be detrimental to the guard. there is approximately 75 feet of frontage on 7th street and 75 street of frontage on langdon street. the surrounding area is characterized by a variety of us uses including industrial, residential and commercial use. the project site is within a quarter mile of several municipal transit lines and is within a half a mile of the civic center b.a.r.t. station. the project received an environmental review on september 26, 2017 and received a community plan exemption under ceqa. to date, the department has received four letters of

support and one inquiry regarding the project. also, pursuant to planning code section 314, the entertainment commission was notified about the project because it was just under 300 feet within a place of entertainment, and although a hearing was not held on the project, the project sponsor is present and will address any issues. the project sponsor has included public yououtreach, wh is considered in your presentation. all new shadow cast by the project would occur early in the mornings, with all shadow gone by no later than 9:00 a.m. thus, the project would not cast shadows in midday or early

afternoon hours when the park has maximum sun light exposure. the variation of the shadow cast would vary throughout the year, with new shadow being present for a high of 138 minutes and an average of 78 minutes. new shadow would not be present throughout the year, and no new shadow cast throughout the winter. new shadow would affect about one half of the garden plots in summer and one-third of the plots in spring and fall. this is why the park and rec department find that the new shadow cast by the proposed project at 7th street would not have a significant adverse impact on the use of howard langdon mini park garden

pursuant to 295. additionally under the large project authorization, some things to consider. the overall math and scale is consistent with the changing context of the i can't irrelevant and residential development along 7th street. lankdon street's historical facade will be preserved for the main building's entrance. and it will provide a code complying rear yard. overall, it provides for contemporary and consistent architectural design, and the use of high quality building materials. the project's ground floor on 7th street will contain the retail to provide an active frontage, and as previously mentioned, lankton street will

function as the main residential trench which will activate lankton street in that alley. overall, it enhances pedestrian experience, encompassing street activity. the new parking is provided at the edge of the project near 7th street near an existing vehicle access corridor on the adjacent property. this consolidates the off street parking at the location to ensure pedestrian oriented for the remaining of the project. it provides 3800 feet of open space. street trees and class 2 bicycle parking will also be provided for the project. the department recommends approval with the conditions and the basis for the approval is it is consistent with our planning priority policies and general plans.

it's located in a zoning district where residential 2 permits are admitted, providing an appropriate massing and scale for the subject block. it is an in-fill development that will add 40 new dwelling unit's to the city's housing stock, as well as approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial retail in an area of high density housing and continuous ground floor commercial frontage. the designs of high quality will complement the rapidly changing nature of its location in western soma, provide five permanently affordable rental housing units on-site, convert an under used site to a productive mixed use, development, fully utilize area controls and pay the appropriate developmental impact fees, and it complies with first source hiring program. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions.

thank you very much. >>vice president richards: opening it up for comment -- i'm sorry. project sponsor. >> you have five minutes. >> if we can share the

presentation. so good evening, commissioners. i am the project sponsor, from cullis wallace. we were the founders. i wanted to add just a few comments with regard to the presentation that kimberly just made with regards to the history of the project and highlights on the design. so again, the site is on 7th between howard and folsom, backs up to landton and frontage on 7th, with the howard community gardens on langdon. again, it's a sixth story building that was proposed to replace the kpichting building. 40 units, five bmr units on-site. i want to highlight some significant modifications to the project since we first introduced it to planning staff

and the community in 2014. specifically, the original project had a four story building on langdon and a four story building on 7th street, separated by a courtyard. in conjunction with working with staff and the community, made it a position to eliminate the four story building on langdon pushing the massing of the building on 7th street, significantly reducing the shadowing that is casting on the garden by 32%, and enabling the preservation of a portion of the existing building on the langdon frontage. this is a visual of the elimination of the four-story building and pushing of the massing toward 7th street. it enabled the creation of essentially a pure pedestrian and cyclist entry point on langdon, which you will see is

important to the neighbors of the community garden and langdon. this is the entrance of the langdon which will be visible -- the courtyard itself will be visible from the street, and there will be the primary entrance to the building. from a community engagement perspective, as i mentioned, we introduced a project in 2014, had community meetings starting in 2015. worked extensively with the community garden to obtain their support, and they have endorsed the project. they came to our hearings with the rec and park mission as kimberly mentioned. the san francisco rec and park commission has voted to recommend the project for approval, and neighbors have expressed support for the additional eyes and ears on the street that the project represents. i'll highlight a couple of things with regards to design. again, this is a visual of the frontage on 7th street. some visuals of the existing

building, both on 7th and langdon. as i've mentioned before, that facade is being preserved. the -- i -- and i will highlight that in the process of redesigning the project, we also reduced parking significantly from 29 stalls to 20. i really would, you know, at this point, open it up to any questions that you might have for me with regards to the project. these are some visuals of the rear courtyard from the interior of the building, and the -- again, the facade on the langdon side. >>vice president richards: thank you. may whi we may have questions after public comment x so open it up for public comment on items 16a and b, any public comments? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner moore?

>>commissioner moore: yes. i think it's turned into a very interesting project. i think it's much more exciting and unique than it was before. i appreciate the variation to langdon with the courtyard, and i think it will complement the small street. i think it will make it truly residential, rather than just open the back of another commercial building, and i don't see anything other than moving to approve. >> second. >>vice president richards: commissioner johnson? >>commissioner johnson: with this one, i think i'd like to continue adding the trend for three years. >>vice president richards: like we did in 2018, change the verbiage. >>commissioner johnson: two years. >>vice president richards: two years. >> clerk: so basically changing the first clause to say up to two years? >>commissioner johnson: yes. >> okay, and is the second clause and third clause still

remain the same. >>commissioner johnson: that one, too. >> so you want the same kind of language for first things and the second. >>vice president richards: is that amenable to the maker of the motion. >>commissioner moore: i would like mr. michael to come to the mic. i'm not sure if you were in the room earlier. we asked the previous architect if he felt that was in line with standard architectural and trade practices. i don't want to throw a wrench into the realization of this project, but i'm asking for your guidance in terms of where you know where you are in this project. >>vice president richards: so before we go on, do you understand what -- >>commissioner moore: he was in the room. i saw him. >> i think two years to get a site permit is a reasonable period of time, and that seems to be the standard by which if you don't have a site permit

for two years, you'll schedule a hearing to find out why and consider a revocation, and i believe that's a reasonable position to take, to have a site permit within two years. you know, as the prior attorney mentioned, there are a lot of things that are outside the project's control, whether financing dries up, whether contractors are available, whether dbi timely processes permits, but i think the two years to get a site permit is a reasonable standard ro. >>commissioner moore: well, architectee just stepped into the room. architectee, the project is up for approval. commissioner johnson is trying to add an amendment that site permit should be issued under two years. i'm asking for guidance from the attorney general or for the

attorney for the project. >> two years for site permit is probably reasonable for this project, of course. >>commissioner moore: i will move to. >>vice president richards: with the secondary, you move for that modification. >>commissioner johnson: two years. >> you were making a motion. mr. fong was the secondary. >> supervisor: so i see what you're doing. i see what you want to do. it's transparent. it it's obvious. i get it, but i think we should tread lightly and have a real discussion from staff, from other folks and other professionals about throwing that around, and i guess what you're trying to do, and i'm going to put the screws to building more affordable housing and living up to the

mayor's mandate, but i think that last project was special, and whether we start throwing this around for every single project going forward either tonight or next year, i want to know exactly what we're doing to these projects and what it does economically reducing it by putting it on this project from two years to three years. >>commissioner moore: you're talking to commissioner johnson, i assume, because you're looking towards me. >>commissioner fong: yeah, because she had an amendment. >> sometimes it takes about a month, month and a half to get the nsr's together and get all those documents together. >> i don't know enough about try to pass any suggestion on that, that's why i'm cautious about it. >>commissioner moore: i share your caution. >> supervisor: so you're not going to second that? >>commissioner fong: so i,

with due respect, not going to second the motion and add that to it. >>commissioner moore: then the motion stabbeds as it does without the modification dense dense great, and i think this would be a great item, jonas, to add to the mayor's directive. >> i was going to chime in, commissioners, that maybe that we do some internal research with staff to look at some dates for what we're commonly seeing in permit review, basically, and provide some input to the -- the either commission officers to present back to the commission at a later date. >>vice president richards: and include the dbi improvements with that, not just what they've been doing. thanks. >>commissioner moore: can >> can i say something real quick? >>vice president richards: yes, please. >> i guess what commissioner fong is saying, just from my perspective, i said this before. i have thought about it before. i think it is well within our rights and responsibilities to

ask projects to make progress in a 24 month period, and a revocation hearing doesn't mean that's what's happening, it's a discussion hearing where they present progress and hopefully, if we do move forward with that as something that we do more regularly, those hearings will be very uneventful, and they'll either be continued or taken off the calendar, and then, the ones where we need to have it, that's what happens. it's just a shift -- it's definitely a shift. personally, i felt i've thought through the ramifications of that shift. >> okay. totally agree and totally worthy of a full discussion. >>vice president richards: commissioners, there's a motion and second to consider that motion and adopt secondary findings on that. [ roll call. ] >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 17, 2014-001400 enx at

275019th street. this is a large project 19th s. this is a large project authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm ellen, planning department staff. what i've just distributed are copies of the cp that was -- that has a typo in it but has been corrected, so that's what's being handed out to you now. the request before you is request for authorization of a new construction, 68 story mixed use building. the project site is the corner lot at the intersection of bryant and 19th street. the project is located within

the mission area plan and is subject to the requirements for a medium project, pursuant to the 2016 mission interim controls. the project proposes the econo demolition of a six story building, and construction of a new building. of the ground floor commercial space, approximately 2,500 impair feet would be operated as a limited restaurant use that will function as a culinary business use restaurant accelerator in partnership with a community based organization. the project would include approximately 4,800 square feet of common open space, 24 off street vehicle parking spaces in a below grade garage, 81 class 4 bicycle parking spaces, and 20 class 2 bicycle parking

spaces. t it locates the rear courtyard to connect with developing midblock open space. the ground floor provides pedestrian oriented commercial space on both frantages, retains the original bring facade of the industrial building and the project will satisfy the requirements of the inclusionary affordable housing program by having affordable housing on-site equivalent to 11 units and has elected to provide 20% of the uniting by adding one additional unit above what is required by section 415. as part of the large project authorization, the project is requesting exceptions from the planning code requirements for rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, and transparency for the street frontages, and this is to retain the brick facade.

compliance for each of the criteria is described in section 329 of your packets. staff believe it is warranted in overall design. in regard to the 2016 mission interim controls the project sponsor provided a summary of compliance for these controls. staff reviewed the sponsor's submittal and has spot checked that those originated from qualified independent professionals. the motion important topics for the commission's consideration would be the construction of new market rate housing and a mobile pdr space. in regards to the housing, the project will not demolish existing housing stock nor displace residential tenants with the construction of new units. in the construction of new

market rate housing on project and displacement, the project sponsor cited two studies from the market rate controls. based on these reports, the project sponsor's analysis concludes the project is contributing to the supply of housing and likely has no direct or indirect on housing displacement in the unit. the project sponsor discussed the effect of pdr business and the effect of commercial activity in the neighborhood. the existing pdr tenant, fitzgerald furniture company is part of the project sponsor team as the owner of the property, and will voluntarily relocate their business. the project will include space for new business and community serving retail, including the culinary business accelerator space that will promote new

business people to develop their businesses. although the project will remove existing pdr space, the department found that this project, which includes new market rate housing, inclusionary housing space complies with the general plan related to the mission zoning control. to date, the department has received a significant amount of public correspondence after the original correlation date of the packet. to date, the department has received communication from the united to save the mission, calle 24 latino cultural district in opposition of the proposal. they have done so because it provides less than 25% of the units as inclusionary, does not have a commitment to hiring union labor and does not provide replacement pdr space.

they further find the project to be contrary to the mission of the plan, and that it does not contribute positively to the neighborhood and the affordablity of housing. they also raise concerns that the environmental evaluation was inadequate because of the eir's assumption on the number of units built. neighbors are concerned that the height and dense kit is inappropriate for the neighborhood and requesting that it belowered to three to four stories. additional comments concern loss of pdr space, the lack of commitment to union labor, and encouraging increasing on-site parking, and the amount of retail space. the department also has received 51 letters in support of the proposal, including from the mission create merchants association, three local business owners, and four from the fitzgerald furniture company which is the

owner-operator. they expressed support of development of housing in the neighborhood and the proposed development package to create on-site business, restaurant accelerator space and a commitment to hiring small and local businesses. the project sponsor has also provided a list of 64 signatures in support of the project including those employees of the fitzgerald furniture company. in summary, the department supports the project because on balance, it meets the goals and objectives of the general plan, mission area plan and the intent of the mixed use district to create a mix of uses in the neighborhood while maintaining the characteristics of the formerly industrial zone area. the project adds 64 new units to the city's current housing stock. the project exhibited overall design that is compatible with the diverse character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and meets all the applicable

requirements of the code noting those exceptions requested through the large project authorization. this concludes staff report. i am available for any questions. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. proje project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is annie, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. we appreciate all the hard work that you and the planning staff have dedicated to our proposed development. we are pleased to present a development that presents 64 homes, and a robust community benefits package. the design and the programming are the result of several years of concerted planning effort and dozens of meetings with various community members. we developed an innovative project benefit. at a high level our goal is to expand access, exposure, and the opportunities for local businesses, resident students

and entrepreneurs and artists. we are pleased to have partnered with eight siblings of the willen family who own the site and have run the fitzgerald furniture company since 1980. to retain a connection of the building's history, we have greed to maintain the current brick facade and will name the building appropriately the fitzgerald. over the last months we have had multiple meetings with community groups. we have greed to provide a higher percentage of units on-site than required. third, we have reduced our parking by 47%. fourth, we've programmed the ground floor as a pdr retail flex space. we made these changes without sacrificing any of the other community benefits that we're proposing. we received widespread

neighborhood support including 52 letters and 64 signatures totaling over 115 supporters for this project. i would now like to introduce steve perry with perry architects. thank you for your time. >> good evening. my name is steve perry and i would like to demonstrate how we're creating a building that reflects the neighborhood. this image, you can see we looked at the urban fabric, and we tried to understand what the textural feeling of the street was. both understanding the richness and facade and working with the neighborhood -- neighbors' request, we intend to keep the existing facade as a major component of the design, and i'm going to move kind of quickly here, skip over some things. going to our bryant street facade, we've clad the upper floors in a dark metal panel with deep contours then, to reinforce a two story

expression at the windows, we use a light color panel at the slab edge and also utilize the parapets. then, going to our 19th street facade, we have a different expression at the end of the building, and at the ground floor, we create a location for a mural and a garage entrance to the right, clad in the same materials as above. and then, i'll leave you with a street view that really adds to the vibrancy of the street, and we'll work with street artists to create a variety of forensics. now i'll turn it over to monica. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is monica. i'm a san francisco resident and i'm here today to go over a quick overview and the scope of work completed in the community benefits that includes the design, implementation,

monitoring, tracking, as well as goals to create, expand and enhance long-term partnerships with local key stakeholders including business relevant cbo's, high schools, both high schools, as well as other resources to be able to bring other resources to the table. this work has occurred over the last 18 months, if not longer and it focuses on four core areas focusing on eight distinct areas. going to quickly jump into the first one which is -- excuse me -- is economic impacts associated with opportunities -- contracting opportunities for lbe's on this project, both in the design phase and the construction phase. what we are doing is voluntarily layering on ocii, sbe program on this project, which calls out for significant participation by lbe's. next project up is going to be the local, as discussed earlier. local culinary arts program.

it is a program that takes the small businesses from incubation to accelerate and provides space that is heavily developed with barrier removal strategies to maximize the success for these entrepreneurs including 65 to 100 million, flexible licenses, no personal guarantees, these are strategies we will be employing. next one up is community arts. we are working closely with had community art representatives to design something very innovative for this. we believe this can be more than a location for only a mural. we believe there's opportunities inside the building, outside the buildings to curate and rotate and constantly revive this building with new buildings, new images, new themes. lastly, i am thrilled to say that we are wrapping our arms

around those high schools to bring in opportunities and professional service firms. i'm very sorry that it's been cut so short. thank you for your time. >> commissioners, i have a note that we granted organized opposition for this item, so we should provide the same time -- same time, seven minutes -- well, we didn't even use seven minutes. >> okay. >> so you'll have five minutes. >> this hasn't been heard before. >> right. we gave the project sponsor five minutes for -- or excuse me, six minutes for a presentation. we may have questions, mr. weaver. we still have several items

left. we're trying to make sure we're not here all night. >> i understand. so with the proposed project is in a small working class neighborhood that has a smattering of pdr, and it's slowly being gentrified up on harrison and pot remember orer beast up on bryant and we're trying to preserve this. we have 64,000 square feet of commercial space that's going to be converted to high end retail. even the proposed accelerator space doesn't have any price points as to what the rent will be or duration as to how long the arrangement will last, so there's no question with 80% luxury housing that this is going to have a gentrifying. unfortunately, mr. tillman has lowered the bar as to what an

acceptable project is. we're asking you -- we've asked the developer to put in 25% affordable, and to have the pd -- ground floor use at -- vetted by community organizations and with assurances that rents and the duration of the tenancies there will enable community serving organizations to occupy those spaces. you have to decide whether meeting the minimum requirements is enough. this is a minimum requirement plus one, in terms of affordablity. and we submit the conditions should be included that would blunt these impacts: higher affordablity and conditions with respect to the ground floor space. i think i'm going to have to yield the rest of my time since we're running short here.

>> jerry ortiz, united save the mission. this has been -- been a lot of bad faith negotiations that have gone into this. the reason we have 20% of this now, is we had to press for this and it had to be continued on. there has not been much effort to try to work with the community, so this project, as mr. weaver mentioned, is 80% luxury development, so i think it -- to really kind of help mitigate that, we need to have that at 25%. also, i find -- as a graduate of two workforce development programs, both located in the mission district, i find it deeply offensive that you have a program that teaches kids how to gentrify their own development, so the other projects is not fitting in with the neighborhood. this space was traditionally mdr, not a high end restaurant and accelerator.

until we have an mou in writing, or, like, yeah, until we have it in writing then it doesn't mean anything. there's no local hire, and it doesn't comply with the mission interim control in conjunction with the 2020 plan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric caballo, callente cuatro. the only way that you can stop from being advanced gentrification to exclusion is affordable housing, and that has been reached and documented. we saw that it's getting much more difficult to get developers to create more affordable housing in the neighborhood. we are also concerned with the -- the space that's going to be used below the building. it -- we've had a lot of

working class businesses along that street that we lost because of the other developments that came on across the street. we also want to make sure that this program is secured somewhere in an mou. we have to think about those kids and their families where they're going to live because if we're not going to have those kids in the neighborhood, there is going to no program, and we're seeing that a lot in other areas. >>vice president richards: thank you. additional public comment on this item? >> okay. sorry. my name is deedee savella, and i'm fourth generation san francisco resident in total support of this project. everyone's worked very hard on this project. it's been a few years, and development in this city is needed and i have total support

of this project. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. good night -- or good evening, i should say. i'm marypat willen. we're at a phase where we need to down size or capacity. not our employees. the 15 employees with us are totally on base, and are looking forward to a new location, so i ask that you please endorse and support our program and -- thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm alex lipco, and i'm born and raised in san francisco, and i've been going down to this location my whole life, and i'm fully in support of this project.

i love how they are going to keep the original facade -- nervous, and i think the community benefits package can do a lot of good for the community. thank you for your time. >>vice president richards: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. peter pavodopoluos. i'm here with the commission economic agencies and i want to hit on a few points about this project. i want to talk specifically about how -- because they're citing the code, and we love the code, and we love the area plan that we work under, so let's look at the mission plan area plan objectives that this project is not in line with, 1.1, strengthen the mission's existing mixed use character while maintaining the neighborhood as a place to live and work. more than importantly, 1.7, maintain the mission's role as an important location for

distribution, activities. we all know that the urban mixed use zone is being prayed upon as an easy way to make money in terms of what is the best way to convert your dollar, and unless you all here decide to protect that zoning and particularly within that use umu, which is the production distribute repair spaces and the jobs that go with it, we're not going to have those jobs left, and sf made and other folks can tell you, the demand for that space is up, not down, and that was a misunderstanding of the earn neighborhood's plan that was not foreseen, and we want those blue collar jobs. we want those blue collar spaces to stay, and that's what allows our mixed use character, and if we allow for that to keep getting that wiped out, it's a strategy. the community team offered them very specific kind of goals in writing, and those goals, as i understand were not met and turned down and nothing was signed. so we'd like to see something

significant there, in addition to the affordablity. what is actually in writing in the long-term is really what's going to happen. that's how we're going to provide these opportunities and jobs and choices for our immigrant community. there's only one study that matters that's going to kmirm the anecdotal evidence. look what's happening around 1979 mission street right now. well, there is a study that's happening, and it's being done by the san francisco planning department with u.c. berkeley, and the results are not in yet, so we look forward to seeing what those results are. i would ask that you seek more confirm outcomes with the community, something in writing seeks the outcome that we've laid out here. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. any additional public comment?

>> my name's roberto hernandez, and i already spoke to you earlier. i'm not going to speak about the same thing earlier, but what i do want to say about this particular project is if you look at the mission, the mission has been very rich with art, and when you look at the number of artists who have been displaced from the mission, i want to address that today. we have 313 artists who have been deciisplaced in the missi. we have nine arts organizations that have been displaced from the mission, so one of the things that we've been asking developers to do is to have -- give space for artists, and it's great, you know, that they talk about galleries and rotating art, but who's going to be that? is it going to be latino-chacano artists?

well, we found with one developer, it's not latino-chicano. it's white artists, upscale white art. we don't want that. we're trying to preserve latino-chicano art, so i think that's something you should ensure for this project, that it's latino chicano art, it's some people have a been a part of this community. we don't need outsiders coming in. we have created the most beautiful murals in the world here in the mission district. we're known internationally for our art, and that's what we're here about today, is preserving that richness and that art.

somebody approached me last week and said hey, roberto, why don't we make a film about the art in the mission and have some of the people who are featured in the -- in the murals that can come out like live, you know, all of a sudden, it's like you see this mural and the person just comes out live, right, and they start speaking about i'm going to be whitewashed one day, because that's the other problem that we have, is we've been fighting just to keep the current murals that we have in the mission there because people are starting -- i'm sure you read it in the mission local or in the chronicle or the examiner, our murals are being whitewashed. it's like erasing our history, erasing our coexistence, so in addition to the arts, i think what's really important is to have art space.

as you know with the beast on bryant, right across the street, they gave 10,000 square feet as part of our negotiation with them. what are we getting here today? thank you. >>vice president richards: any additional public comment? seeing none, opening it up to commissioner comment. commissioner melgar. >>commissioner melgar: thank you. so i had a question about miss wilson. so you have been doing this for a while? >> correct. >>commissioner melgar: and in your experience, is it common to have a community benefits package that's not signed, like an mou or attached to any sort of commitment? >> i would say where we're at that we've developed on paper that documents the framework of the programs for each and every program that we've developed to date. we have shared those with the -- for example, the school district. i notice you had the school

district letter there. we've gone and met with them to go line item by line item where we're at to this point. the goal as an example with the school district and with many of the programs would be to use the next six months or the first six months of 2018 to refine the plan, to enhance it, but be able to implement beginning in fall of 2018, so what we're looking to do is make enhancement to the framework that we've developed, to the plans that we've shared, to other documents that have been created to then be able to enter into something more formally. i don't believe personally, in terms of developing something and having it executed to you, i don't think that it would be a problem to deliver something th like that in the near term. >>commissioner melgar: but you want the approval today, and i guess i'm just questioning because i see the letter from the school district -- actually, no, emily. but, you know, everything else that you're talking about, you

know, the incubator, and you know, participation from lbe, community engagement, so all of that is good stuff, but you don't really say who, when, how many, you know, that -- i mean, and so i guess i'm -- you know, because you want approvals today, i would feel much more comfortable with more robust level of commitment than just the framework because i could come up with that. >> i'm more personally, and i -- i would stand behind that. for me, that's a fine request, and a fine ask, and something we can deliver upon. >> i can just speak just briefly. there's a condition of approval specific to the culinary incubator that nobody has pointed out, so i'm going to put it on the screen and read it. it's a really good question. what guarantees are there that the project sponsor is going to be held to. i think it's really informative

and i think it will answer your question. can i get the screen -- okay. it's condition 25. it's on page 32, if you guys want to look at it for yourself, and it says the project sponsor shall conduct neighborhood notification for a change in tenancy for the termination of the limited restaurant use. that's a 2500 square foot limited restaurant use as a culinary business restaurant accelerator with a community based organization, so parsing through that, we have to have a community based organization on board to open anything in that ways. we have a community based organization that we've spent a lot of time working with. because that community based organization doesn't want to get involved in politics, they're staying to the side and i think we should all respect that, and certainly, the project sponsor does. culinary business,/, restaurant accelerate tor, that's very specific. we have to find somebody that

can deliver that. monica can go into more detail exactly what that means, if you want to hear that. and thirdly, if anyone else wants to go in there, they have to come back here, assuming that the people in the mission are paying attention, it's a dr process, so notice gets sent out, and then they can -- depending on who the tenant is, they can decide if they want to come back here and talk to you guys about that, and then, the project sponsor or the future tenant would also have to come in here and tell you why they would be a good use to go in there. thank you. >>vice president richards: commission commissioner johnson. >>commissioner johnson: thank you. so i think commissioner melgar hit on the exact issue that i was going to bring up. so i'm on my high horse about revocation hearings, so i'm going to go to my second high horse, which is project development agreements. so we have been -- i've said this over years, but i think

that there should be a process to be able to have development agreements, if only because they happen routinely for really, really big projects. for the smaller projects, people argue that it's too much process, but it allows you to do things like that, and as a veteran for community benefits agreements from my experience in community development, there are ways to write these that are specific and binding, and you show what you're going to do by when and what happens. all due respect to the project sponsor's representative, but i read the draft motion, and it doesn't say what he says. neighborhood notification does not mean that there's a hearing, it means that there's notification, and then, someone has to file dr on a project that's already there, and it's happening, and then, it becomes very easy to say, well, we couldn't get, you know, whatever the case may be.

maybe it's you know, that legitimately, you couldn't get an operator, you couldn't figure it out, but the building's already there. so we don't have a process for project-level development agreements. it's kind of like brain damage every time because they're typically used for really, really big projects where you've got suits voting and all this stuff happening. you don't typically doing that -- >>vice president richards: i think enforceable conditions agreed to by the community and developer are the way to go. >>commissioner johnson: i was going to get to that. >>vice president richards: great. >>commissioner johnson: i think that is the way we need to go, and i'm going to look at our city attorney and ask her, since this is not a development agreement, how does the city attorney's office feel about us doing that and specifically making more of a specific community benefits package a condition. i know there's some semantics there that are important, so i'd like to ask you about that. >> commissioners, kate stacey

in the city attorney's office. the authorize of the city, the government is to impose conditions of approval that address impacts caused by the development, so something that happens pretty typically is a developer talks to the community and works out some agreements with the community that don't necessarily satisfy the requirements the government has to adhere to in order to impose them as conditions of approval. certainly, there are circumstances in which project sponsors offer community benefits as part of their project description so it's included in the commission packet. i'm not sure if what you're suggesting is that all of these things that are listed in public testimony now become conditions of approval. if the city is going to impose

what you are calling community benefits as conditions of approval, i think we need to look at findings about what impacts the project has caused that lead to this kind of conditional requirement. >>commissioner johnson: right. >> i think we'd have to look sort of issue by issue in order to really ascertain what our authority is on the particular issue. often, community agrees with the developer to do things that the city might not otherwise have the authority to impose as a condition. i haven't studied all of these conditions or heard information that would -- that would indicate that there is a specific impact that this project is causing. >>commissioner johnson: thank you. >> that this particular measure addresses. >>commissioner johnson: right. >> not to say that that's impossible, but i'm just not sure about all of these

benefits and what they address. >>commissioner johnson: thank you, city attorney. i interrupted you, and i apologize for that. so i think that you said that much more clearly than i had ever thought it or stated it before, but that's one reason why i had been such an advocate for a development agreement because the condition has to be related to the land use, and this is something that's different, and when you do a development agreement, you start from scratch, and you say we're going to have this project, and you can do anything. you can condition anything on a legally binding agreement, so i'm -- i'm -- i think i say all that to say i'm challenged here with what we can do to require more specific community benefits, and i know that that's not very definitive, and people don't like that when people do it, but i wanted to put that idea out there that this is different than those bigger projects. i would like to see more specificity in the community benefits and have that be a condition, but i'm challenged

with what the city attorney says and what we can actually do that's more stringent in these conditions that we have here. >>vice president richards: commissioner moore. >>commissioner moore: just picking up on what commissioner johnson said. in this particular case, i clearly heard the community speaking about the memorandum of understanding, commissioner johnson, so i believe those things that were described to us in e-mail form by miss stewart would have some foundation with a signature that these are not just an e-mail and represented in verbal language today, but they would, indeed, have -- they would have been a face-to-face meeting to agree and commit to these types of understandings, and there's basically a missing step today. while they were presented well, there was a leap of faith, which we many times have completed where a memorandum of

undering understanding is signed by both parties, and that's why i'm concerned today. there are a number of missing things, and unless the community has spoken face to fake with the applicant, that's what we have to have to go forward with the project. that is he an essential missing piece. that's kind of like having a cornerstone fore a building that isn't there, so i'm very cautious to basically move this project today because unless that particular memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by both parties, whereas only -- more than just in outline form by the applicant, i think i cannot really move on this project today. >>vice president richards: thank you. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the city attorney's office. i just had a couple more thoughts. one is we haveau