tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 18, 2018 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
thursday, may 17th, 2018. i will remind the public and the commission does not tolerate disruption of outbursts of any kind. please silence your devices. if you care to you can at that, state your name for the record. [ roll call ] >> we do expect commissioner fong to be absent today. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one at 220 post street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to july 12th, 2018. item two, at 77 geary street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to
october tea, 2018. further, under your regular calendar, we received a request from the project sponsor team for item 15 at 792 cap street a conditional use authorization. the request is for two weeks. that would put it on your canceled hearing of may 31st. we could squeeze it on june 7th, but it is closed as it the remainder of your june calendars. so june 12th would be another available date. >> we will take public comment for the items being proposed for continuance. >> at this time, we're only accepting comments on the matter of continuance, not the project itself. >> i have some speaker cards for cap street. elizabeth bell and michael andrani. >> good afternoon, i'm lucas,
i'm the project sponsor for 792 cap here to ask for a continuance. we've continued this a couple of times in october and in december. the commission asked mo me to do outreach. i've done so and i'm continuing to do so. i ask that you give me a little more time. i've had a meaningful conversation recently, you know, people in the community are -- some are starting to be more receptive and i've asked for help getting in touch with those folks. i just think i need a little more time to get closer to a resolution. we've done a bunch of outreach. we've done -- we've set ourselves up in front of the property. we've held meetings and we're continuing to be open to items so maybe we can find solid footing, common ground so that we're not coming here in
complete conflict. a little more time would be greatly appreciated. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, again, commissioners. how should i put this. this has been put on for long enough. you all know i spoke to a few in the last few days as far as last minute attempts to defer again and again. these are games that being played. beginning october 12th, december 21st, march 22nd, it's been continued on and on and on. as far as any kind of negotiations that they are offering, he is doubled down several times saying he has no intention of changing his project or plans to sell the house like he agreed to at the
community meeting held at the police station on april 13th. at that recent community meeting, the community acted in good faith and offered concessions. unfortunately, lucas turned a deaf ear and remained dead set on his project and has not been willing to negotiate or acceptable terntives. we've been met with the developer unwilling to budge from his pursuit for maximum profits. none of us know the full extent of delaying this another few weeks. the community is set in opposition to this project. it in no way benefits us. delaying this further after it's been delayed for so long and so long and all this -- obviously this is a policy decision, and we understand that you guys are faced with the -- it's hard because this case, if it's approved, will be oozed as a poster -- used as a poster child for destroying buildings. we understand you are faced with
the difficult choice, but this right now is not the right way. there's no community equity for this project at all. it's been gone long enough. if he is dead set within the last few days saying he's not willing to negotiate, maybe donate money to some sort of project or pet project he has, that doesn't solve the problem as far as the grand picture. the things we will have to deal with in the community as far as bulldozed buildings and luxury apartments that do not -- that do not in any way, shape, or form address the problems we have. i spoke to you before, trickle down economics. i was born in the reagan administration. it was fake then. it's fake now. building luxury condos somehow to get rich people to not want to buy poor people housing, it's dangerous and disgusting and despicable mindset that is out of touch with reality and the pulse of community. we can't build luxury condos -- build our way out of this
housing crisis that we have by building more luxury condos and destroying good intact classic nomes our community. i urge you to not push this any further and hear this today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. it would be helpful if folks with line up on the screen side of this room if you want to speak on this item. >> my name is andrea. as our neighbors, i want to thank mr. eastwood because he was honest with us saying that he is here just for profit, that he is here just to build his house and to leave and let us deal with the repercussions of his decision. he -- i also want to thank him for bringing all of our community together. now i'm really good friends with all of my neighbors on this block who also oppose this. he is also detrimenting and putting us into another housing
crisis because if you allow this to be developed, all of our neighbors on both sides of 22nd and cap street are going to be affected by them being the next victims with their housing. so please oppose this. this is not for us. it's not for our community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i live right next to this single family home and have for quite a long time. it apparently was sold back in 2012, and refurbished. no one moved in for years. then, mr. eastwood bought it in 2016 and no one moved in. he has lied about this and been in bad faith and claimed that he's getting rent, but i look down 0 this place every single place. it is a place where the
neighborhood people know you can go into the side yard and take a leak because nobody is watching. i've seen the skeleton of a bicycle sit there for months and months and months because speculation, that's the reason. speculation. my question is, do we want to reward this behavior? we don't need luxury condos. we need affordable housing and i urge you to hear this case today and turn down his deal. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to thank you for this meeting. i've lived at 762 cap street for the last going on 40 years. i'm a semi retired senior, like
mr. east wood formerly in the building trades. i certainly think i share some of -- let's just get to the point here. i think that it's fairly clear to most of us now that the more deep pocketed side in this divergence of opinions is playing a war of attrition here. we've basically made clear in the letters to you all in community meetings to mr. eastwood, that -- and i want to reiterate this very strongly. mr. eastwood has been very honest and clear with us, much more so than the broker that he hired to try and grease the wheels here. i support -- and i know that many of my colleagues do --
mr. eastwood's right to make a profit. what comes into play here is what we've seen over the last 15 years in the city we call home and where that leads. the question becomes, how much is enough? it seems like this is hell bent on a course whereas we've seen so clearly, nothing is enough. it's going to be luxury condos yesterday, today, and tomorrow until we have no place left. i want to retire in my flat. this is my home. i can't urge you strongly enough to just stop this right now and vote in the name of all san franciscans and keep a home for working san franciscans available in the city.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is michael andrade. i live just a few doors down from 792 cap. i just wanted to also urge you to not approve this project. san francisco desperately needs affordable housing, but we do not need this luxury housing in our neighborhood. it's out of scale. it's unwanted. i don't know any of my neighbors who support it. i want to urge you to not allow it to be built. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. again, we're just hearing the matter of continuance at this point. >> my name is dorothy gra graha. i'm going to address the continuance issue. i urge you not to continue this. i feel that it's a tactic of
wearing down people who have to take time off work to come here time after time after time to try to address you. i attended the meeting at the san francisco police station. it was very well attended. i think there were at least 25 people there. they asked for a show of hands who lives in this community and is opposed to a demolition. every single hand in that room, every single hand went up except the developer and the people he brought to the meeting. so what we were talking about is other options, such as a remodel or something that could be done with the property other than a demolition. mr. eastwood said that this was not possible unless you were to direct him to do so, that he's not going to do that on his own volition. there is nothing more to negotiate. every single person is opposed to a demolition on this block. unless you take some kind of
action today, we'll be back in two weeks with nothing having changed. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david. i think we should have a continuance. sounds like there's conversations that are still going on. i believe that mr. eastwood was directed to reach out to the community, which he has done. it sounds like there still are more things that need to happen. so i don't see how continuing to have a conversation, maybe everyone lands the exact same place in a month from now, maybe not. maybe there is a middle ground to be found. so i would hope that we can all try to talk to each other a little bit more. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. we are deferring to the neighbors in that area. it is part of the latino culture
district. we did attend the meeting at the police station. at that time, it didn't seem there was a lot of movement as far as anywhere, as far as some of the things that the neighbors were asking for. there was talk about making it -- having an addition to the existing structure instead of a complete demolish. i think some of the neighbors were more open to that, but there was nothing else. i think the best outcome is for him to sell the property, to sell it to an affordable housing developer. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm kevin with united save the mission. we are deferring to the neighbors. the community has come out and spoken that they don't want this continued, that they want this heard out. and that's for a number of reasons. this has gone on for six months. the community is speaking out. really delaying this project is going to build momentum for
developer. we want the community to have due process. until it's equitable, it's not a project that should be delayed. it should be heard today. thank you. >> thanks. next speaker, welcome. >> my name is charlene. i live across the street from the proposed project. i have a hearing disability, so i don't get everything. but i did get today that they were reached out to the community. well, i live across the street, and this is the first i've heard of that. nobody reached out to me. i've lived there for 40 years. so i was surprised today when i heard him say they reached out to the community. this needs -- doesn't need -- it's been going on and on and on. we don't need to delay it
anymore. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here with our mission, no eviction and united to save the mission. i have attended some of the meetings that lucas eastwood has had with the neighbors, and they have been very clear about what they want from this project, and they don't want this to be demolished. everything that we have heard that is that he has not changed his position, and i think you should hear this today. i think a continuance is just going to land us in the same spot that we are right now a few weeks from now. as everything we've heard from the neighbors is that there isn't additional outreach and nothing has changed. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm for the probably executive sponsor. quickly, in support of the continuance, there are a lot of
conversations going on, and there's conversations with people on the street. lucas eastwood himself -- overhead, please -- spent weekends with a cardboard table in front of the building. that was a significant amount of outreach. in addition, he's gotten 14 petitioner letters of support. the people on cap street in support, 10, 11, are in yellow here and shown right here. the support keeps coming. most important, i asked lucas to prepare a spreadsheet of contacts. here's a three-page spreadsheet with the people he's contacted and a record of the responses. this continues, too. so when we're dealing with a housing crisis, i have to ask, what is the damage to the community from a continuance? there's always an opportunity
that will be turned down, but i believe these discussions are very sincere on the part of lucas, and as you can see, he's trying very hard. thank you. >> thank you. >> can you hand that? >> sure. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is armita. >> you can pull that microphone down if you need to. perfect. >> i've lived in the 700 block of cap street since 1960 except for a number of years when i went to college. i've seen all the changes, good, bad, the mission has accommodated more than is ever possible to imagine. we've made all the sacrifices. we've accommodated newcomers,
but i think the planning commission now has to step up and the board of supervisors and use some of the money that the big developers put into the coffers to put an environment study impact and some data and really get a handle on all of this. for example, this developer has money to burn, to bring in people to do whatever his bidding is. i looked out my window and saw them getting passersby to sign this petition with their box of donuts and these are total strangers that were just walking by, cookie cutter consultants, bringing on people. it's frightening. i think that really, it's time for you all to step up and this whole government to be the voice
of the disenfranchised. right now, i'm holding on to a thread to stay in my home of my childhood. i was 8 years old. i was run out. we were run out of the fillmore district when the western addition, the whole demolishment, and now we're looking back at the holiday -- the guy now -- it's like, irony that, the devastation that was created there, and now i'm reliving it. i'm hoping to stay. i don't know. but in the past two, three years, the price has gone up the roof. i've already gone to live elsewhere and have come back, and i'm just holding on for dear life for my home that my children were brought up. it's now just very, very expensive, even though a number
of us millennials and my brother, we can't pool the resources to buy the home that i was brought up in. please, whatever it takes, this is just the beginning. we need a long-term study, and i know you're fast tracking and that's a mandate. in all fairness, we need to influence and impact. visit the place. go and see for yourself. >> thank you very much. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards. >> i guess i'm confused. the reason is, i love continuances because generally we get to a place where everybody agrees and we have a good project for all. i love continuances because we get a better project. we get people to agree and people to the table.
sometimes they don't like me for that, but i'll take t i looked at the outreach log that mr. gladstone handed in and i see probably of the 10 or 12 people there, there was maybe a couple that really responded. father jimenez and amy, et cetera, but i see some other folks where they were contacted but nothing has happened. there was no response. there's an e-mail sent letter follow up. i guess my question would be, if we wait to more weeks and he's contacted again and mr. hernandez is contacted again and they still don't respond, then where are we at? maybe if you could come up and answer a question. i know you're deferring to the neighbors, but it is, like, feet away from 24th street. >> yes, sir. >> in the next month, when mr. eastwood contacts you, will you sit down in good faith and talk to him about -- >> sure. i'm opening to talking to anyone, but i'm also making sure
that the neighbors are included in that conversation. >> okay. >> so it's just not him making a decision. it's talking to the neighbors and making sure that it's what they want. they're the ones who live there. they're members of the cultural district. so it's referring to them -- deferring to them. >> do you know whether or not mr. hernandez shares your opinion? >> i have not spoken to him. >> okay. i mean, if the neighbors are included, they have spoken today, that's the problem i see. we could have all the conversations we want, but if they're dug in, we need to make a decision. >> yeah. i mean, we've dealt with so many developers in the past and trying to negotiate something that's a benefit to the community. we've had some stubborn developers in the past. we've gotten through -- this this has been kind of a wall that i see based on my experience at the police commission meeting, there was a lot of folks there, but they didn't seem to be any moving at all, if anything.
so i was very wondering if it was even going to go anywhere. >> okay. >> at that point. >> thanks. i just hope we could ask the chair to all the item -- this item as a separate item rather than put them all at the same vote. just so we make sure the commissioners are all in. >> i'm supportive of a continuance. i've talked to mr. east wood. i've talked to mr. contreras on this. it does not feel to me there was meaningful discussion. people are dug into their conditions which may be the case we end up with in a month or so and we've got to make the decision, but i'm hopeful that's not the case and people can kind of take a fresh look at this. we're in a bind. i don't think if we defl deny ts project and we get housing. we need affordable housing, if we deny it, we don't get any affordable housing. if they think this parcel is affordable, it's not. i guarantee it's an expensive
home. but if we approve the project, we may get more units, but the type of units is kind of what we're concerned about. so i'm supportive of a continuance and hope there can be some meaningful discussion. >> commissioner moore. >> the only thing i would say to add on to your thoughts is the dates seem to be spreading it out too far. may 31st we are off. june 7th is apparently filled as the secretary said and then it moves to may 12th. i prefer. >> june. >> i'm sorry. june. july? >> you can fit it on any june calendar you would like, but the next open date is july. >> what's a date in mid-june that's, you know, maybe not as full as some of the other full
calendars? >> june 14th. >> yeah. i mean, i would like to see it happen around then, too. do you agree with me? >> yeah. >> thank you. >> i don't believe there's a motion for any of this. we can't call any of them either together or separately until we get a motion. >> so i am one who always stands with the community. i think for this one, i agree with commissioner hillis that if we vote on it today, what we will get is no progress in any direction. i don't see it happening. so i don't think a four-week continuance is a long time for the possibility, which may or may not gel. some of us will work on trying to get some movement, and i promise you that i will be
involved in that. so i do support a continuance, and i make a motion that we hear the items proposed for continuance except for cap. >> do you want to make a separate motion. >> can i make two at the same time? >> it would be easier if we jus. sure. >> just make two motions. >> one motion is to continue the items except for capp, and then make a separate motion that we postpone the hearing on capp to june 14th. >> yeah. >> second those. >> very good. commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion to continue items one and two as proposed. on that motion, commissioner johnson [ roll call ]
>> so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimously. there was a second motion to continue item 15 to june 14th. on that motion. [ roll call ] >> so moved. commissioners that potion passes 5-1 with commissioner richards voting against. commissioners that will place us on your consent calendar. i received a speaker card from sue hester on this master. so i'm assuming this one -- >> sorry. commissioners wanted to pull it off. so we'll pull this off and hear it during the beginning of the regular calendar. >> beginning of the regular calendar. we have a flip flop calendar here. >> it will be after the discretionary review calendar. >> understood. that will place us under commission matters, consideration of adoption of minutes for may 3rd, 2018. >> new public comment on the
draft minutes? we'll close public comment. commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the may 3rd minutes of 2018. [ roll call ] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner moore. >> this morning's paper i was glad to hear that the supervisor's government and oversight committee supported the formation of a cbd under the name of discover poke. it's a long commercial dough tore has its own set of problems has been pulling itself up for many, many years. this will help add additional stability to this corridor. >> thanks. commissioner richards.
>> a couple quick things. in yesterday's chronicle, headline caught my eye. more able to afford homes in bay area. i was like wow. let me look at this. the number of -- the percentage of people who can afford a median priced home wend up to 23% from 21% which is i don't think anything to trumpet about, but san francisco specifically still numbers were low. the median price of a home is $1.6 million. income of $330,000 to be able to afford the monthly payment which is beyond a lot of people's reach. solano county, the median price is only $430,000 and need an income of $89,000. i think this includes coming off the 20% down payment. i know people that make eye high salary but can't save because they're paying a lot in rent.
there are people trying to meet the down payment barrier by providing down payments and taking an equity stake in homes. so there's financial service that's are actually coming to try to meet these needs. one other interesting thing in the bay area, 4% increase in people who make $150,000 to $500,000 were noted in the corridor. i talked about this last week about growth. growth is great if you can actually afford to live here. but there was a 4% loss of people that made 75,000 or less. so we're building housing and a question i keep everybody asking is, for who? >> all right. thank you. we can move to the next item. >> very good. place us end department matters. director's announcements. >> i wanted to call your attention that the various schemes for the design competition which is the competition related to various sites around the region related to sea level rise is wrapping up
right now. in fact, there are public presentations going on as we speak at the jazz center and those are being streamed live and will be available online and each of the 9 teams has a video. if you're interested in that, the website is available to see these sites just as a reminder, the site in san francisco is the creek site. there are 8 other sites in the region as well that have been proposed for this competition. so there's a number of events today and tomorrow related to the projects as well. it's exciting and interesting proposals. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. >> item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. legislative affairs.
the committee considered interim zoning controls by supervisor peskin for the conversion of retail to non retail sales and service use in union square. it would require applicants to provide among other information rental and vacancy rates, how many properties they own or manage in the c3r and it would add new findings for retail to non retail conversion. as we presented sometime back, the department is working on permanent controls for the district to address these issues. during the hearing, supervisor peskin presented information and answered questions raisedded throughout the discussion. he presented an amendment that would allow applicants who filed to be exempt from the controls. there are several members of the public who spoke about the controls. after public comments, supervisor safai moved that the resolution be amended as proposed and that the resolution be recommended as amended. both of these motions passed
unanimously. at the full board this week, the re-establishment of certain self storage uses which is sponsored by supervisor kim passed the second read. then last on the board was the appeal for 701 valencia. this included the legalization of a private parking lot which is also used by the appliance store next door, and then the use of that parking lot for food trucks. commission heard this item on march 15th and approved the conditional use authorization with the condition that the parking lot not be used for food trucks. the applicant then appealed the cu approval asking them to overturn this specific provision. at the board hearing, there was significant amount of public comment, most of the speakers were in support of the appellant. during her comments, supervisor ronen recognized the need for the food truck which has been operating since 2017. she then made a motion to uphold
the appeal and modify the approval to lou one mobile food facility on the site. the board added additional conditions to the temporary use authorization to prohibit the sale of alcohol, prohibit congregate seating, prohibit music and require camouflage potties. there was one introduction today. it was the rezoning for 1650 to 1680 mission street from the current nct or p zoning to the c3g, i think. c3: thanks. >> thank you. good afternoon. department staff here to share with you a few items from yesterdays historying preservation commission hearing. the commission supported the mayor's process improvement which is being reviewed by this commission and was complementary of the department's work to
streamline many processes including the reduction in review times for permits and certificates of appropriateness for designated properties in san francisco. the commission also provided review and comment to a national register nomination for 3333 california street. the commission supported the department's recommendations on that nomination, and it's our understanding the state historic resources commission is meeting today to form a recommendation for the keeper. the commission also forwarded the positive recommendation for the local landmark designation of 6301 third street. the arthur coleman medical center. this is a property i mentioned to you the last time i was here. it's located in the bayview. it's a significant for dr. arthur h coleman a prominent
african-american lawyer and physician and civil rights advocate. supervisor cohen intends to sponsor it once it moves to the full board. then finally, i wanted to give you an update on the commission's deliberations on improving the [indiscernible] program. this was the first public hearing discussing ways to improve the program and specifically starting with this year's cycle, we've received 6 applications for this year spread throughout the city. the two substantive changes that the city asked the department to explore is to allow for a concurrent local landmark designation with a mill's act application. therefore, someone can apply for landmark and mill's act at the same time. currently they have for separate bid a year. second is to give priority to properties that house a legacy
business. we're going to work with the commission and the government audit and oversight committee on those modifications which seem to be able to be done without code amendments and we will be applying those criteria to this year's cycle. happen tee -- happy to hear any questions, should you have them. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> clarifying california street, that is a whole block. that is the center block piece for mandarin oriental. which part is being declared? the entire block? >> i think under the current nomination, the entire block is being considered as knowledge register eligible. >> it's 3333 california. it's the laurel heights site. it's confusing. it's four 3s. >> no. it's not downtown. >> i was wondering. it would be a great block to declare, but i was wondering.
thank you. that's funny. >> commissioner richards. >> one clarification, mr. fry. the legacy business preference, is that for mills act? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> there's nothing further. we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter of commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the mite meeting. each may address for up to 3 minutes. i did have a number of speaker cards. >> good afternoon. i'm going to show this chart again that i've shown before. the 99%, we all know it. it pays looking at especially in the context of housing. this is a house on jersey as it
was in march. it has two units. it's basically going to do that 317b7 thing that hopefully the residential flat policy will take care of. this was march as well. huge excavation. here it is this morning. you can see all the front is gone. there's all kinds of new wood. a better photo of it. it's on going. doesn't end. the h excavation issue is concerning. i've been showing one for the last two weeks on 24th street. i went up there this morning and it still has the notice of violation or maybe not a notice of violation, but it has a director's hearing and it was sent back to be dealt with because this complaint from the neighbor. you can see they're now doing the hand digging. i guess my point is that we're
not getting the housing. they did something wrong. it's all held up. the neighbor's suffering. the city's bogged down with this. the excavation issue needs to be dealt with. maybe if the neighbors had known what kind of he have calfation was going on, this wouldn't have halved. here a picture from last week. not much left of the house. now they've got this excavation problem. and it seems like it should be dealt with beforehand, not when this goes on. there's going to be back to the directors at the building department to decide whether or not they can -- do a violation. it's just not fair to anybody. one thing at the bic yesterday, i will say happened, both mr. riordan and mr. duffy said that the neighbors need to be involved. for 655 alvarado and for states
street. without the neighbors, they wouldn't know anything is going on. so here we go. there's more examples. i really wish that the commission and the staff would deal with the issue of h excavations. we're going to see more and more of that. >> next speaker, please. >> i need the overhead, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gustavo and i'm here. thank you for having me again. i know we were just here last week. i want to start by saying i'm sorry. i know we're taking a lot of your time. but this is the only opportunity that we have to talk to you as a group. first of all, i'm sorry. i just wanted to say that i have
faith in the system because i saw you guys at work last week. it was really an intense hearing. i think, you know -- i haven't seen anything like that, so i really have faith in the system because i saw you at work. i just really wanted to say thank you for that regardless of the outcome. now, i just wanted to bring a couple of information -- new information. the first one has to do with the high cost of construction. one of the things that tidewater said it was the high cost of construction and everything is so prohibitive. the other thing was the invisibility of the two tower or two building design. let's start with the high cost of construction. the project that tidewater puts forward, the first one, the whole block that goes from side to side and the ones that we're discussing, the cutout or the notch, the one that we're talking about, 45 feet and 4
stories down or 5 stories down, all of those designs regardless, it's high-rise construction. guess what? the drawings are not high-rise construction. so as you well know, it costs us a lot less to build a non high-rise building than a high-rise. so just in that, we should be thinking about the david winslows. it's not going to cost anymore. now, going and talking a little bit about the distinction, why is that that we think it's feasible. why did he come up with the project? we're all confused. this can't be done. the developer said it can't be done. it's like you can't move it around. it's a simple matter of shifting open spaces around. i've put the picture in here. if you recall -- and i'm going to put -- this is the outline of the project design.
our courtyard is here is completely blocked. if you can look at this, their open space will go from here to here. so this is the open space. so what is it that david winslow did? he shiftedded. if you look at this, he opened up the courtyard to have the synergy between the two courtyards. the open space went over here. the open space here goes here. these two pieces together is bigger than this. so that is the answer that you're all struggling with last week. so even -- these two pieces together -- >> your time is up. thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. montez. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is cynthia montez. thank you for another opportunity to be before you. this is regarding the 430 main project. as has been previously stated on
many occasions, the residents want to have a project built next to our building. we're very much -- we very much want additional housing in the city. we just want the appropriate design built. one that complies with code requirements, respects the urban design guidelines with the master hill plan, balancing density and quality of life, securing air and light to residents. over the past number of weeks, we have found some inconsistencies with tidewater that are disappointing. commissioners, tidewater said they had not seen the david winslow design. according to doug vu, he said he had reviewed the design with tidewater, which we obtained e-mails from your public records to confirm this. we want to work with tidewater to come to a win-win solution. we are concerned they haven't been as committed to this as bay crest. tidewater spent a lot of time
telling you how forthcoming with the community they have been and how many meetings they held. and while i can appreciate how much this has cost them with coffee and donuts in the meetings they have held, i attended meetings where they were not interested in bay crest concerns, but how much their project design was important to them. to me, this does not understand the community's needs but is more about the tidewater project goals. we believe tidewater never considered the two building or two tower design because they wanted to have this 60 foot wide and 84 foot tall space in the center of the proposed building facing south to include units with their million dollar views of the bay. so is tidewater being honest and up front with us? we know they reviewed david winslow's design. what else have they not been up front with? in the end, this is about views for tidewater proposed building. it's about money to be earned at
the expense of a 27-year established condominium community that has been a pioneer in the building of the soma rincon hill. please, commissioners, there is a better alternative to a block building or a block with cut out designs. please consider a two-tower, two-building design. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i have some homework. i'm dane. i live at 201 harrison street. i'm a licensed professional land surveyor. i've been involved in the profession since 197 8. i've worked on projects that took decades and thousands of homes were built. over the last 11 years, i've worked at a subject matter expert with the state of california in the exam development process to create
the test used to license land surveyors. i'm not expert in legal proceedings. area calculations are a routine part of a surveyor's job. i've examined the hand drawn sketches created by senior architect dave winslow who is employed by the city planning department. as a basis of my calculation, i accepted the record of the two parcels to be 18,906.25 square feet assuming 9 project floors covering 100% of the parcel, the total area would be 170,000 area feet, more or less. [ stand by ]
considered institutional use, not residential. the site was developed in the early 2000s when in the western redevelopment area under the jurisdiction of the redevelopment agency. they selected van ness care center incorporated to construct the residential care center. with the redevelopment agency to purchase the property. one condition was that 25 of the required 112 care units would be occupied by low-income seniors for a period of 50 years following the completion of the building. the facility also agreed to provide annual reports, including the rental rate and family size of the occupants. in 2002, san francisco care center, the current property owner was assigned to the dda.
a certificate of final completion. in 2012, the redevelopment agency was dissolved by law, subsequently all the housing assets under the redevelopment agency were transferred to the city and county of san francisco with the mayor's office of housing and community development performing the functions previously assumed by the development agency. as it pertains to this property, are the dda, control of the dda and ensuring compliance with the terse of that dda. in 2015, they requested an annual report for each of the residential air units at the property. it was discovered that the annual reports had not been submitted since the property was constructed. over the next two years, mocd notified the property owner.
an annual report was never provided. in june 2017, a site inspection by the san francisco city attorney office and the department of building inspection revealed multiple violations of the building code, removal of walls and doors to enlarge units and the construction of two separate dwelling units, again which are separate land use category from the care unit. this resulted in the loss of 17 residential care units bringing the total down to 105 in violation of the dda. following the inspection, building permit application, 2017 was filed to abate the numerous violations by proposing to legalize all the work done without permit. it would result in the lose of four care units for common space, four care units as result of merger and nine units being converted into two units.
in order to solicit input from the planning commission on the manner. the department has three issues with the project as proposed. the project as proposed is not planning code compliant. the proposed dwelling units have no access to open space as required under the planning code, nor compliant rear yard. variance has not been applied for. to the current use of the property, is considered institutional use. although the planning code permits the conversion, the loss of the care units is not seen as desirable. the project sponsor states that the dwelling units are necessary to comply with the state law requiring that an administrator is on site 24-7, however after review of the law, administrator on site is not required. the law in question seeks to assure that a staff member is on
site at all times, similar to a hospital. it does not require one person or they live on site. the resulting dda require a minimum of 112 care units with 25 being affordable. the current layout of the building following the un-permitted work would result in 105 care units, in braep of the dda signed by the property owner. the department finds this problematic as they have the authority to revise the dda. any permit in breach of the dda should be denied until and unless the property owner works with mocd to revise the dda. the current project did nothing to fulfill the property owner's obligation provide the 25 affordable care units. the project sponsor reached out
to department staff yesterday to request a continuance. they were advised to present that formally, but i do not believe that happened. the sponsor can give more information on that request. citing a need for care units in the neighborhood and throughout the city, the cathedral neighbors support the continuance of the project to allow the property owner to come into compliance. this concludes my presentation, but i would like to turn it over to the mayors house and community development who can give further detail. thank you, i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, president, commissioners, my name is mike mcclune. i'm here representing mocd on
the request of the city attorney office. one of the deputy city attorneys that represents this work is available for any relevant legal questions. pages 2 and 3 in the supporting materials for this item provide relevant fact that led mocd to issue on july 22nd, a notice of default against melvin lee and teresa wong in roles as general partners for the failure to meet the contractual obligations under a disposition and development agreement, dd & the declaration of of affordability restrictions. the defendants failed to provide 25 affordable residential care units as required in the dda and ddr. they have acknowledged this failure to perform. the defendants have argued that providing the affordable residential care units is
financially infeasible. as noted in the report, there are 25 vacant or converted units within the building now. because the admitted breach was not cured, on march 23, 2018, the city filed a complaint that seeks injunctive relief. the san francisco redevelopment agency was a city agency that entered into the contracts with the defendants. defendants proposed project was selected for development in 2000. two other proposals were considered at that time, but this was the only proposal that offered to meet the needs of low-income seniors, hoping to age in place gracefully. under state law, the agency was dissolved in 2012. with the aprool approval of -- approval oval the board of supervisors.
post dissolution of the redevelopment agency, they have sole authority over amendments and modifications to the dda and ddr. defendants have not asked them to amend. mocd has a portfolio of over 350 operational projects containing over 20,000 affordable units. overseen by mocd's asset management team. the defendant's project is unique within the portfolio. only three other projects in the mocd portfolio provide residential senior units with assisted-living or higher levels of care. they're eager to see the defendants meet the obligations so resources can be made available to the growing, aging senior population in san francisco. >> president hillis: thank you, we may have questions, but first we're going to hear from the pr