treatment will go forward so the public knows when they go once a month or once a week to a natural area that there'll be pesticides there or likely going to be pesticides there. the last one is not exactly on signage but it gets to some of the other things we need to work on and that's increase the barrier between pesticide application and trades and play areas and areas frequented by children to 50 feet. in the future we'll probably ask for 200 but the problem is we need the city to expand the safety barrier because 15 feet not enough. so that's the rest of them so i won't have to bring it up at future agenda items. it looks like i thought there was some meetings planned in november around this and it looked like that doesn't happen.

maybe one meeting didn't happen so it looks like our schedule is slipping so do outreach to the public so let them know the meeting and whatever's happening in january, february and march. >> commissioner: thank you. the next item? >> the clerk: item nine, announcements and items for discussion. >> commissioner: commissioners, any announcements? public comment on no announcements? hearing none, next item. >> the clerk: the next item is new business and future agenda items. the speaker is valdez and the document is the 2018 push on the environment meeting schedule the item is for discussion and possible action.

>> commissioner: is this any discussion on item 10? the commission on the environment? the calendar for next year? >> the clerk: in your pack eth -- packet for the 2018 meeting. the next commission meeting is january 23, 2018. the focus will be on the 100 and the city's routes and having the city powered by renewable energy and we'll have local guests to discuss projects on energy if, and zero mission vehicles among other things. in january we'll review the department's budget and the annual report for 2017 and the next policy committee meeting is

january 8, 2018 and the next operations meeting is in 2018. >> the budget is -- >> the clerk: the operations committee will hear the budget january 17 before the commission hears it on january 23. >> commissioner: that will be an interesting meeting. any comments? any public comment on the calendar? okay. next item, item 11? >> it's public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session on all matters pertaining to the subsequent closed session on public employee performance plan and appraisal report. >> commissioner: can you go back to the dates.

november 27 is the thanksgiving meeting -- >> it's usually the tuesday after. >> the clerk: it's a week after thanksgiving no commissioners were available. >> thank you for thinking ahead on that. >> the clerk: sure. >> commissioner: so then we move ahead to -- >> the clerk: item 12. vote on whether to close hold session to evaluate the performance of the executive director deborah raphael the administrative code 67.10v and is an action item. >> commissioner: i need a motion. >> i move. >> commissioner: moved by xhe commissioner wald and seconded by commissioner to move into closed session to evaluate the performance of debbie raphael.

all in favor? any opposed? motion carries. thank you to all of you who have come to join us today for the come to join us today for the >> so the commission environment is reconveneing from closed session we are in item 13. >> we have to say the time. >> the time is 9:02p.m. >> ok, thank you very much and we're now back in session and i need a motion to not disclose any or all discussions held in closed session? so moved by commissioner. >> seconds by commissioner walls and in favor. >> aye. >> any opposition. >> motion passes s. there any

public comment? ok. the next item is adjournment the time is 9:03p.m. we're adjourned and our next meeting is january 23rd, 2018. happy holidays.

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd

on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings

sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking

ann next speaker, please. >> i'm speaking concerning item 21 the continuance for that. i'm opposed to the project and i notice some flaws that i sent in e-mail to the commission about and -- >> sorry, right new we're only taking testimony on the continuance itself. >> i don't support continuing because it's the second day i've taken off work to come and speak on this. i don't know if i have time on my schedule to come again to come to this meeting again. they keep continue to ask to push it back. also, could you repeat the day that they were wanting to push

it -- >> the commission secretary recommended if we did continue in december that december 21st be the day but we'll deliberate so if you have concerns on dates now's the time to tell us. >> well, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm lisa aubrey. i'm with affordable divis. and it was proposed to a continuance to today which got unanimous approval from this commission. however, the item is not on today's agenda. not even under the continuance calendar. affordable divis has asked many time to be included in mote -- no

notifications and here to ask again, please, how is the public going to follow when the process is not transparent? since the agenda was not posted until the friday after thanksgiving we had to contact the planner for this project to find out the new date and he was unable to confirm the new date until this past monday. we request that the item be placed on the continuance calendar on december 14 so that proper notice can be given to neighbors to wish to provide public comment on 650 divisadero and want to know the captured study which is supposed to be conducted for it and fillmore and other districts upzoned for density. has the feasibility study started? what is the scoping of this study? will there be a scoping meeting? will the feasibility study be completed in time to provide

guidance? will it be increased affordable housing for impending projects on divisaderro and it's concerned with the housing imbalance in the pipeline. i have a chart here. the number of truly affordable units being entitled and built in san francisco is unacceptable. the city is already way beyond its 2022 target for market rate housing. this is from the planning committee from the july report the dashboard. thank you for your consideration, commissioners. >> thank you very much. do you want to share light on this not being on the continuance calendar? >> i can't because my advance calendar showed it was continued from september 28 and may have been proposed for continuance to today's date then actually on the date of the hearing continued further out. >> that is correct.

i'm looking at the minutes from the hearing now. at this hearing it was proposed for continuance november 30 but the committee took action to continue to december 14. >> it will be on our december 14 calendar. whether we continue it then or hear it is where we continued it though staff recommended an original agenda and it be continued today. we continued it until december 14. so it will be on the new agenda then. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm veronica ballen speaking on item 21. i've been brought on to work with the applicants on community outreach and we need a little bit more time to make sure we met with everybody in the community that has question and concerns on this so we ask you continue it. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the item be proposed for

continuance? seeing none, commissioner fong. >> i do apologise, i just received another request for continuance if you want to consider it. that is for item 15. it's the jackson street and a continuance to -- >> i think we should hear that one. >> the clerk: that's fine. >> commissioner: thank you. so people know who may be here for that item it may be continued at least there's a request for it to be continued. >> very good. commissioner fong. >> move to continue the item proposed in addition to items 14a, 14b and 21 to december 21. >> second. >> commissioners on the continue

items as proposed including item 21 to december 31. commissioner fong. [calling roll] the motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> and on the continuance of the variances items 4b and 5 are being continued to the regular variance hearing wednesday january 24 in rooms 408 and the hearings start at 9:30 a.m.. >> and if you can continue item 14b to the date proposed of january 25. >> correct. that will place you on your consent calendar. all matters under constitute and concept calendar considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be considered

by a single roll call of the commission that will be a separate discussion unless a member of the commission or staff or public requests in which the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at separate item for a future hearing. [reading case] consideration use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you. any members of the public that would like to request that item 6 or 7 be pulled from the consent calendar? seen none, commissioners? commissioner richards. >> i have seven. >> a motion on six?

>> a motion to continue item 6. >> approved, item 6. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on the motion to approve 6 under consent colors. [taking vote] so moved. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. through the chair item 7. would you like it heard after the two tight eps -- items for the benefit of the public we'll call 13 and 19 out of order on the regular calendar. >> that's 267 gary and 29 mission street. >> that places us under commission matters. consideration of draft minutes closed and regular meetings.

i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seen none public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion to adopt the minutes for the 16th. [taking vote] >> so moved. the motions passes unanimously 7-0 and places us on item nine, commission comments and questions. >> commissioners? commissioner moore. >> i believe that gas stations the equal locations throughout neighbourhoods is a critical policy issue. i like to see the department gives us an overview where gas stations are, how many there are and if any of those gas stationses are under consideration of closure. i think we're getting into a critical numerical thing particularly at night when gas

stations are quite far from those people who need gas at later hours it becomes often a difficult issue to find one. i like to put the issue of la lawn -- laundromats on the discussion. san francisco is in maybe neighbourhoods wood construction two and three stories where it's impossible to ask occupants or residents or owners to put washing machines on upper floors because the structure of the buildings are not built to accommodate washing machines and dryers. i'd like to get an equal distribution where those facilities are. we do not have to make policy out of it but i'd like to get an overview of where critical infrastructure in the city is that is built the way it is not the way we want it to be. >> thank you. we'll add those action items.

commissioner richards. >> i think along the same lines of commissioner richards. -- commissioner moore. >> your off. >> along the same line of commissioner moore i remember the planning process where we had all the gas stations in the upper market pretty much on every corner like a suburban neighbourhood and someone from the neighborhood said what happens when they'll go away and i said you're crazy there'll still be cars and gas stations and we've seen this over and over week after week month after month. we started with 79 gas stations

when i starting on the commission. i don't foe how many we have left 40, 50 or 60 but i think it not only becomes an issue of a city with the services required to keep the city functions but becomes for me a social equity issue because now there are times i'm driving in somebody else's neighborhood and stopping where there's still a gas station and it's not fair. and same with laundromat. i pull it because we have another one going out of business and i too share commissioner moore's concern not everybody can afford to get up and down the steps or have somebody do their laundry for

them in the neighborhood. i'm worried as well about laundromats and i'd add a weird one to the list, funeral homes. you can't drive your car, you can't clean your clothes and you can't die apparently in this city is where we're going because pretty soon we'll have no more funeral homes either and i'll get that out there. interestingly enough along the same lines while we were on break tuesday november 21, there was an article in the front page of the chronicle about retail space and what's happening with retail spaces. it's not all doom and gloom. some places have a thriving environment like valencia street and there's place where's there's dieing retail environments or some that throw me back to 2008 and 2009 when we were in the midst of a deep recession, my neighborhood, castro and upper market reminds me of that. but it talks about in the article ways to fill the spaces up and it's not all let's get

rid of the new urbanism. there's a few success cases like equity and there's one on show place square another at popo potrero and we have heavy lists now but next time working with the president or chair these are things we need to bring to the forefront and make decisions on and figure out what we want to do with these in the city. >> thank you, commissioner fong. >> while when he have a goal of having no fossil fuel vehicles in the city at some point, it will be a little while and if we can make sure we have gas stations to get us topped of until we get to that point and we're a tourist city and many

come into san francisco with fossil fuel cars and chasing them to other neighborhoods looking for gas can be maybe not the best thing. so i think we want an accounting of where we are now and how many more we plan to lose in a five, seven-year outlook on that is. >> commissioner richards. >> one other factor. there's another article in the examiner on charging stations and it shows cars sold new electric and san francisco ranked almost last at 3%. we still have 97% of cars that are hybrid or not electric being sold. >> commissioner johnson. >> i was going to say the same thing. we can hopefully discuss this. i think gas stations will likely be change their purpose just like a lot of the parking spots

and parking structures we have residential and stand alone and it's part of the transformation to san francisco. it may not be about getting rid of them but shrinking them and finding out the future purpose. >> the clerk: if there's nothing else we can move to item 10, director's announcement. >> no new announcements. >> the clerk: item 11 board of appeals. there was no historic preservation hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon managers and planning department. first on the land use committee agenda was the planning code and zoning map amendments for 1629 market street. the commission voted to approve the items october 19 of this year and people spoke in support of the project or in public

comment. the committee forwarded the project to the full board with a positive recommendation and last was a balanced housing report sponsored by supervisor kim and it was introduced as the new director and emphasized good data is critical to good policy making and there was a report by district and there was information presented on housing cost trends overtime and across the city and described the overall economic trends and impact on housing costs. other comments mostly provided by tenants and tenant advocates on the needs for stronger protects ins housing

affordability. supervisors peskin and fewer asked for variations so the existing equation. supervisor fewer asks for rental rates as in the site of berkeley and they accepted the report and filed the hearing. at the board this week the planning code amendment for the district passed the second read and the landmark designation for 2731 to folsom street passed the their read and had an environmental appeal hearing on the hairball intersection improvement project. it's an area where cesar chavez and bayshore and changes it to bridges and ramps linking it with highway 101. sfmta is working on a project on bay view boulevard with striping

for bicycle lanes and two loading zones and the i am preliminariation of implementation of the lane and there was an [please stand by]

amendment that would increase that to 1,000 feet. this amendment did fail, though, on a 6-5 vote and the board kept these 600-foot distance. the second sticking point was the definition of sensitive uses. in particular, whether or not it should include can child care facility. supervisor tang made a motion to include child care facilities also in response to constituents. this amendment failed on a 6-5 vote and the board ended up not including those uses as sensitive. this also means that recreational buildings that primarily serve those 18 and under is no longer considered a tiff use.

the 300-foot anti-clustering provision and this council decided to vote on the orbit option in its place. while there seemed to be support at the board, the inability to map the orbit option and that it was an untested tool put it out of favor. in the end t board voted to increase it to 600 feet from 300 feet. the final sticking point was whether certain districts in the city could impose limits on the amount of cannabis retailers in m.c.d.s, also known as carve outs. supervisors at one point proposed carve outs in their districts. supervisors tang and yee proposed to add their carve outs to the final amendments but those amendments failed. and the motions to remove supervisor safau's carve outs

which puts a limit of three m.c.d.s in the outter excelsior mission m.c.d. at one point, applied to all of district 11. this motion passed 6-5 vote which effectively removed all carve outs from the ordinance. there were two other amendments of note, both made by supervisor p/esskin. the first was an amendment to require 3:12 notification for all cannabis retailers regardless of the zoning district. this motion passed unanimously. this means that all cannabis retailers even if they're in downtown will be required to do 3-12 notification. the last and most pertinent amendment was a provision added to the planning code that would allow existing m.c.d.s to sell adult cannabis on the day it's effective, which looks like january 5, 2018. this is only a temporary authorization for m.c.d.s wishing to convert to cannabis retail. m.c.d.s wishing to convert to

can permanently would have to file a change of use application, subject to 3-12 notification. these businesses are not subject to any location businesses but most conform to the 1,000-foot rule and there is no mandatory d.r. or c.r. hearing. some of them will be d.r.'d by the public. m.c.d.s have until march 31, 2018 to apply for a change of use authorization and the temporary permit only lasts until the end of 2018. so around 8:30 on tuesday, after three land use hearings and two board hearings, not to mention countless staff meetings and outreach meetings, the board made its final vote on the cannabis uses, establishing land use regulations and establishing the power of office of cannabis, the requirements for cannabis businesses and perhaps most significantly an equity program. the board was working on the nam vote. however, it only achieved a 10-1 vote. and that concludes my remarks.

>> thank you. >> the board of appeals did not meet last week or this, but will be back next week. >> all right. any questions? >> nope. very good, commission. that will place us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public address the commission that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i will ask those people standing in front of the doorway to please find a seat. in order to remain in the room t sheriffs have alerted us that you must find a seat. i'll see if i can't accommodate for an overflow room. but you can't block the door. it causes a fire hazard. thank you. >> thank you. i have a number of speaker cards for general public comment. if i call your name, you can line up on the screen side of the room and approach in any order.

georgia, laura, lisa, daniel and laura. >> good afternoon, commissioners. on october 12, you passed the residential flat policy and i want to thank you for that. and i think it is a good thing you did. i stumbled on this for sale in the caliente quatro between 24th and 25th. it was two units. it's now one. it is selling for $1 million -- can i have the overhead, please? this is my thank you. but i'm going somewhere so you can see there. here's the foreplan. there's no egress from the street. it's got a refrigerator in the basement it's the most egregious one i've ever seen of any of these. it's good you do i. i don't know how it got its c.f.c., but that is problem between the disconnect maybe

between building and planning. when it was at the p.i.c., the staff said yes to keeping 75% and that didn't happen. so, hopefully these things will be fixed up. and actually it's not that far away, which is also in the caliente quatro and 20-room s.r.o. with 11 small retail for sale for $11 million more. i don't know if they're connected, but you have to think if someone decides to make $4 million on a single home illegally converting it, god know what is they can do with a 20-room s.r.o. the other thing on the r.e.t. next week, there is a lat. -- there is a lot of last-minute confusion on that and neighborhood concern over the demolition pushing it into next year. i've always felt, and i hope i've made clear that

i think tantamount to demolition is not a bad thing. overhead, please. you do have the ability to do that. to change the numerical criteria. even if you change the "ands" to "ors," you could do. that i made a little handout for you. here it is. 10 copies. thank you very much. see you next week. >> ok. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is laura fingleserma. i'm a member of indy action. i have been following the residential expansion threshold closely, provided detail policy feedback and shared my frustration with fellow u.n.b.s. one of them, mission residents authored an op-ed in the examiner that is required

reading. to stop monster homes, legalize apartments. i brought copies for you and we'll use the rest of my time and share these words. the "color of law" recounts a range of local, state and federal government policies created racial segregation in the united states and denied minorities to homeownership. keeping apartment buildings out of desirable neighborhoods shuts out the working class, poor and people of color. that's no accident. load density loading rules were designed to exclude. these rich neighborhoods are nearly always given a pass, even when they're well-served by transit. in 2008, the city of zoned emission, a traditionally working class latino neighborhood to make better of its two bus lines. while building your transit makes sense, why wasn't glen park also up zoned? it's only one bart station away?

why wasn't up valley rezoned? it, too, has a rail line and frequent bus line. the lack of new housing in residential neighborhoods worsens our housing crisis. a phenomenon some anti-gentrification activists have called blue lining. gh*ens backdrop, privileged white owners call them monster homes. the change could be to legalize apartments not keep single family homes small. a planning department representative candidly admitted on theirs le, we're not trying to solve the housing crisis with this. affordable planning advocates and the housing commission should ask why not? a single family home and duplex that's not too big is the real issue. the problem is below market rate units that should be being built in these neighborhoods but aren't because it's not legal. san francisco must take bold steps to course correct and end

rich neighborhood's lack of contribution to solving our housing crisis. instead t planning department, as directed by the planning commission, is moving us in the wrong direction. to increase affordability, the city should upzone its residential neighborhoods. please allocate resources accordingly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is daniel bergerac. ied that honor of being the president recommending 300 businesses in the upper market castro neighborhood. three long years ago, the commission approved a conditional use authorization for formula retail restaurant, a hamburger mary's. three long years later and the community is still waiting. this empty storefront is a ghost ship that sucks the energy from our neighborhood. years of promises to the community to open this location by the property owner have also been emptieded. while the community's goal is to have a thriving business at

this location, i'm appealing to you, commissioners, who are also lieed to by the applicant to do whatever is in your power to urge this property owner to move ahead with his plans of three years ago. at the very least, compel him to appear before the commission and explain all the delays and is there a projected opening date? in the years since the conditional use was approved, the property owner has also allowed 541 castro street to remain vacant. in addition, in september of this year, a 22-year-old locally owned mexican business was forced to close by the same property owner who refuse add long-term lease for this restaurant. this space is also now empty. so, i'm appealing to the commission for your help. thank you. >> thank you. ms. clark?

>> hi, laura clark can. m.b. action. i wanded to make myself available to all of you to discuss our upcominging ballot initiatives, which is going to be designed to streamline the production of subsidized, affordable as well as teacher housing built on school district property. i would love the opportunity to brief you all on this. i think that you all will be very impressed with this. and hopefully it means that a few less things are coming across your table. that, in fact, these projects are so worth doing that we can, in fact, find the rubber stamp that is located somewhere in the planning department. [laughter] and make sure that they actually get the support that they need and i hope that all of you will potentially endorse this ballot initiative. i also want to take a moment, you know, as we head into these hearings, where you guys will be making lots of important decisions, to try to hear all the people who aren't hear. all of the people who never come to a planning commission hearing, all the people who receive their neighborhood notification and promptly throw it in the trash because they

don't care. those people have just as much of a say in what happens in their neighborhood. and what they are saying is go on. i want things to happen in my neighborhood. i don't want to stop things from happening in my neighborhood. i am perfectly fine not showing up at the planning commission on a thursday afternoon in the middle of my work day. also try to hear the people who want to be here and want to be living in potential new housing that you could be approving here. try to hear all the people who have already been displaced, who would like to come back. try to hear the people who just got offered a job in the city and are contemplating not moving here because they can't figure out how to make housing work and they're desperately making phone calls to everyone they trying to find a couch to stay on. you know, after trump was elected, some of them lived in our office. this is an ongoing crisis. and there are many voices that you do not hear at the planning commission. try to tamp down on hearing voices like mine.

i am here all the time. i hate it. but there are many people who enjoy coming to these hearings and making their voice especially heard to you. and you should try to figure out ways, actively, in your life, to hear those people who want to get your attention less. because they are not the most important voices. those are the housing secure, those are the squeaky wheels, those are the people who have all the time and money and energy to throw everything they have at you. try to hear the people who do not have all the time and money and energy to throw everything they have at you because that is the people who you are here to represent the interests of. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yeah. speaking for laura aubrey. and here i'm representing affordable duvisidero. back at your september 28 commission meeting, you put it

on the agenda for today. >> we talked about this. she was here actually and spoke during the continuance. we continued it to december 14. >> thank you very much. >> it will be on that calendar. any additional general public comment? seeing none, commissioner richards? >> i just wanted her to hand in that trifold of that house converted from two flats to one to give to the zoning administrator to investigate. >> i sent a whole bunch of that if a p.d.f. to ms. watty and her colleagues. i'll send one, too. thank you. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on to your calendar and as previously noticed we'll take items 13a, b, c and d for 2670 gary boulevard and item 19 for 2918 mission street out of have

item 13a, b, c and d first for case numbers 2014-002181pca, pua and var at 2670 gary boulevard. this is a zoning map amendment, conditional use operation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. chris may of planning department staff. you have before you an ordinance proposing planning code and zoning map amendments as well as a request for conditional use authorization to demolish the existing one-story building occupied by the lucky penny restaurant and construction of an 80-foot-tall, mixed use building. i'd like to turn it over to supervisor farrell. the sponsor of this ordinance. >> welcome. >> thank you. before i begin on lucky penny, i would be remiss without

complimenting your staff and especially mr. starr as we discussed at length the cannabis regulations that were first approved on tuesday evening as chair of land use. we had multiple hearings and he has done an amazing job. so i just wanted to make sure to comment on that publicly. >> thank you. >> in terms of lucky penny, i want to thank you for having me. i wanted to make sure to come here in front of you to express my support and give you a background to my point of view. there's been a lot of construction around this project. especially whole m.s.f. policy. and i want to make sure to say outfront i emphatically can support building housing on this site. period. we're obviouslily in a housing shortage and a crisis and we need this project to move forward. and any housing on the site, from my perspective, is better than zero units. plain and similarle . -- simple. about two years ago, i first learned about the project that was discussed. again, district two, aside from the two projects on the other side of lower village close to

this project, we don't see many housing developments in district two. i'm excited to work on these projects when they do come before. we have major transit corridors here. and i learned that due to the outdated zoning, the site allows for an 80-foot-tall building but it is only allowing 21 units in the eight-story building and the original proposal included three floors of office and 57 parking spaces at a busy intersection. and so i began working with our local neighborhood groups to build some community support around more density. and i think we'll be talking about that over the next year or on these different projects around laurel village. through the community process and through that work, the project in front of you today actually to go from 21 to 95 units and has unified community support, which i think is actually truly extraordinary, additionally through the work of the developer and our friends in labor, this project iss ed and intended to be with

unionized labor. and i know everyone's aware of the difficulty in securing both neighborhood support as well as labor support on projects. it shouldn't be taken for granted and something that i'm proud to propose that in front of you. the 21-unit project that was grandfathered under prop c was at 14.5%, which amounts to two units of affordable housing. the project before you today with the s.u.d. that i proposed at the board of supervisors delivers a 95-unit project with 18% of the units being on site affordable which is now 17 units instead of two that was originally proposed. again, something i'm very proud that we're here in front of you today with. when the bonus program failed last year, i discussed trying it out as a pilot with this s.u.d. to be clear, the numbers really didn't pencil for the project. the land deal was signed with the old inclusionary threshholds so that is why we went with the s.u.d. and again, i very much want to thank my staff who's worked

with your staff and i know it was a prior member of the planning department for working very hard on this. and draft this legislation with the support of the staff all before it passed. however, when home s.f. passed, they no longer wanted to support the s.u.d. and insisted on a home s.f. project. i want to be clear about a few points. first of all, home s.f. project doesn't pencil for the site. if it were home s.f., it would have a lower chance of getting financed as well which would result in potentially no agreement. and we would have large disputes, significant delays and appeals. again, i want this project to be built. i'm excited to have a project that has labor support, that has neighborhood support and increases the inclusionary that was originally proposed here. and i voted for home s.f. and support the program. i know it makes a lot of sense on geary but doesn't pencil for a lot of programs. but i wanted to ask you to

support this project. we're obviously in a housing crisis. we don't have many opportunities inside of district two. this is not just a title project, but a project that will produce new housing in san francisco and in district two. the 18% s.u.d. in front of you today simply brings the site into conformance with current standards. please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. we have a perfect opportunity in front of us. and something i wanted to show up tooed to let you know how much i support. thank you so much for having me. we've been working on this for month and months and months and will answer questions as the hearing continues. >> great. thank you. and thank you for all your work on this. >> thanks. >> thank you. on september 28, 2017, the planning commission was scheduled to consider a

conditional use authorization application proposing to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and to construct a 10-story mixed use building with 121 residential dwelling units above commercial ground force base and seven parking spaces in accordance with the home s.f. program requirements. due to neighborhood opposition to the proposal, the project sponsor requested a continuance of the item. you now have before you proposed planning code and zoning map amendments as well as request for conditional use authorization to demolish existing building. and the construction of an 80-foot-tall, eight-story mixed-use building containing 95 units above approximately 1756 ground floor commercial space, 16 office street parking spaces and 120 bicycle parking spaces. the project proposes new construction on a 12730 square foot lot, which in the nc-3 zoning district requires

conditional use authorization. from the planning commission as well as bulk exception. the project is also requesting a rear yard modification and variances for dwelling unit exposure and for obstructions over street which is will be considered by the zoning administrator concurrently with the zoning commissioner's item. it contains 64 studios, 29 two-bedrooms and two three-bedroom units. usable open space for the dwelling units would be approximately 5576 shared rooftop deck, two interior courtyards on the second floor, totaling approximately 1780 square feet would provide additional nonqualifying usable open space. the 16 off street parking spaces would be located behind the ground floor commercial space and behind the residential lobby and lounge and would be accessed via a relocated curb cut. again, 120 bicycle parking

spaces will be provided both inside the building behind the garage and on the geary and masonic avenue sidewalks. the size of the subject property currently only allows for a maximum of 21 residential dwelling units. the project proposes 95 dwelling units and in order to implement the proposed project, amendments to the planning code and zoning map by means of a special use district are required. on october 18, 2016, supervisor farrell introduced an ordinance at the board of supervisors that would amend the planning code by adding section 249.20 and amending the zoning map that would apply only to the subject property. proposed s.u.d. would require conditional use authorization for nonresidential uses, 3,000 square feet and above and would not permit nonresidential uses, more than 6,000 feet in size. it would permit a maximum of

0.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit and would prohibit parking and loading access from masonic avenue and remove the current grandfathering provisions in section 415 of the planning code, thereby applying the current baseline on site affordable housing rate and at a.m.i. level applicable to all nongrandfathered rental projects to 18%. on november 14, 2017, supervisor farrell introduced the revised ordinance at the boyder of supervisors to add alternative dwelling unit mixed requirements not proposed in the original ordinance, requiring a minimum dwelling mix of at least either 40% two and three-bedroom units, including 10% three-bedroom units a dwelling unit mix which will include some three-bedroom or larger units such that 50% of all bedrooms within the project are within units with more than one bedroom. these dwelling mix units alternatives are required as the same under the home s.f. program. in the absence of the proposed

s.u.d.'s removal of the affordable housing grandfather clause, the project would be required to provide 14.5% or 14 of the 95 units as permanently affordable. the s.u.d. language as proposed by supervisor farrell would require 17 of the 95 units to be affordable. commensurate with the removal of the dwelling unit density control proposed in the geary masonic s.u.d., increasing the number of dwelling units from 21 to 95, the planning department recommends that the s.u.d.s be modified to increase the affordable housing rate from the current requirement of 18% from rental projects to 23% and from the current requirement of 20% for ownership projects to 26%. at the a.m.i. levels prescribed by section 413-.3 of the planning code. it's based on staff review of the level of density increase provided by the proposed s.u.d.

as well as other current relevant city policies. more specifically, the city's inclusionary affordable housing program was recently revised by unanimous action at the board of supervisors this past august. to require all residential projects of mo than 25 units or more that select the on-site alternative to provide 18% of the units for rental projects or 20% for ownership. these requirements apply to projects that have not received any form of density increase and are supported by the controllers' inclusionary housing, economic feasibility study published in february of 2017. dpitionally the city established the home s.f. program also by unanimous vote by the board of supervisors effective as of july this year, which prevent increases of significant density at similar levels as those provided by the proposed s.u.d. as well as building heights and other exceptions and modifications, for projects that provide 30% of the units as on-site affordable.

finally t city's 2016 residential affordable housing nexus study establishes maximum legally supported inclusionary rates that can be required of a project at 24.1% for rental projects or 27.3% for ownership projects. given that the proposed s.u.d.s confers density increases commensurate with the level of increases in the home s.f. program, it is the best judgment of the planning department that an appropriate on-site requirement for projects within the proposed s.u.d. be increased accordingly. commissioners, i two ulds like to draw your atonesing a propose ed condition of approval on page 26 of the draft motion. reads currently that the commission's approval of the recommendation is contingent upon the final adoption of the draft ordinance by the board of supervisors. as modified with the higher affordability rates. should planning -- should the planning code and zoning map

amendments fail to receive approval, be disapproved or otherwise modified to lower affordable housing requirement all proposed entitlement for the subject project should be null and void. commissioners, sinces the publication of the staff report, the department has received 13 e-mails including one from the anza vista neighborhood association, generally in support of the revised project. although several expressed concerns with the proposed number of parking spaces and the impact that that may have on photographic in the area. the department received an e-mail from a representative of the laurel heights improvement association, formally withdrawing their opposition to the former home s.f. version of the project. and i have copies hire for the commission. the department has also receive aned agreement between the project sponsor and the city. which reflects the proposed increase on-site affordability rate of 23%.

the planning department recommends amending the proposed geary masonic s.u.d. to 23% for rental projects or 26% for ownership projects. and the commission recommends the request to implement the proposed s.u.d. and to improve the proposed projects with the aforementioned conditions of approval on the basis that the project represents the sensitive redevelopment of an underutilized site and because the project is in overall compliance with the policies and the general plan and the requirements of the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for my questions. thank you. >> thank you. we'll next hear from the project sponsor. you have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is cyrus and i'm here with the project applicant.