tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 5, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
built in a timely manner we heard from the public. what assurances do we have or have you talked to the mayor's office of housing the affordable housing components built in the three instances you're recommending we move forward get built in a timely fashion. >> these are sites for affordable housing. not the actual housing yet. we need to work out the specifics with the mayor's delivery on the timing. >> to me that's one of the most important public ben fits the housing component so the projects are deliver in a timely fashion. i know it's not necessarily the responsibility of the developer but they're dedicating a parcel and paying a fee. it's interesting as we see the projects come forward, is there anything we can do to assure
that housing component gets built? that would be interesting to see going forward. i do find it interesting that the projects being proposed and i think it's right as well as parcel f we talked about are in plan areas that the city has spent a lot of time figuring out the maximum public benefits in what those public benefits are. i agree that coming up with an alternative and i see the argument if 1800 mission were to come forward wasn't necessarily part of a larger public planning and there could be an ask related to that. all these coming forward that in the recent past we complete the planning efforts where that was our goal was to maximize the public benefits and to some
extent unique. i appreciate the recommendation. i think it's right. we need to look at these. i may differ if some projects came forward that weren't in the plan areas. it's interesting that they all are. a question on pier 7 and nc lot 337 all projects that went through a significant planning process and have different public pen -- benefits and what are the timing we anticipate the projects going forward. >> you do not allocate office space on port projects. but they do come out of the allocation eventually. what happens is on port sites the square footage is taken out
of the allocation when they issue a building permit. so that can appen as the projects -- happen as the projects are built. it's not likely they'd happen all at once but if the port decides they went to 100,000 feet and when the permit is issued it's out of the prop m allocation. >> if the prop m allocation weren't adequate, does it go negative? >> it does. >> when do we anticipate those phases the first phases of those projects -- >> i think they are tentatively scheduled for later this year. i don't have the exact dates in front of me. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> your housing point is of interest to me and i do believe
for me personally helping to correct the imbalance between the workplace and housing is a very important basic concept which would guide me in prioritizing which project i were to see supporting in the future. it's not just providing housing as an idea but having concrete plans when to build them and how and potentially having identified clear financing sources to realize that. what i think we need to remember and i don't have the exact numbers when we decide on housing what time are the fees
becoming available. >> we assess the fees in the issuance of the permit the site permit doesn't allow the construction it requires different addenda for the infrastructure and superficial addenda and the rates they play are at the time of the first construction document which usually one of those addenda. it's basically right before they begin construction is when they pay the impact fees. >> so when an office development is faced it will only gradually pay the fees that are coming due, correct? >> generally speaking, if have you multiple buildings and a project and they're not going forward generally at the same time, the impact fees will apply to the going forward at that time. >> i'm pick up on the suggestion of the director saying project
require large a lllotments of office phase would determine the amount of fees you get for housing. i would like to ask m mr. shumaker. is it he still here? you're talking about a project venture between yourself on parcel f and block 4 project. can i have the gentleman who spoke to that come forward. could you describe to me how your housing would happen while we entitle the office space. this is a question on delivery. do they get built
simultaneously. >> block 4 is in zone 1 of the transbay redevelopment plan under the jurisdiction of ocii. we are currently working with ocii on a dda for block 4 we submitted project designs for that project. >> it's right across from the open space adjacent to sales force tower. >> the temporary trans bay terminal and a new public park in the center of that block and another affordable housing project on the south end of that block. that's block 4 where we anticipate in the next few months we'll be in a position to be able to go to the ocii
commission and the trans bay e.i.r. we're working with to provide an addendum to verify there's not significant impacts not previously analyzed portion. and parcel f proposes residential units at the top of the tower. we have proposed and the trans bay redevelopment plan requires on site affordable housing. you can't pay a fee in the trans bay redevelopment plan, 181
fremont worked out a development agreement and it pod out a fee. -- paid out a fee but the existing code does not allow for that. as i'm sure you heard from other developers there's problems in locating affordable housing in high rise condominium development and the association dues prohibit it. we can build the units but they're not viable, affordable units. what we proposed instead and had a number of conversations with ocii and planning staff as well is a variation from the redevelopment requirement and from the planning code requirement that would allow us to provide the units off-site at block 4. the terms of the draft variation we provided so the city attorney
and ocii council provides the affordable units at block 4 would need to be delivered prior to certificate of occupancy for the residential units at parcel f. that's how the legal connection between parcel f and block 4 works and the time and connection. it's our hope and belief the timing on both the projects is going to work out perfectly. the entitlement process is catching up with parcel f. though it's still a large project it's not as large as parcel f which is a 170-feet
tower to the occupied floors. we feel comfortable block 4 would be delivered prior to completion of parcel f. both projects are kind of on the one-yard line and block 4 is maybe the 10-yard line. >> there's not a land dedication so we'll be building in conjunction with the high rise. it will be a high rise and mid rise podium all built at the same time. >> thank you for repeetdiating and giving that detail. i'm talking about the balance between workforce and housing from the description. i hear the project would do
that. i want to step back and move on a question and observation. there was a presentation and i asked if there was an idea of how to phase the project. this say large area and one thing i always wanted to avoid and that's part of my own practice is leapfrog opportunity grabbing where an entire large district becomes a construction site for the next 20 years. you may remember that part of my discussion. we are now looking at trans bay as a potential group of people look for entitlement under the office cap where isn't there more equity for different parts of the city. i'm looking for the completion of a very large construction
site and a calming down and anchoring of the part of the city saying we're done here before we move on. i want to throw that out as an idea. that's part of my thinking when we talk about entitlements and phasing. it's all trusting what we're saying and hoping for the best. there's an overriding principle and it speaks to destabilizing the district and creating the critical mass for retail to flif and street life to be active. we have been dragged out for many years. i would like to open that as part of the discussion and how i would like to look at making decisions on the subject matter. >> thanks, commissioner. i get it.
while the projects you saw are all office projects in soma there's many in the vint. -- vicinity and it will allow another site that's 140 units of affordable housing. secondly, and i understand parcel f is consistent with the trans bay plan and it provides a tremendous benefit in that sense. there's a basic fairness issue which is the central soma projects came before that project. the project has been around the best part of five years. we feel with the plan moving forward and the other aspect is that those projects are presenting a different type of
office space than we find in the heart of downtown. it's a different type of space we think is important to provide in the city as well. that's what entered into our thinking and why we believe the projects in central soma deserve a shot first as we move forward. this is your call. we're making a recommendation. this is not a simple problem in front of us but it's one i wish we hadn't -- don't have to face but we do have to face it. >> thank you. commissioner koppel. >> the projects are all deserving. i'm on board and i want to look at other industries like the cannabis industry and we were tasked at approving applicants and we decided to go with more
objective reasonings and look at them not as a beauty contest but and i recall asking for approval of the portion of a project and that's where i made sense of the idea of phasing projects to get more projects moving forward within the limitations we do have with the prop m allocation. again, this is a tough decision for us. a lot of the developers are local. they're already managing and leasing existing buildings in san francisco that contribute to the downtown economy we have here. all these developers hire skilled and trained workforce and pay prevailing wage with the temporary workforce and then with the permanent workers like
janitors and security workers that are employed in the building for the life of the building. again, i think those types of things should be rewarded. i think we should get the most amount of projects moving forward. i know it's only informational today but that's where i stand as of now. >> thank you commissioner. commissioner richards. >> if you had your druthers, what would your list look like and why? >> if au applied the met -- if you applied the metric we proposed it's the tennis club because of the footage and plus the housing site and park and rec swimming pool and park
space. the benefit of that project would be 1.7 actually of total benefit footage to the site area. the other projects because the key criteria in our proposal is affordability of the p.d.r. and retail space can't stay now. if all the p.d.r. space and so on and what we know about them was -- if all p.d.r. space was affordable they would all seem to cluster around 0.5 f.a.r., community benefit. and i want to put one important fact to you that didn't come out in the discussion from planning. given the feet on the port sites, that comes off the top of any allocation when they pull a building permit. that plus the 6 million feet in central soma will take eight years to allocate for all the projects in the pipe to get to
allocation for all the building. that's assuming the others wait beyond eight year. that's how bad the crunch is. if you're going decide how to allocate the space you must do a formal resolution that states the basis for your professor -- process and decision making. that doesn't exist now. have you no legal definition of readiness and if you approve by majority i don't know how you can legitimately go forward. >> thank you. picking up on commissioner hillis' point i'm looking at this through two lenses. the housing available itty --
availability and realism. if we approve everything in a lawsuit area and nothing gets built, what are we doing. that makes no sense. what i'd like to see and when we actually look at these is the site, the number of housing units proposed and the affordability levels and is the financing in place. whose providing the financing. i don't know how much the mayor's office has. some might come from them. the shovel ready piece and are they permit in hand ready to sign off and the number of units delivered when? i'd look at that list and say, hey, if project x is going to get all as, those 190 units will be delivered fast. why would we not want to get
housing built first? if 5m took three years, i give that all those projects a handicap. we're going to be looking at sitting here three years. there's about four litigants. 5m was a smaller area. central soma is a larger area. a comment on the e.i.r. was 185 pages. i don't have a lot of hope we'll snap our fingers and things will come through the pipe because they'll be settled. if you have information to the contrary we have these big lawsuits on big plan areas before and miraculously they got settled, well, put that in the column as something that take away from a handicap. that's where i'm at on it. i want to have housing delivered as fast as i can. >> thank you, commissioner. director, can you explain the
definition of ready to go? >> what we proposed because we are suggesting all these projects have maximized public benefit according to the plan requirements and they bring them to as we would otherwise when projects are ready. when i say ready, ready for entitlement and you grant the allocation. >> that's not to do with financing. >> and commissioner dennis to richards' point, to his point it doesn't make sense if there are pending litigation and other projects in the pipeline that are as ready or almost as ready. what is the timing that we are going to lock up the allocation
before we can free it up if the litigation goes on for a while? >> the answer is i don't know. i can't tell you when that litigation may or may not be settled. this is always the case with our appeal and litigation process. there's always appeals and there's nothing to guarantee it wouldn't happen with other projects outside of central soma. >> i understand that. >> 5m was not within the central soma area. >> for other projects we don't have this cap. we don't have the locking up of the square footage that doesn't permit other project to go forward.
it may not bring benefits when things republic litigated. -- when things are being litigated. cut both ways. he's someone proposing modification and suing the project. there's a benefit. there's way to deal with it and heinz can sue everybody to stop the project in central soma. it's somewhat negotiating with those suing us. we should negotiate and figure it out. our central soma process was done in a rational way. there may be public debate bit but ultimately mr. elderling was in the process and we listened to him and made modifications and he decided to sue the project to get more, i'm assuming. i don't think that's the
rational to hold up projects that to me have great benefits i get the logic but it seems wrong we'd hold up the project or prop m allocations because there's a person suing the project who is part of the equation also and been involved in the project throughout. the other folks aren't suing on this issue. i think we've got to stick with good planning principles. we put together this plan approved by the board of supervisors and there was a ton of debate and we had projects wait until this plan was put forward. hopefully those suing the project will see we're not getting these benefits because of what they're doing and
hopefully negotiate with the city or drop their lawsuits. i would encourage to put funding for affordable housing city wide and it would get to the issues than the convoluted prop m based on square footage of ground floor. it doesn't make any answer. >> mr. elderling mentions the tennis club but the tennis club, with respect to those developers, that's a private club. we would not consider a private tennis club to be a public benefit and that's a huge square footage in hfiscal classic.
what -- is not a public benefit and how do you judge a park next to whatever in these schemes. square footage doesn't cut in in my view. >> whether we're subsidizing and how tall the building is, i get it. it's not a perfect system but we developed a plan. we should recognition that plan and abide by that plan and not start to add on illogical additions to determine who goes forward. it should be which projects are ready and will be built and which projects will get us the public benefits we asked for in the plan. hopefully, we can get through that lawsuit and do that. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> problem m was passed by the voters in the mid '80s. it has nothing to do with central soma. we owe it to the public to
maximize the benefits we think will come online the fastest. if we want housing we should say housing's number one and do a process that's transparent and say housing is number one and parks, number two. have you look and commissioner h hillis said it's logical we'd want to go with the projects with the biggest public benefits, absolutely but it's wrong we're being sued so it's not illogical to put those aside knowing they're not going to be delivered before public benefits before them. i feel like we're in another world talking in a circle. i want the most public benefits on the earliest we can get them and know the lawsuit will be a factor. >> commissioner koppel. >> i want to make sure we're
looking at the big picture. each will have community benefits but think of what type of community benefits will come to fruition when all of these projects go through. i think the lawsuits are counterproductive to having community benefits built and able for the residents to use. one more fact i don't think came up, these are big local developers and they'll build and ready to build. they're not going to come back in a year or two and say, this didn't pencil. we'll have to degrade the project and ask for approval again. these projects are ready to go. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like it see they'll present with more detail.
and we have not looked at the intricacies of what's being proposed. there has to be more time to think of what's in front of us and maybe more time before they come for approval. and perhaps you could find this time and take two or three projects and explain more particulars. >> i do agree with the department we need an orderly
way to look at what's quantifiable. i agree with you that prop m was passed by voters to have more balance with a fast-changing landscape between office and housing. and i think us choosing which benefits are more mo worthy. i don't think that was the intention of the voters. whereas there's two of us on the body with small children and we may think schools are important and other folks it's housing. this is a very subjective issue at atto -- as to which public benefits are more valuable. i don't feel comfortable about
attaching that to the prioritization of projects going forward and we need a process that's transparent and makes sense. and where there's an issue of not allowing project are worthy to go forward, i support the approach you're taking in general. i would ask you later give us a broader picture of what's coming and in terms of theal -- the allocation and the benefits we're expecting. i think that would just lead to a more robust conversation. generally i do think it's the
right direction. i think we need a more objective way of looking at this. last i read prop m i think i was sitting and we were talking about criteria, a, b, c, d, e and we can come together and say, number one looks like this and two looks like this or we do a school or housing and we can come up with a basket of benefits and how they're faced -- phased and i'm for coming up with helping to come up with a process. if housing didn't come up on top, it's a public process. >> i appreciate the robust conversation. that's happening here. >> i empathize with the comments that it's not a simple process.
we're operating under a system of scarcity and we have done many many hours of collective community work and putting together a framework that could help us navigate bringing buildings online. i think it's an interesting point to thinking about potentially what projects will get caught up in litigation and what aren't. i think it would set a concerning precedent to hold up projects because they might be or potentially caught in litigation. i also just think that we actually have all voiced alignment and prioritizing housing coming online and wanting to understand the community benefits. the phasing of community benefits and when housing will come online and there's clear understanding of how affordable housing will be funded through
the city and other mechanisms. so i would just say i am supportive of the recommendation of the department but have really supported it. >> the most wasted thing is information in any organization. and if we go ahead i want to keep track and say we did forgo the project were shovel ready based on the grid and we see over time what we did give up and when litigation ended so we can say for the next plan area if we're in the same pickle we are now, we should probably handicap some projects because the litigation tends to go on three years. let's build information and use it rather than we hope litigation ends. there's no benefit if they don't get built in time.
>> commissioner hillis. >> we've got to approve these projects. we're giving you direction on an approach but if all the projects will come to us for approval where we could ask questions that folks have about design and use of ground floor and the timing of some community benefits associated with it. i think we can get at a lot of these issues. the real question is over the last 10 years, we've approved 10 million of square feet and we look at the projects and approve them. we're here because we've used up allocation. i don't know why after we had a community process and planning process that's given us central soma or the trans bay plan we want to inject yet another
process to determine how these come forward in a time frame and we may be metering that a little bit and prop m is trying to meter office use. it wasn't done to get housing approved. i think we should look to speed up the public benefits with housing. it's one of the critical things we need. and if some sites that we're dedicating for affordable housing we've got the funding to do and we can build. i think we should stick with the planning we've done in these plan areas and get the public benefits and try to maximize them. the issue of litigation is an interesting one. it just puts too much -- it will give incentive for lawsuits.
it's yet another incentive to file a ceqa lawsuit which i don't think we need to pile on another incentive to add lawsuits. >> i want to reiterate, one of the reasons i made in my presentation earlier we went in this direction because i don't think it is possible for us to compare one type of public benefit to another and it's not a good way to do land use planning. have you always based projects on the merits of the project. that's what you did in transbay and market octavia. the beauty of a plan is it creates a level playing field. >> i just sat through a meeting
and i heard housing crisis and my ears are starting to bleed. >> commissioner moore. >> since we're metering office and there are reasons to do it it would not only like it look at projects but look at them on their own merit and if they are there, which we made a commitment to, i don't want all possible projects to be one, two, three, four five all in central soma. i'd like to see a broader perspective of how we allocate square footage. >> thank you all for the info. >> thank you. >> very good commissioners. that places us on items 12a and
12b and the zoning administrator will consider request for zone variance and you will hear a presentation. >> the project before you at 250 randolph street seeks to replace the existing one-story telling unit and laundromat with a 40 story, approximately 5,268 square foot mixed use building with two dwelling units and two ground floor retail spaces. the new building will contain approximately 470 square feet of common pon -- open space and the parcel along randolph street east of 19th avenue with an active commercial use on the ground floor such as this are allotted an additional five feet
in height and the project take advantage of this additional light. subject property is proposing the maximum density permit. it requires mixed use. the project salt lake city seeking a rear yard modification from the zoning administrator. the project is exempt from ceqa as class 32 exception and general rule exception. the department has received two e-mail let ers of opposition. one is included in your packet. i'm forwarding a series of signatures after the packet was established. and it considering the potential loss of parking, architecture, height and scale.
the planning department urban design team looked at the masting including the rear yard modification and the commercial street frontage and architecture as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner. my name is shawn malik on behalf of the sponsorship speaking on behalf of the business that aretired the property. our intention was to add value to the neighborhood namely, we saw it was a very old structure and we did end up running the facility with the existing laundry business it had. soon raefealized all the machin need to be replaced including
rehabilitation. we found the laundry business was not really viable and we noticed the neighborhood was primarily students from sfsu and the conservatory of music and looked like a great place for student housing and we're open to feedback to make it as good a project we can for the neighborhood and thank you for your time as well. >> good afternoon. i'm the architect nor project. i'd like to take a few minutes to walk you through the presentation of the package. so the project is located in the
an old market being used as a preschool and there's residential apartment buildings on the southwest side. there was a portion carved out of the laundromat and it shows there's a legal unit but it doesn't comply with current planning code requirements. it's deficient in a number of ways but that's one of the aspects of the project that we're planning on demolishing the laundry and residential unit. this is other views. there's a housing authority building on the same block. some of the neighbors have
reached out about the parking impact from the housing authority building that does cause a little bit of ruckus and the tenant of the building have to find street building and i think that exacerbates the neighbors' feelings on what's going on the block. we understand the building has been given to a private developer for management and they have some development plans they're working on but we're not privy to what they're proposing to do with it. we did hold the public meeting and did meet with the folks next door that are a part of the church group. they were in support of the project. they didn't oppose the project in terms of what we are proposing to do.
the red is the existing footprint and occupies almost the whole 100% of the lot. it's the laundry mat plan and this is the site plan of the proposed new. the red would be the new two-unit building and the green would be outdoor space. these are the two on the ground floor for the retail spaces. and we have a central stair and then some bike parking and utility space for the first floor. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> the commissioners may have additional questions for you later. >> thank you. okay. with that, do we have any public comment on this item?
please come up and talk in the microphone. >> i'm eric. do you guys have a copy of the signatures? >> yes. >> i'm eric a resident of victoria street a block from 250 randolph street and i have names from adjacent households and i included their comments. what the signers missed is not just students but our neighborhood is largely working class so the concerns are not represented due to linguistic and economic barriers i'm interviewed them in chinese and english and the entire block and overwhelmingly we're against the project. i'm not sure the designers are aware just how out of place this four-story building, mixed commercial center would be to our neighborhood. i've lived in this neighborhood my entire life and say without a doubt this project is not
compatible with our neighborhood's surroundings. i've shown the design to each neighbor when interviewing and they were shocked and upset. for those living here for decade it will be an eyesore which you can read here. and it's not even affordable housing it's an apartment design and tone deaf about the surroundings and will destroy the character of our street. and a four-story building is way too high and not suitable for that plot of land. there's no garage and our neighbors are worried increasing traffic will make parking more problematic which it already is. our residents will take the toll from the increase of people. we have one business next door, the preschool and we just have two little parking spaces where it's already a problem and the street can't take more businesses and more people. many neighbors are concerned about the increased business
activity to disturb our neighborhood. there's too many businesses in one block. there's a preschool next door and they made their complaints a fo fou four-story building is not appropriate. our neighbors do not want more commercial activity in the area and there's a k-mart being built in a walkable distance and we don't want more businesses. we want to keep it peaceful and not to disturb the quiet and we want to keep it residential. increase commercial activities will increase the rent for renters living here. this is by far a largely working-class neighborhood and every vendor thought it was a bad idea. ultimately it's another example of gentrification taking place in our city and the residents
the edge here. laundry is not location for additional retail. i do not have a good feel about the frequency. those are questions i like for somebody to speak about. it's kind of like spaceship landing and it's housing -- [indiscernible] >> did you want to comment? >> was that a request? >> commissioner moore: that was a question about your neighborhood. could you give us better feeling of the neighborhood regarding community completeness and how this project fits with that.
>> currently this n.c district does not have lot of retail space. down the street there's a liquor store as well as a restaurant. this would be primarily the only opportunity for local smaller businesses or. would continue to be retail as it is now. down the -- across the street is a kindergarten, day care. then there is a library as well. not too far. these two spaces would possibly give the opportunity for local businesses to come in. did that answer your question? >> commissioner moore: it
doesn't. it seem to contradict neighbor representative said. would you mind coming up again telling us from your perspective how many stores are near this particular location? >> there's one thai restaurant and one chinese restaurant. this is along the same street. there's a preschool centre directly across 250 randolph and a library opposite of randolph street. i have a comment on the idea that we want to bring more business in. some of the neighbors i talk about mention that what makes them like this neighborhood is the fact that it's peaceful. it's quiet right now. we have a quiet thai place, a library and a preschool and then a chinese restaurant on the far end. there's this misconception that there needs to be more business.
why? it's going to bring more people and raise the rents up for the renters living there. it always does. the people i talk to they are worried about that. more businesses, it always raise the rent. it will push them out. i don't think that personally -- you lived here for years -- i don't need to see another business. it's catering to possibly the students living here. they're not the permanent residents. there's more -- it's close by s.f. students it might be easier or convenient for them to house. people who lived here for decades and for me my whole life, what makes this place special is the fact that it's peaceful and we're able to get out of all this busyness. this is home for us. we don't need more this
commercial activity. that sentiment has been shared by most of the people that i talk to. it affects our street too. >> president melgar: any other comment? i'm very familiar with this area. i live nearby. it's on the other side of the hill of where i live. i spend lot of time there since san francisco state alum. there are advantages to this commercial corridor. it's right on the end. i see the attractiveness putting more commercial. to me, though, the quality of the commercial space is very important. it is also a working class neighborhood. it is historically black neighborhood in has now influx of immigrants mostly chinese and now latino as well.
there are lots of kids in this neighborhood. ii'm very worried about gentrification. this is one the last working class neighborhood, san francisco that we have. to me this project does not meet my criteria if making sure we preserve that. it doesn't meet it in term of the design. it is progressive and modern and it is very different than the design. i found it telling of the project sponsor when you said you brought that to approve it. i'm not sure what you meant by that. i would caution you the improvement needs to be for the neighborhood. not for folks who would gentry
igentryfiit. it could give us a different type of retail. there is a need for a laundromat in that area. there's lot of folks who live in older buildings who don't have laundry facilities. we had this discussion about the role of laundromats in this body. i don't think there's another one until you get to ocean avenue on other side of the hill. i think it is a legitimate need that folks live in that area have to have a laundromat. i'm not ready to support this today. i will be interested to hear what other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner johnson: i appreciate those comment. in planning we have to strike a balance. i heard one of the project sponsors share they wanted to
try to contribute to the community. i think you have a real opportunity with the gentleman who organized the talk to neighbors to make sure that development actually facilities what the community wants and needs. i would like to give the project sponsor and the community more time to have a conversation about what maybe acceptable retail space might be and what a design might look like that better fits with the community. >> commissioner moore: by the same token i like to get little bit more information about material, colors, window which is typical for these. i'm prepared to continue this project and ask for slightly more community discussion just to be good neighbors. there are no conditions we can attach to that discussion except i