr. director, mr. secretary i'm former staff planner with the planning department. i spoke here in december to someone who attended concerts at fillmore west. you can tell by my age perhaps. as i said, i went to public high school in san francisco at the end of the '60s beginning in the '70s. a great time to be a young person in san francisco. i'm here to speak in support of this project almost 1000 units.
really underutilized intersection, market and van ness. really makes no sense taking 2020 to get construction at this major intersection. my main point is that the cultural significance and history of the fillmore west, the carousel ballroom be maintained, i was disappointed in the draft e.i.r. the limitation, the limited amount of attention. i will say this and in this current document, particularly in the appendix, there's been great attention given to the historical significance. i will say it's just a random person who got some media attention, the number of emails, the number people who stop me on the street and the number of people who attended the double bill myles davis and grateful dead. which took place in 1970.
that's massive interest in the cultural preservation. i would just say this. this has been mentioned by other commissioners today. you hear about developers say what they are going to do. then the buildings get built. lab all those things they said they will do. i'm not saying anything negative about this particular developer. to a certain extent this developer going to get caught in the history of that. i encourage as much as possible to endorse this project because of the thousands of units -- 1000 units than added to underutilized intersection and ask staff and the commission to as best as you can to get the commitments for the historical cultural significance to be as firm as possible.
mr. director, can you identify the street location of that very famous photograph on the cover of working man's dead? you'll have other chances to answer that. thank you very much. [laughter] >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. happy new year commissioners. i'm not going to repeat the comments. i will continue to talk about this project going forward. two things that will impact me specifically for those who don't know, our office is around the corner on brady street. it will change if this is what gets built. it will involve me walking through a park and now going down to corridor mien a building
-- between a building. if we can get good pizza place out of it, that would be my one request for this project. it's cool. it's exciting. the other comment that i had, i was talking with a friend. he would come here and talk about this project. he goes oh they keep posting events there. that's the honda dealership that hasn't been anything. while the process is going through, it sits well with me. for whatever it's worth and having a bystander. i know that, they've done stuff there. when people start to notice it from outside, i'm impressed. thank you. >> next speaker please.
>> i'm cofounder and ceo. i was here last time. it's my first time presenting before you. this is now my second time. i'm here to comment on the sustainability of the project. they showed there was all the different sustainability features. there was little o icon for watr recycling. this building is going to generate a ton of water and a ton of waste water. our city was designed hundred years ago. we can do things very different differently. we are going to do put our system in this building, recycle both the water and the waste.
these are organics we're diverting from landfill. we produced 135 million pounds of sludge a year. i was doing some math on my phone in the back room today, this building will produce about 300,000-pounds a year. we want to take all that and turn that into amazing soil. this literally soil very literally by san franciscans for san franciscans. we enthusiastically lend our support on behalf this project. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> thank you for your time today. i have a small business here in san francisco that activate the spaces. i'm honored to have over the past few year, activated fine arts, most recently 10 south van
ness. with that, in addition to our activations, i also owned and operated over a dozen live music and entertainment venues in the city. last time in december, -- as i mentioned last time, the spirit of that building is what's very important. not necessarily the four walls. as is, 10 south van ness is not a sustainable live music venue for the long term. what is important in that space is what the developer is planning to do with it. with the 40,000 square feet, that does s going to make a huge difference on that block.
the developers on this project engage with my company to activate the space with the focus on community engagement, long term placement and short term activation. crescent heights has been beyond reasonable and pleasure work with not only on the near term but as we had conversations and communications about what is going to happen in their building in the long term development project. i very much encourage staff and the planning department to have positive collaboration with them and going on with other comments, working with them to have them listen and have them lend their expertise and our expertise into what should be in that building going forward. they are phenomenal partner to have. i worked with a number of different developers here in the city. they are phenomenal to work with. they listen and they care about the neighborhood. they care about the community. they are truly looking at making this block an important part of san francisco as compared to what it is now, which is just
kind of a big old building that was fixing cars for 40 years. i'm very excited about this project. i think this is the perfect developer to be doing it. i have a lot of confidence in crescent heights to fulfill everything. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm michael patterson. i'm associate vice president of human resource of san francisco conservatory music. crescent heights has been a helpful partner to us as we had to relocate one of our programs and currently involve involveedr own building project. as the primary recruiter for staff employees, attracting and
retaining talent is become difficult due lack of affordable housing. the presence active and vibrant space to go along with this will dramatically increase of lives of our staff and students and faculty at 50 oak. we're very excited about this development. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i want to make a connection between the last item and this item. i was watching what's presented by angela. it was very interesting, especially 16 transit lines going to the site. what was not shown on any of the graphics, any of the pictures is the buses coming from san mateo
county and santa clara county right by the planning department, right at this intersection in dumping the housing demand silicone valley into san francisco. there's a real connection between the last item and how much housing is produced in san francisco. that basically sebs people that get on those buses and go to those jobs everyday and don't use the lines because they're not working in san francisco and it deprives the city of san francisco. i'm not putting it on this developer. this is something the planning commission needs to deal with. the planning staff need to deal with. one of our jobs is to tell
developers we hope you're going to market your places, your housing to san francisco voters and tell san mateo and santa clara county you got to revise housing and you're not allowed to dump your housing demand on the van ness market to deal with the 10 van ness. the hub should not be the place. the hub has buses coming through it on five or six buses. maybe a lot more in the afternoon. there will be the demand in san francisco. for us to figure out how we're going to provide housing for people that need housing in san francisco. maybe some of the things that should be asked, the developer to provide is when the housing
is occupied, where do those residents work? we have to do a better job of getting that information and developers need to be told, especially in areas like this in the hub. to provide that information and feedback, to tell the developer right up front, we're building housing for san francisco. we're not building housing for cupertino, mountain view. thank you. >> thank you. this was informational. commissioners? commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: there's couple of words i may use more
frequently. i'm thrilled to see the project in front of us is taking the sustainability as seriously as they should. going for lead gold. lead platinum is almost unobtainable. it's not going to be a cheap building. it needs to be smarter building. they're more expensive to build because all the smart systems that work together and save energy. i'm thrilled to see that component of it. i really like the breaking up of massing all throughout verticality. that this will sit very well within the hub next to the plumber's project and right near the mission in south van ness. hopefully this can house some people that will work there.
there's lot of talk about not enough housing. in this project, i'm disappointed. they only had three digits on the number of units. i would have been happy with four numbers. we'll take 984. that'll work. i'm impresse impressed with thi. >> i'm also very impressed with the project. to ms. hester's comment, i think that we do -- we don't know what this project is going to do in terms of the affordable housing. at least i didn't hear it. specifically, there are requirements for marketing of the affordable component that specifically to low income community. now we have a neighborhood preference. at least for that portion of it. i think there has been evolution
in the legislation and the way that we reach the people who need it here in san francisco. >> item 12 for case number -- vice president melgar: sorry. >> commissioner moore: it's difficult to present a project when e.i.r. is done. it's always difficult. i see a lot of interesting possibilities for this site, i like to get additional questions and challenges. in the presentation like this, given where the building is, i would ask for this building also speak to the context of at least 10 new buildings including planning department's future building which is already under construction relative to shared
wind exposures. how do you deal with sun. i know this building will definitely cast major shadows across your future home. i like to speak about -- see some conversation about materials, how they are harmonized between all these n. buildings. i like to see stronger depiction of using the approved buildings in the actually depiction and simulation, they all deal with each other.
i still don't have a clear understanding about the nature of 12th street. as it needs more and more demand for loading and access to parking, i see the character of that to diminish. it's really about what the street can do, currently can do for other reasons. what i hope it would do when we decided to revitalize the central hotel -- i think that's the name. those are kind of questions what i believely to different° have been able to answer. with this presentation today, i
think there was still a number of unanswered questions for me and i hope that we're still leaving the door open to not on this. i would to see more dialogue. there are all kinds of questions that gets technical. i'm asking for answers, they don't all quite tie together for me yet when i overlay them with additional questions i'm. it is a curiosity and i think it needs little bit more work and for us to understand. that broader context, improved. we moved worke work -- we workey
hard on improvement. >> item 12 for, 145 laurel street. conditional use authorization. hearing and public comment, you continue this matter to decembef 5-3. commissioner koppel was against and commissioner richards you were recused. on december 13, 2018 you continue this matter to today by vote of 5-0. >> good afternoon planning commissioners and congratulations president melgar and vice president koppel. ashley lindsey planning department staff. the case before you is to install at&t telecommunication facility at 145 laurel street. the planning commission heard