Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  June 9, 2019 1:00am-2:01am PDT

1:00 am
i'd like to prn -- open the item for public comment. i have one speaker card, anyone else who would like to speak line up on the screen side of the room. >> peter drakmier i want to comment on the jobs/housing imbalance which is an issue of supply and demand and supply could be met by building more housing but demand is all the office growth bringing in new employees and they're competing with residents in san francisco. in the last six year we added six jobs for every one dwelling unit. i want to show an editorial i wrote for the examiner last
1:01 am
year. basically the focus is we have limited resources, land, transportation, roads, services and water. and we're going to be hearing more about water and we need to prioritize the resources. we commissioned a professional survey the san francisco voters. we found 97% support for restoring the bay. 92% support for restoring the tuolumne river and 69% support for more market-rate housing but only 40% support office space. people are making the connection as jobs are outpacing housing and housing is getting more expensive and people are being forced out and traffic's getting worse. just a comment to think about. >> commissioner: thank you, next
1:02 am
speaker, please. >> commissioners, what we're getting in paper is a projection about how this actually would work in the real world. the director's proposed process to allocate prop m office space. the plan as told to us weeks ago is three projects to be recommended to be approved by you in the current year using the 2.8 million square feet available now. what they didn't tell you but what is really important for you to know is just all the office space in central soma and the rest of the city in the pipeline is going to take 11 years worth of prop m allocation just to get through the ones we know about. that's not even considering any
1:03 am
office proposal that might come in between and for the next 11 years beyond that. and so you have to realize how important the decision is for you about who goes first and how much they get. what is so bizarre about the department's current proposal is they're going give the lion's share of this year's up front allocation to the flower mart project which can't even start construction for two years because first they have to build replaceme replacement flower mart elsewhere. you do that and you push everybody else back. the prior presentation said the housing sites on the projects will come when that building opens. well, obviously, if you push it back the housing site comes better and so do other community benefits and the swimming pool on one of the projects comes
1:04 am
later. the childcare centers and the projects come later. the fees that will fund the community facilities district comes later. everything will get pushed back for those projects that you are pushing back for some bizarre reason giving a huge amount of space to a project that can't start construction for two years. what are you doing? how in the world can you make decisions like this without a chart like this that shows you all the projects, spread it out over years. anybody can play with numbers and push this one up and that one back. you don't have the whole list. you don't know what you're doing but you're about to hand out millions of feet worth a billion dollars today. you're about to hand out up to $3 billion in the development rights without understanding the long-term implications of that huge economic decision. of course you'll push back
1:05 am
another several billions of dollars worth of projects. this is crazy. i do not cross this competent planning. you have to have all the facts on the table before you decide what to do first. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> sue ester. who asked in advance for both of these reports and didn't get anything. it's insulting. a couple things, one, i asked the planning commission, we only have four views left. please impose condition x at the first approval you have today
1:06 am
and every subsequent project with the report back date. the calendared item that is enforceable for the planning commission to have a report back on that project, 12, 18 months, whatever, after you approve. if you don't do it it's up to the planning department staff to decide to put it on the calendar and guess what, they never do. i've been dealing with these projects for a long time. i know how difficult it is. so the only mechanism that guarantees any ability to have a discussion on the record by the commission and public is to put it on the calendar and the way to do it is put it as the last condition as a recommendation and added to 598 approval the
1:07 am
office allocation and project authorization. if you do that and everyone in the commission and in the public and developer knows they are coming at the commission on a roughly date certain, that would be a good information flow. right now, it's all between some insiders on the staff and the developer. not me. secondarily, i couldn't read a damn thing what was presented because it wasn't put on the overhead. it's a reminder to staff. people in the audience are trying to follow what is talked about. you try and talk about is it .2 or .2 because -- .157bd it's not
1:08 am
on the -- .1 it's not on the overhead. this issin -- this is insulting to the max. you should never accept a staff report that says how many blocks away something is. opposed to something without feet and anyone who doesn't know the blocks shouldn't be on the planning commission. it was walking distance between 598 brannon and bart is a matter of a couple blocks. it's not a couple blocks. it's a mile. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. any more speakers for public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> i first question is hard to
1:09 am
sit up hear and mr. alberling saying you've been misled because you don't have the figures in front of you. the question is, has staff has a chance to look at mr mr. alberling's figures and see if they're right or wrong? there's 9 million proposed in prop m and 3 to give away today.
1:10 am
and they're updated. >> for the flower mart building construction can't happen for two years after. can you comment. >> that's true. the nature of that particular project is the $1.4 million proposed for phase one is is the portion of the office building that sits above the actual flower mart. that's why it's being proposed as phase one and one component of what is i think i 2.1 million project. it's true it's bigger than all the other project in terms of phasing. the reason was to accommodate the construction of the flower mart. like any other project that requires relocation it takes time to relocate the flower mart itself. >> and ms. ester was up and we were thinking with the use it or lose the we should have
1:11 am
agendaized project. >> we can do that. >> commissioner: and what recommendations are in good faith. i would support that motion. >> i agree. >> commissioner: thank you for agreeing. >> commissioner: mr. moore. >> in response to mr mr. alberling's chart it's quite some time i believe it's necessary the city with reporting to have a model where proposed projects are shown and we can see what the reality of the projects are. if i go down his list there are 14 to 15 projects and there's probably more that are standing competing for this magic prop m number. and my real question is and i've asked this question for the director bureaucracy why are we only -- director why are we only focussing on the central soma? i believe there's a physical responsibility and reality to
1:12 am
completi completing what we have had under construction one is lirngon bay and we -- lincoln bay and if we don't just draw boundaries around particular districts we need to look at the completion of districts and risk construction and other delays to the entire kind of physicality of the city. we're suffering from an incomplete city and if we continue to leapfrog to opportunity sites we're currently doing and have been forced to do we won't have a livable city because construction is extremely difficult and disruptive to all of us. i would ask the city and planning department to take a closer look
1:13 am
1:14 am
>> the merchants have concluded for many good business reasons staying at a new facility in the bayshore, one facility or another and only moving once is important for their survivability and there was a comment that the future plans for fifth street and fole folsom street would make it difficult to operate as a light industrial use. they're never coming back. you're being scammed. a developer's holding on because that's their excuse to get the $1.4 billion worth of allocation. you are being scammed and they'll call it flower mart phase one and the other is only
1:15 am
630,000 feet. if you did that and we have a chart, we can show you how that works out then you can move up all the projects and they can get started in the next two years and get approved as soon as they get the building permit and all the benefits and fees would be accelerated. you're being scammed. i know you don't know. you're not in the deep political universe as some of us live in but you have to check the facts. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> i can also share we all share in the con changing of the -- constant changing of the goalpost. how many time did we spend securing the flower mart back at the site and now things are out of our control and it seems the goalposts are moving and changing and we're doing the best we can up here.
1:16 am
commissioner richards. >> if we had flower mart saying we like being there because it's more operationally effective, is there a way if the flower mart never did come back or there was a decision on that, we could say to the flower mart people, well, we gave it to you based on this but it's not going happen. we can hold another hearing and maybe we need to reassign that to somebody else that's actually ready to go. >> you would have that option, commissioners but as mr. rich said earlier, the flower mart site is the one big project in central soma that's a development agreement. it would be more specific about those sorts of arrangements if the flower mart doesn't come back what happens. >> we should work with mowd and the director of the department and rest of the commission. i think that's a great idea. thank you.
1:17 am
>> clerk: if there's nothing further we can move to item 10. this is an impact fee waiver. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. case before you is a proposal by the project sponsor at 30 otis to enter into an in kind agreement for a plaza in shank for a fee waiver of $3 million and infrastructure impact fees. the ottis project was heard by the commission on october 27. the decision before you is the approval of the fee waiver. further detail design, resignment and program obligations through the permit process with public works.
1:18 am
the sponsor will present the design in more detail but in it would create a new public plaza at the corner of 12 van ness and otis. both the plaza and improvements are implementations of agreements from the public plan released in march of 2017. the proposed plaza would include a new pedestrian-only plaza, public art benches and a small reflecting pool, special paving and green planters and feed and removeable tables and chairs. it would cover improvements to the west side of 12th street north of the otis development and the project sponsor would not receive in kind reimburse 78 789s -- reimbursements for the
1:19 am
open space building and plans to have event. they will be responsible for maintenance and liability and consistent of dpw standard materials and maintenance covenant would be outlined in which specific maintenance work program would be established. the planning department along with public works and the city attorney's office have reviewed the design, construction, estimates and in kind agreement and provided feedback to the sponsor. the sponsor incorporated the feedback on several issues including accessibility and standard materials, creating a buffer from south van ness avenue and coordination on the brt design as well coordination around utilities. the proposed plaza has been reviewed and discussed at several meetings in may of 2019 they passed a resolution supporting impact fee waiver up
1:20 am
to $3 million. the proposed plaza has been reviewed by the committee in october of 2018 and november of 2018. staff finds the plaza is in line with the city's objectives and he will -- eligibility and they will have improvements to support transit use and walking and biking and sites under utilized streets to create new public spaces and plazas. the plaza would qualify as a complete street project. the complete street category of the infrastructure funds has not yet been exhausted. the project presents opportunities for efficiency and delivery of community improvements as it would be timed to coincide with the development of 30 otis under construction. in sum, the plaza is consistent with city priority and undergone
1:21 am
extensive outreach and generated positive responses. the department recommends approval and i'll turn it over to the sponsor to present the design in more details and i'm happy to answer any questions. thanks. >> good afternoon. thank you for your time. we're glad our otis project is under construction and we're able to provide the otis plaza as a significant public benefit to help set the tone for the hub.
1:22 am
freda is working with our landscape architect. i'd like to introduce david faucher to walk you through the design. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. so you're familiar with the project site. i think i have three minutes so i'll get straight to the project itself. >> what was important at the beginning and we'll focus up to the alleyway and they're designed to be complementary. the plaza that would have city
1:23 am
standard paving coming across the crosswalk and we'll see better but it's meant to be a bit of a refuge or an oasis. we'll see it intersection and perspective. part is you're seeing the forms that is designed and inspired by almost calligraphy by a french artist. she feels it will help punch wait and guide public -- punctuate and guide use of the space. the space will be activated by a cafe for daily use and the permanent home of the ballet school. i'll go into more detail about that. this shows a bit of the bunk. -- buffing. you can see the height of the
1:24 am
people and relative to 12th street. this section cuts through van ness and more of a longitudinal section. >> commissioner: you mean to say south van ness? >> yes, sorry. this shows the base of the building and shows an ballet school and ramp and entry into the plaza. this is looking in the exact opposite direction. from the corner of the building you can see the way the planting the stairs, there's almost like three sets of buffers to create a more secluded and buffered space. so part of the central you can see the forms extruded around
1:25 am
essentially a reflecting pool that's circular that is intermittent and can be filled out and emptied out as needed but there's a lighting future and fog. we're getting into the detailed design but it's an exciting piece that's more of a responsive piece when the ballet school is out for a performance and people are out at an in t the -- intermission it may turn red to go back for the rest of the show. this this is an image towards the plaza and south van he is and -- van ness and the school. it's a great pleasure to work with freda. she was the last woman architect
1:26 am
to receive the recognition and we're all very lucky. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, very much. we'll now have public comment on the item. i don't have any speaker cards. with that public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: would you come up to the podium one more time, yes, you. do you have a drawing which zooms out because in this area we're stitching quite a few projects together. how you involve 12th street towards market street and the union building. is there an image that can show how your piece deals with the seams of the projects still very
1:27 am
much in the future? >> not that we presently have? not that we currently have but when we look at the project across the street there's sensitivity for the way the street is going to be redesigned. it should feel seamless on both sides. >> if i may, commissioner, the basic diagram comes from what was developed from the city four and five years ago. >> commissioner: turning the intersection into a right angle at south van ness. >> and is the improvements to 12th street. >> commissioner: i want to know when his project is being realized what is the boundary between what will be done later and in that particular phase because that's how we perceive the phase best. >> show the slide of 12th street
1:28 am
you showed earlier. >> commissioner: zoom out a little bit so we see what we're getting. >> we see the realignment for traffic purposes. >> it shows the realignment of the street approaching south van ness and across the street there's the first portion which is considered to be an urban park in the design and it was guided by the designers at dpw. you see the extension up to the alley, stevenson. and how both of those are materially and in terms of orientation going to be complimentary. >> to clarify, the triangle and the three parcels immediately to
1:29 am
the left will be built by the 30 otis project up to stephenson street. left was the plumber's union site and they're responsible for that and the other side of 12th street, the honda site will be responsible. >> commissioner: at the minimum we're getting the first three signed intersection. >> the entire block will be rebuilt even what's not developed will have a whole new sidewalk and street scape. >> commissioner: thank you. >> clerk: commissioner richards. >> i think it's exciting to this. the question i always ask is how's the maintenance going to work? is it a dpw thing for the project sponsor because it's a challenging corner in terms of the ability to keep up with its use and the elements and the wind. >> it means the private sponsor is responsible for maintenance
1:30 am
and it will be part of the process they'll execute with public works. >> commissioner: and standards for what that entail? >> all maintenance responsibilities of are the sponsor. >> commissioner: if maintenance falls below a certain level how do you know it's below a level that's acceptable? we have car share on my street and they're exempt from the street cleaning days every week and the junk piles up and they're responsible for cleaning around their cars but never do. i'm using this as an analogy. if the street sweeps on monday and there's stuff around the cars it tells us they're in the cleaning. how do you know when the project
1:31 am
falls below a level of maintenance. >> that's a good question and i can follow-up with public works. the sponsor is a very invested party to it's important to make sure the area is maintained. there was a project in oak at van ness. >> do we have one at 2100 market? >> there's the whole foods at delower -- deloris and market. >> commissioner: i walk down the street every day so i had to ask. >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> i think it's appropriate and gets a focus to this
1:32 am
intersection i'm in full support and make a motion we approve the impact fee waiver. >> second. >> commissioner: commissioner johnson. >> it's an aside and kind a comment. it's more related to the industry. occasionally we will see scheme attics and images of a project that do not include people of color and i just want to name that when we don't include people of color of images it gives the impression we don't expect people of color to be there in the future. i just want to ask project sponsors consider when they're making their images that represention and inclusion matters. >> commissioner: if there's nothing else there's a motion to approve and seconded. on that motion.
1:33 am
[voting] . it passes 5-0. for the persons who may not be aware, items 12a and b have been continued to july 18th as has item 17 for 1 winter place continued to july 18. that places us on item 11 for case number 15. 135 hyde street. >> this is a request to amend the downtown project aww -- authorization. it mends motion 20150 related to the means of compliance pursuant to planning code section 415. as originally approved it had
1:34 am
provision of on-site affordable units and now requests to pay the affordable housing fee. no other changes are proposed which would destroy the repair garage and cret units and floor space. while there's limited inquiry there's an e-mail you should have received from the tenderloin housing clinic and the fee does not affect the policies of the general plan noting both the on-site alternative and affordable housing fee are considered equally code compliant. we recommend approval and i'm available for questions.
1:35 am
>> commissioner: do we have a project sponsor? >> yes, i'm here on behalf of 135 hyde street. as andrew explained it was p proposing to pay the fee and going from onsite to the in-lieu fee. when the project was originally proposed it contemplated providing on-site. the units being provided are different. they're considered entry-level market rate units. they were smaller in size and range from 425 square feet to 474 square feet for a studio, 510 to 565 for a two-bedroom and rate for 80% below market. the entry-rate units are typically rented to restaurant employees and teachers and they're very desirable in the market rate housing market. issue is when it come to the
1:36 am
below market rate market these units are not as desirable. and these units tend to sit vacant for longer period of time. from the time a lottery occurs, six, eight, 12 months when a unit becomes vacant they sit vacant for a longer period of time before they're re-occupied. as a result, what the developer is proposing is to provide the 10 units that would have been provided on site back in the marketplace to meet the entry-level market rate units. if you have any questions about that, please let me know. we're here. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. do we have any public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> i have a question for ms. pelosi. you know the commission's
1:37 am
preference for on-site. that's clear. for this part of town the commission is piqued and not seeing potentially only market-rate housing that is changing the general composition of what is our responsibility to protect here. march 29, 2018 is barely a year ago when you were associated with the project at that time and didn't you know at that time of what you are telling us today? >> so at that time i was not involved in the project but at the time yes, the project sponsor recognized and acknowledged the preference for on-site affordable. since that time it's continued to dig in and moving forward with the project and having more discussions about how the units would be occupied, the developer considered the issue and the concern about the units sitting
1:38 am
vacant for longer period of time and how it isn't meeting the city's housing policies and goals and the news and information that's come out regarding the lack of funds to be able to build some of the affordable housing project the city has on the books. so instead of placing units currently sitting vacant in the below market rate marketplace it's electing to move forward with the fee you're proposing and so you're correct, commissioner, at the time it could have been considered but as they moved through the entitlement process and now moving forward with the construction and physical operation, this has come to light and the reason why the request has been change. >> commissioner: i personally feel pressured to resist supporting the change partially because turning them into market-rate housing exasperates the problem as we're moving
1:39 am
aggressively into large amounts of office we're only opening the door for higher income people to start putting more pressure on what's available in the housing market and basically standing firm on what i believe our responsibility is to have affordable housing whenever we can get it and whatever form is an important policy that i feel i want to continue supporting. >> if i may, the one other thing i want to note is looking at the units in this building and the mayor's office of housing rent levels, these units given their size and given they are rented at below what current market rate is, they're renting and at likely 90% to 110% of the ami and it's a classification of renters that is not typically been met or historically been met in the city. so we fully respect the concern
1:40 am
about on-site but given the nature of the units they're rented at lower levels from 90% to 110% of ami based on the figures. >> commissioner: thank you for saying that. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> so these units being rented slightly below market rate serve certain groups of people i think you mentioned. the 10 units we'll have mr units on the site, who will they serve? >> folks that qualify for the below market rate program. >> commissioner: this is what percent of a.m.i.? >> i believe 55%. >> commissioner: so you have studios ones and twos. >> one studio predominantly one bedrooms and the 44 are one bedrooms and 24 two bedrooms and one studio.
1:41 am
>> commissioner: so work with me, rent on a one bedroom at 55% of a.m.i. for a one-bedroom for a couple would be at what income level? >> 55% of a.m.i. a one-bedroom unit would be $1350 including utilities. >> so that's maybe a couple with a child or two children would be a family of four. >> that was for a two bedroom it's $1524. into okay. do you have -- >> commissioner: okay. do you have data around the vacancy around that level? i know people in the service industry or entertainment and have one or two children and this would be perfect for them. i'm trying to understand why
1:42 am
these would sit longer. is there data? >> there is data. if you look at the city's website and look at the lottery and the lottery results as well as current units in the marketplace and available for people to look at, these types of units are sitting vacant longer. a great example is 33 went to the lottery 30 months ago and they're still available and they're one bedrooms are 600 square feet compared to the 425 to the 475 and the two bedrooms are 900 square feet compared to the 910, 165. >> commissioner: what you're saying is these kinds of units are not filling up as fast as bigger units. on the tehema projects how many
1:43 am
are still not rent from the total? where i'm going with this is we may have a situation where they may not to be rented within 12 months but the it can go into a fund and we may have a longer extended period but get occupied in the future where we have the need now. to look at the numbers and see and i can't see the exact number of units but you did provide information into the package based on the income level. >> commissioners, if you would allow me. remember, i administered this program for the mayor's office of housing for almost seven years and what she is saying is
1:44 am
true. so i think it's a math problem. there's a compliance issue and then the math issue. these units are actually naturally affordable at 90% to 100% of a.m.i. if you are a low-income family and are look for housing and you have to jump through all the hoops including the lottery and yearly recertification you may think twice on how many units are 400 square feet even if you need housing. i think the units and some of the problems with our inclusionary is as the a one-size fits all though we have varying degrees of unit sizes, architecture and places where they are. it does put us in this situation where there are units in the market especially the microunits the ones that are naturally
1:45 am
lower in the affordability that sit vacant because of the income requirements, the compliance requirements and because if somebody can go into a unit with 90% of a.m.i. even fit stretches a little bit it's better than having to through a lottery with thousand of other people to get a unit. i think as to your other concern about whether it's going to take five years, i can assure you it will not because the mayor's office of housing has today a pipeline of projects that are needing investment including small sites. the money doesn't sit around for five years. that's now how it works. it goes into a pipeline and we have more projects than we have money to fund and why we're trying to get affordable housing
1:46 am
on the ballot. i will support this because i think it's the right thing to do. >> commissioner johnson. a motion to approve. >> second. >> commissioner: there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> no. >> richards. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> it passes 4-1. item 13a, b and c. a large project authorization for development and fee waiver agreement perspectivively.
1:47 am
-- respectively. >> good afternoon. i'm from planning department staff here to introduce the project at 598 brannan street and is one of eight key sites identified in the plan. just distributed were redraft motion for the project which collect typographical errors and include the conditions of approval related to privately owned public open space. also reflected in the revisions for the commission's consideration is a request by the project sponsor to look at the effective date for conditions of approval one, two and three for validity and expiration in renewal and diligent pursuit from the standard three-year period to five years and also included is the draft resolution for the fee waiver. also in what was distributed to
1:48 am
you is information on the impact fee estimate for the park fee waiver i'll go over later in my presentation. the project before you is a large project authorization to allow construction of a new building greater than 85 feet in fight or new construction more than 55,000 gross square feet in the special soma special use direct and for allocation under prop m. the project would demolish the existing buildings and surface parking light on site and construct mixed use office building in two phases based on the available of prop m allocation. phase 1 collectively it would create office space and 37,527
1:49 am
square feet of p.d.r., 11,890 square feet of neighborhood serving retail, 16,505 square feet of popos. dedication to affordable housing identified as building 4 on the plans. a land dedication to the city for approximately a one-acre park. sidewalk and alley improvements and contributions to a new crosswalk at sixth street. phase two would be combined ground floor and pdr space as well as a childcare facility. collectively phase one would include office space and 11,054 speed of p.d.r.
1:50 am
5,540 of childcare facility and development of the public park and sidewalk and alley improvements. completion of phases one and two will result in approximately office and retail and p.d.r. space and institutional childcare space and two below grade parking garages and bicycle parking spaces. projects requesting approval of a large project pursuant to the code allow exception for unfide key sites within the central soma special use district but
1:51 am
provide qualified amenities in excess of what is required by code. it includes dedication of a parcel for the mayor's office of housing and community develop for the future construction of affordable housing and dedication of langd -- land for the park in the center of the site. the project sponsor has agreed to construct and maintain the public park to help improve pedestrian
1:52 am
1:53 am
>> they have a kid included it as a waiver to the executive report. the impact fee estimates table which was handed out to you before the presentation shows the estimated impact fee the project would be required to pay in phase i and phase two, under current rates, it also shows the fee requirements for the next fiscal year, assuming an annual inflation right of 4%. for fees that are eligible for the park waiver fee, the project would owe an estimated $34.8 million in fees in phase i , one, and 11 million in phase two. please note the table does not include the other impact fees and taxes that the project will be required to pay, including the central soma c.f.d., job
1:54 am
housing linkage fee, the central soma community facilities fee, and the schools and childcare fees. the table for the staff recommendation for a park fee waiver show the maximum park fee waiver value and staff recommendation on how this waiver could be allocated among the different impact fees. the first table shows the current estimated land acquisition cost based on the information from the project sponsor, who currently has an option to acquire the land. as described in exhibit f of the draft fee waiver agreement, the sponsor is eligible for a waiver up to this value, plus a cap of an additional 10% if the final land acquisition price exceeds the current estimate. the estimated total fee waiver is roughly $33.3 million. the second table describes how the some could be waived for various impact fees under section 406. staff's recommendation is that the fees come first from the eastern neighborhood's
1:55 am
infrastructure impact fee. once that is exhausted, the remainder would come from the central soma infrastructure impact fee and the t.s.f. in that order. to date, staffers received two letters in support of the project on the south of market business association and also from a longtime resident who resides in the neighborhood. staff find the project is on balance, consistent with the central soma plan, and the relevant objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will provide a new mixed-use development with ground-floor p.d.r., childcare, and retail, and will include qualified amenities per the central soma plan that will substantially improve the surrounding neighborhood. the project sponsor his is president and has prepared a presentation -- the project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation. this concludes my presentation, and i am available to answer any questions. >> thank you. we will hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners carl shannon.
1:56 am
i am thrilled to be here. if someone can help me bring this up on the screen, that would be great. we are pleased to be back after working on this for five years and as a follow on to our informational meeting on may 9 th. to talk about the genesis quickly of this, you know, being involved very early on in central soma, it was very clear that the department and the community wanted a significant park. the p.u.c. controlled the 1.3- acre park at the middle of the block. we went out and bought a 7.9- acre site off of cesar chavez. we have agreed to swap that with the city. that swap went to the board of supervisors last year and has been approved. overall, this is a project of three commercial buildings, 50,000 square feet of p.d.r., 17,000 square feet of neighborhood retail, land being dedicated to the mayor's office of housing for up to 85 units a
1:57 am
permanently affordable housing, 5,000 square feet of childcare, supporting up to 100 children a day, real commitments to sustainability through a district water plant, living roof, native species, half an acre of popo, plus the 1 acre park at the center of the project. when we were here earlier, there were questions about the phasing , so we will try and address that quickly here. i would be happy to answer anymore detailed questions. obviously we would like to build the entire development. we have been working proactively for a long period of time with the city staff and the mayor's office on an appropriate phasing strategy, given the scarcity of prop m. allocation. the intent is to go forward with the first phase, to build the first two buildings and dedicate the park at the completion of those buildings, giving the city the land for the park.
1:58 am
we would hope, i think all of us would hope, that during the intervening period, they would be the availability to make the phase two prop m. allocation, which would allow the park to essentially open when the buildings open. in the event that that doesn't happen, which we see as a remote possibility, i want to stress that we will make sure that the midblock connections are open, we will make sure that the 17,000 square feet of popo is open, we will make sure that the land is dedicated to the city, that is the key piece of this, and we will temporarily activate the portion of that site that is not required for the construction of the mayor's office of housing. overall, granting the city both the park land, which is, in a market value standpoint, is worth $45 million, and the affordability -- affordable housing site that is worth $50 million. i will turn it over to michael who will walk you through the
1:59 am
design of the project. we are here to answer any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the design architect for the 598 brennan street project. it is a pleasure to speak with you again. as i was -- as i have described in the past, much of the inspiration from the design of the building comes from the south park context itself. we have been working to capture and connect to the neighborhoods -- the neighborhood's very diverse textures and spaces, especially in the alleys, to create a more intimate public place. in the planning of this development, we have been motivated by the potential of prioritizing and extending the pedestrian and bicycle connections in the central soma district, linking to the network of transit and open green spaces , the goal of the project is to create inclusive integration with the neighborhood fabric in the central soma community and its vibrant public spaces.
2:00 am
we started by organizing the four buildings around to the existing neighborhood network of streets, alleys, and midblock pedestrian connections. at the center of the all -- at the center of it all, is the new park, which is the hub of the larger city block. the addition of new bike lanes, connections to existing and proposed bus and metro stops, and the transformation in the transformation of alleys into pedestrian popo are all part of growing a much more interwoven public realm. the character and design forms of the open spaces and the contemporary and diverse ensemble of buildings is the direct result of the design process founded on the tenants of the central soma plan. feedback from the community, and a genuine response to the direction and recommendations of the planning department, whom we have worked with over the last seven years. the hub of the project is a new park, framed by the new buildings