because of the fact that we're across from the homeless shelter, the homeless use that as a bathroom. ok, so people like me that go to work at 3:00 in the morning, parking my car is really hazardous situation because you know what you're going to find in there. that's another thing. the other thing is security. we have no security there whatsoever. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. gomez and mrs. gomez. [laughter] >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is rico and i want to say thanks for support of soma and i'm one of them 50% of the vendors. and we're happy to move to piers, because that way we have

more opportunity to come back in like two years, new place. and i just want to say thank you to all you guys to pay attention in our project. >> thanks so much. >> how is the sound there? any luck? >> we're getting very high tech here. ok? ready. >> i think we have a minute. >> i grew up in the industry, my parents were flower growers, prior to that vegetable growers. >> people who came would bring their daffodils or their lilies. >> i think the flower mart has a

longstanding history. >> my father has been in business here 30 years. the members that come to him are the same faces that i saw when i was a young boy. >> mutual benefit for everybody, because it draws a lot more people here. >> the fact that people and customers can come to this one location and find what they need and we're part of that. >> they get to see the product and see how fresh it is. >> this is 100-year-old flower market. >> all right, thank you. >> next speaker, please. good afternoon, public affairs on behalf of kilroy realty and i'm using my time to play the exciting conclusion of the video.

this location, i love. to be at the market, that is what is important to me. to be here. because i can take care of the customers much better. >> this has become such a hub for the city, the people that come, because of the location. >> it's an easy area to get to, we're located right at the foot of the bridge. it's centrally located to the outlying areas that our customers come in from. napa, sacramento. >> kilroy is finding a place for the market to move in san francisco while they deal with the new flower market in this location. >> kilroy is having monthly meetings with us, presenting the design and working the input into what we need. we need a building with good drains in the floor, accessible

water for each stall. there is going be lets loading options for the big trucks that haul product in from out of state. and it's very important for our customers have ample parking. everyone will move together. >> they have to work together. >> no one person has everything, but all of us together, we can fulfill all the flower needs. >> we're coming back and it's going to be better. >> it's important for the neighborhood, it's important a for all the neighbors to have a central place to go. >> i wandered over and was blown away with the sheer beauty, miles of color and light. >> people know where we are, it's an identity. >> i'm excited about the new building, can't wait. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, su sana'a parsons on behalf of spur. we have supported the soma plan since suggesting this transit rich area would be the right area to accommodate growth. the benefits are many and well known to you. 30,000 net new jobs and 7,000 new housing units, plus over 2 billion in public benefits. these benefits depend on adopting the plan as soon as possible so development can move forward. we acknowledge this is not without challenges. including the prep m cap on new office space, high rise condo owners opposing new high rises, and concerns about jobs. our partners and others have spearheaded effort to use central soma to expand housing opportunities within and outside the plan area. we support both these concepts

as long as it doesn't come at the expense of jobs. we maintain that central soma is a logical extension of the downtown san francisco and the best location for anticipated job growth in the city. central soma does deliver significant housing benefit as the department memo outlines. notably, it does this in a mixed use dense environment that is consistent with environmental goals and commitment to reducing congestion. meanwhile, housing is planned for other parts of the city. in area plans, master plans and other initiatives, spur will continue to support new housing of all kinds, in all places. but we believe this area is one of the few places in san francisco where it makes sense to focus on new commercial space. >> thank you. >> todd david on behalf of san

francisco housing coalition, just wanted to talk about -- being used in central soma. it guarantees a couple of things, making sure that the new construction is good paying jobs. it will also bring housing into central soma much quicker. so that is something we should be -- i'm really glad we're talking about having ab 73 involved in the central soma. the other thing is -- oh, the project at howard was mentioned earlier, it's 200 units, 100% affordable housing. if it does not go forward, if we don't get construction started by, i believe it's april 2019, it loses federal funding. so that is permanently affordable housing for approximately 300 people. so that's something i think we need to keep in mind moving

forward. and finally, i think central soma provides us with an interesting opportunity where the commercial property comes on in staggered pieces because of prop m. we can match the staggered jobs with housing. right? we don't have to have every single bit of housing for the 45,000 jobs figured out today. we can look at jobs-housing balance for the first amount of commercial property that is going to come on, i believe it's 25,000 jobs, 8300 units of housing, plus a couple thousand more of housing. we have this opportunity with the prop m staggering had commercial property to look at where the housing is going to go for those jobs as the commercial property comes online. thank you. >> if there is anybody else who would like to speak on the

central soma plan, line up. >> thank you, i appreciate what anne-marie and steve had to say about housing in the city in the context of this plan. i wanted to raise your attention making sure the 8,000 units get built. there are two code provisions and this is getting into the weeds, but that's what i do. two code provisions i would like you to look at. one is the tower separation requirement. it proposes that any towers over 160 feet in height be 115 feet apart, regardless whether they're on the same site or not. 636 fourth street, i'm working on that, there is a proposed office project next door that would not be 115 feet apart, so if the office project was approved first, this residential tower with 300 units could not be approved. there is a provision in the plan

that gives the commission discretion to modify the tower separation rules, but it only applies to a single site at 4th and townsend and doesn't apply to these two sites. i recommend that you direct staff to modify that provision so you can make sure the tower gets approved. >> we've suggested that the tower should be taller than 250 feet, so if both of the projects are built, it's not two immediately adjacent towers that are 150 feet. we think about a -- ground floor height. you recall in the eastern neighborhoods in the umu zoning district, there is a requirement that ground floor heights be 17 feet to accommodate pdr uses. that was coupled with height limits of 48 feet, 58 feet, 68

feet. the height limits are not in 18-foot increments, they're in 15-foot. if you have required 17-foot ground floor, you're going to lose a floor of housing. and it requires retail use on the major street. so there is a conflict in the code, i understand from steve that the staff will recommend eliminating that 17 foot ground floor ceiling height. i think that's a good idea. it solves that problem. i urge you recommend that change as well. i want to applaud what i heard, that the wmuo district will be rezoned. there is a number of small sites that can accommodate housing along brian street and i appreciate you making that recommendation as well. thank you. >> any additional public comment

on this item? seeing none, we close public comment and open it up to commissioners. nobody? commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: i really like anne-marie's presentation today. thanks again to everyone from the public, all the groups for coming out to show their support and/or opposition and put their opinions on the record. i think this map right here is going to show a lot relating to a lot of the things i've said in the past on this topic in that due to the proximity to transit with the new central subway and the transbay terminal, this is an ideal part of the city for the commercial office development. and then also, as far as the

hotels go, close to professional i'm the to the convention center and its newly completed addition, so still looking at this one small area in town, that the offices and the hotels are very appropriate here and not to take anything away from the housing that is proposed. but there is a lot of housing already in the plan. still we're on a weekly basis hearing requests to make housing a bigger priority and especially on other parts of the town, but again wanted to emphasize the importance of the hotels and the offices in this area plan and wanted to echo the comments of todd david about david chu's bill 73 and i think there has

been talk between the city and jane kim's office that are moving forward to implement some measures that will protect workers accelerate the approval for the housing. i really think we're kind of hitting it from all sides when it comes to what we're doing as of now. look forward to seeing what transpires between now and next hearing. >> commissioner moore: enlightening contribution. great reading. i see a deepening of understanding of the plan and still my ears are wide open to all issues being raised and hopes to go forward to be sensitive to everything that has been said. starting with flower mart, temporary relocation. i appreciate the video, but that

does not speak as much to the critique of the pier buildings, but rather appreciating the new buildings as it's coming online. interim time for the flower mart that is important. it would help to hear more about it. this is like tower separation between office comes online first, competing with housing, it's important issue, we need to more understand, it's ultimately a question of architectural merit or other additional heights. and how does it affect the rest of the plan, including

projections on office and housing. and the continued desire for having noticeable balance between office and housing to the extent that it's possible. i found it interesting to consider upping the numbers of housing as a potential new from 7100 to 83, i'm throwing out numbers without the exact numbers here. i like to see that also. paralleled with our efforts to find measures to protect rent-controlled housing as speculation sets in. in a completely revamped district, how do we protect rent-controlled housing? how do we protect against eviction and displacement? i know the plan is sensitive to that, but i think we need to look way ahead because we need to find now techniques to be

stronger on that, mostly as it is occurring. i thought it was interesting to hear the comment that the project is really focused on larger scale projects attention and that medium and smaller projects have not quite gotten the same attention. i hear it as a comment, i am not capable of really understanding it properly, but would like staff to give us a little bit more insight into that particular one. particularly when it leads to costs which would be $90 a square foot. that is a layered cost. this is a request to see it in the range of $41 a square foot. i'm just repeating what i'm hearing. i'm not taking a stand, but i would be interested in more information on that.

local attention to hiring of disadvantaging people has always been an issue of concern for the commission. there was strong support from different parts of union. we definitely want to see that express moving into the nitty gritty of plan. the plan itself cannot regulate that, but to support it as a policy issue continues to be important for us. the increase and amount of support is good to know, however, the long-term vision should be continue to be pursued as we are looking at a plan, not one year, but 25-year implementation.

i am quickly scanning over my notes. there is probably 40% i was not able to mention. i would like to say in principle, all comments from the public i think matter. and they reflect receptivity by them, including myself. each time we hear them, more layers are brought up that i would like to see resonate in your responses, but thank you. it was a major step forward. >> commissioner melgar. >> i will s >> commissioner melgar: i appreciate the presentation, it

was amazing work as always. very strong thank you. there was a couple of comments i wanted to highlight that were brought up by the community. and i don't remember hearing it, so maybe you can clarify and remind me if it is in there. one was the need for interim controls before the plan is implemented and i'm wondering if we considered that in the plan, or if there is plan about implementing interim controls. and the second one is any thought about neighborhood preference for folks who are displaced because of projects within the area. >> department planning staff. in terms of the interim controls is the first we heard of it. i don't know what that means, what would the interim control

be? i'm happy to hear more about it. >> commissioner melgar: i think that specifically it was song cam -- >> i can ask them more about what specifically that means. that's the first we've heard of it. we've had the plan for seven years. if there is something needed, we're happy to discuss it, i just don't know what that means. >> if i could interrupt, i'm looking at tom cam's memo and the interim controls that are the type of interim controls proposed here could not be done by the commission, i don't believe. there would be out of the commission jurisdiction. so there are some things you can do that are really just about adding a layer of process for example. but you can't -- these actually require funding, they require the board to take action, they would require other legal action. so we can explore them.

mayor's office of housing and dbi, i think as i read these. this is the first time i'm seeing these. but those two agencies would have to get involved and a need to understand legally if this could be done within the context of the plan. my sense is there are separate actions that would need to be taken by the board and the mayor to move these forward. >> in terms of neighborhood preference, i defer to amy, community housing and development, as to how that works in practice. can you do that? >> good afternoon, commissioners. there is a code requirement that would require our office to implement neighborhood preference and displace tenant housing preference and that is units and includes 100% affordable housing units. the dphp specifically includes

tenants who are displaced because of evictions, owner move and evictions and fire victims. >> commissioner melgar: right. that's city wide, but it's not specific to this plan or folks being displaced because of specific projects. >> but it would apply to any city-wide affordable housing project, including any inclusion unit, so it would also apply to sites on this land. >> commissioner melgar: thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: so i, too, will heap praise on ms. rogers. i think i say you make a great salesperson. you sold me. really well put together.

we should be like paris or barcelona.

>> we have high rates. we all wish we weren't facing an economic crisis and we know this is not why people would move new. we know we have an epic supply mismatch and the affordable housing is the overall solution. >> the problem si heard -- maybe if you can step in forge -- for a minute. we heard about good paying jobs.

how do we make those happen and what's the cost. >> sure. well, my background is in the labor movement and the good jobs are union jobs. we also know in this professional in this field we work in, there's limited tools to require products be unionized. 8073 is a carrot the jobs are unionized. we have an aunstated strategy ad those are the tools we have. we know the tech jobs are high-paying jobs we have to have the rest of the jobs to be high-paying jobs and they require unionization and they set the bar that brings everyone

up. and we know we can't do anything in the plan as much as have a policy statement. i don't know if we can do that as much as know it's what we want and i know it's insufficient. >> i'd like to my fellow commissioners to look at the minimum policy statement we'd get behind the mods. the worry i have not only to drop the housing balance but i like why you're taking it and you took up the number of housing units by 1300.

i like the way you talked about doing it. and it's not only the housing we're producing but missing and i don't mean demolition but displacement. and there's acquisition of 100% affordable housing sites as well rent controlled building. has that been thought out in the price tag with the community benefits? what's the cheapest way to get affordable housing. >> amy chen again. we work to create unpreserved affordable housing. one of the tools is the small sites program and it allows us basically to fund non-profit developers to acquire and

rehabilitate rent control sites between five and 25 units and rehab the sites. they would be permanently restricted as affordable housing and because the average a.m.i. we capture in the buildings are at 80% a.m.i. we capture a range of households above and below that and this has been a successful tool. we've currently preserved about 25 existing buildings so far totalling 145 units and we have another 15 sites in our pipeline to put us over 300 units total preserved. again, we would apply this program would be capturing sites city wide but we have an eye as part of the existing inclusionary fees allowed to be used for preservation of existing housing so we could and

we will use a portion of those fees for preservation in that area. >> commissioner: great. so i think it's all great, absolutely all great. the work's been very successful. the number of buildings and units, though, to me seems like we need to do more and i know that means we need more money. how much money do we actually have in the fund to acquire these sites? >> we agree we can always do more. i would say that i think the program has been successful and we do know we want to expand the program in terms of funding. there are a few sources of funding for the small sites program. our prop a housing bond funds the program, inclusionary fees, condo conversion fees and plan areas like other funds that have allocated some funding for small sites as well.

>> how much is an available with all those streams? >> i don't know for the distinct fiscal year. i can get that information for you, commissioner, but we programmed our existing funds for the remaining 15 units. 15 buildings in our pipeline. >> commissioner: sure. we've heard a lot of things today in the controls and this stabilization, etcetera. we can pontificate how we want to see the money spent because every knew idea, we go, yeah, we like it and want to respond to somebody in the room but really sitting down with the community and really figuring out what they want and how it fits together when the community comes back and says, this is what we think and here's the price tag. i think that will be a great idea. we're at the end of marathon and

we still have a ways to go and maybe there's more money more sites because the community wants it or for xyz and for affordable space mr. auberling mentioned and price it out and let the community make choices on the parks or do you want p.d.r. space. i really don't want to sit up here and tell the community what they need. i want them to tell me. the other thing that struck me -- the things we can do up here is limited but there's legislative things that need to be done and i'm sitting up here and going it's like the mission action plan where i think the community -- and i'm not telling you what to do, it's just an idea, look at the mission action

plan and see what applies to your neighborhood and say go to your supervisor and say we need a legislative fix here and that here. the plan's not going to solve everything. land use can only go so far. you'll need the force of law behind you. see what supervisor kim or supervisor kim's successor if it goes beyond the election can help you out with. i think it's got to come as a package. the other thing mr. vettel. i can't get my mind wrapped around the power separation. what's it look like? we'll tack that and make another sticky for you ms. rodgers.

the other thing is when we go do prop m allocations i'd like to review the jobs housing balance, if the rent numbers went up and down and what the housing market is and then the displacement numbers. maybe by that time because prop m is doing what it's supposed to do because we'll be allocating office faces only as much a year rather than the other way around where we got all the buildings got built because we banked all that square footage. at that point we should look at the displace many rental numbers and then look at a project-by-project basis and if we've been successful and if not maybe we need to pivot and figure out how to tailor what we

can and can't do to meet the emerging needs of the neighborhood. please sit down with the neighborhood and get prices on things and ret them make the choice. thank you. >> commissioner: commissioner johnson. >> thank you. so much of what i was going to talk about -- >> i should have ret -- let you go first. >> i'm so grateful. i loved the presentation and you guys took it to the next level so i appreciate that. my two favorites slides were housing production and there was

a new neighborhood or corridor specific planning are areas i would like for us to continue to explore. i think we did a good job of connecting the initial dots but i'm still continuing it hear we need to think about how to protect the neighborhood as we're moving the plan forward. and then the other thing i would

say is i know i wonder what other cities we can work with. making a statement is great but i think there's other departments we can work with to try to double down and make sure we can do everything we can do to make sure those jobs are good jobs. >> commissioner: i want to echo what everybody said and we're getting beyond looking district by district and neighborhood by neighborhood on the jobs housing balance which is the wrong way to look at it but on a city wide level and we've had a push to build more housing. we see it weekly here by the projects that come before us.

whether it's the shipyard or other neighborhood. it's good to broaden the discussion because it's regional so i'm happy the presentation can put a fine point on that that's not to say we shouldn't maximize housing. the way the plan balances those and does it works well. i certainly would support the proposal to increase the number of housing units by 1200 for the conversion hopefully we can see that as part of the plan and increasing the threshold to 40,000 feet where you're prioritizing housing.

we have seen a preference for rental housing and we've been more supportive of rental housing than for sale. they tend to skew more affordable. if there's a way to inventive ize housing is worth exploring and considering when we consider this plan for adoption. as far as and there could be areas of the city are more bang for the buck for getting additional housing. and we came up fixing the a.d.u. legislation.

i know there's been discussion about that at the board and with why we're not seeing projects come forward. i support those efforts. and we need to prioritize spending the dollars in the neighborhood for both acquisitions. an office building gets built in this plan area does that revenue go to the pot of city money or

is the priority to use that for acquisitions within central soma or a large site acquisition? >> so early on in the process through the exhorting of the supervisor and neighborhood we got them to commit to not putting this planned money into the larger pool but set up separate pockets that are soma specific. pay the market rate project and if and all the tools are meant to be used and as he said up to 10% of the money could be used for acquisition rehab as well. >> in the land dedication in eastern neighborhoods does that continue?

>> it doesn't already exist in this neighborhood and will be expanded for commercial and housing projects as well. >> commissioner: that's good. we've seen that. sometimes it's awkward to use but it's been used successfully in other plans. it's helpful to have part of this too. and it would be zoned appropriately for housing. does it have to come back. is the l.p.a. idea still continuing? >> that's the crux of the 8073 conversation we need to have. the whole point of 8073 is to streamline the housing. part of the streamline of the housing is not to bring it back to the planning commission and i want you to know -- >> commissioner: but in this plan, there's a large project authorization. >> projects 85 feet and higher come under existing laws and 75

feet and higher we bumped up to over 85. >> commissioner: why not eliminate that? if we're zoning for it >> that's what it would accomplish and give you the labor standards as well and talk about it at the next meeting but if you want to choose not to see projects -- that is your discretion. >> if you take seven years planning this and it's appropriately zoned you still have the direction to look at the design but i'd like to see it move forward. we can wait for the state to prioritize it but i think we can do it locally and why have a hearing on an l.p.a. if we don't need to and we're encouraging people to build and get housing. i would like to see that eliminated from the plan.

and it's a historic site for some reason the city has not allocated funding to do much to it. maybe you can give us an update it's counting on this funding. >> good afternoon john lao. i know have you many moving and complicated pieces that the central soma plan. a possible contribution to the restoration from the cfd revenues from the central soma plan. it's a small piece of the overall public benefits package but it would be of great significance to the public

itself. secondly, let me offer to come

back we're putting the finishing touches on the campaign feasibility study and it should give us of the ability to raise funds from private, corporate and philanthropic sources and we're in conversations with the state of california about a project and they've been an early investor -- and a

contribution from the soma plan would be of great importance to the project.

it would make every subsequent dollar that much easier to leverage. >> commissioner: do you think what's in there is enough to get you to that number. >> i won't opine on what the right figure should be. i'll leave that to policy makers. staff has had a dedication to the program from the start and have community dialogue and we think an appropriate one given the city-owned fast -- facility would be appropriate to have it as the steward to the project. we'd happily put every dollar it good use in leveraging the other sources we mentioned, yes.

>> commissioner: thank you. commissioner moore. they said about 8073, does 8073 include the clause because if we're talking about the production of housing and such a provision is key and has intention and i want it pick up two additional comments. the public mentioned a larger range of a.m.i. and affordability is the issue, not so much housing but affordable housing. that was a comment that resonated with me and i'd like to address mr. fry in addressing item nine today there were three additional sites identified by hbc.

there was an a local 70 union haul on bryant and we identified resource would be part of the plan. there were two tending sites for designation and harrison. i would like to see them depict in our plan and how the moves in central soma may or may not affect the sites but i'm interested the buildings do not look like isolated historic preservations. [please stand by] .

-- use it or lose it is not mandated. we can look at this with the city attorney's office if it's feasible or legally allowable. we could pursue that the things that are required, i don't have the exact bill in front of me. it does require on-site affordability. if you are doing off-site, you

are not eligible. it's the prevailing wage provisions and those are really the two primary provisions. it has to be a housing project, obviously. other than those, there is probably some latitude for the city to set parameters around it. in terms of the streamlining provision of the bill, it does require things to be approved, not subject to ceqa analysis and no discretionary actions on the projects. however, the bill does require, an actual public hearing on the project, for the department to or the sponsor to present to the commission to show how it meets the code and design standards that are in effect and for the public to basically see the project, but it does not allow

for the hearing to have any discretionary actions or approvals. it's similar to how you see things from merced and others to come for informational presentation on those projects. and so as the local housing sustainability district ordinance is drafted, you would have the ability to weigh in on that. >> commissioner moore: i know you are only the deliverer of a message, but i believe that a comment to sacramento would be timely. in order for us to meet increasingly number of applications, i think we need a use it-or lose it provision for it to have stake. our city is getting larger and our reality is very slow, relative to the goals that we have to meet and don't have the proper tools. >> commissioner richards: the city has to take a legislative

action to establish one of these districts. so i would be surprised if we could not add our own provision for use it-lose it clause. i believe that we would have the ability to institute that on our own as part of our city's designation of the district. >> commissioner moore: i appreciate you verbalizing that. i think we need to give each other support on exactly heading into that direction. >> the second question you pose is around the range of amis. i will defer that to my colleague, amy chen, to speak to what the comments provide in terms of the range of incomes. >> amy chen again. for fees generated from the plan that will come from our office for the creation of new, affordable housing, that will

serve low-income households. as i mentioned earlier, the dollars that can be spent for the preservation of affordable housing, existing rent-controlled affordable housing, we require sites that come through our small sites program to be averaged at 80% ami, so they can be below and above up to 100% ami. for units created -- required through inclusionary, whether they're onsite or offsite, through recent board legislation, there will be different buckets of income requirements, so averaging 55%, 80% or 100% ami. through the units created through 100% affordable housing projects, we'll be able to serve low-income households and through the range, a range of households. >> president hillis: commissioner richards?

>> commissioner richards: three things. first, i think that the city should have a use it-or lose it provision, or else we'll be sitting here in five years and people rushing their approval. we need to be reasonable, but we need to be firm, that if it's streamlined, it gets built and within a reasonable time frame, not years and years and years later because you don't have the funding or whatever. i think we should have at some point in the future a flower mart informational. there is so much about the flower mart that's become a morase. how did we get here? we get a bouquet of flowers and 1,000 letters. and commissioner johnson, you said, you are asking for an invitation to ideas. everybody keeps saying, it's a great idea. everybody is saying, geary, g r

geary. i think one of the biggest issues for a lot of people around sba27 is the unknown. and the only thing i could kind of say that even similar to this is that i would really go, have a block, pull people together in a block that they live and designate it like people do community designated districts and only require 30% of property owners to opt in. as a result, you can have an experiment to see what 55 or 85 feet looks like somewhere. and maybe people once they see it's not so bad or it is bad, let them judge for themselves. also, there's a big upside in profit potential that people don't realize. it isn't so bad, tradeoffs in profit from the value of the land go up. so i'm okay with it. i don't know. i would do that.

try it like a cbd and get 30% of people from a block to subscribe and change the zoning on the block and let's see what happens. >> some cities have done that, sort of unzoning and saying, have at it. i'm not sure that you want to go that far. some canadian cities have done that. >> commissioner richards: what's the result been? >> it's a mixed bag. the challenge is ceqa. you have to analyze something. so it's -- ceqa gives us a limited range of what we can look at. >> commissioner richards: some zonings don't require ceqa review. >> the projects would. >> commissioner richards: an 827. >> that simply changes zoning, but individual projects would have to go through review. if i could on the flower mart, steve mentioned this earlier, not only will you have to approve that project, it

includes a development agreement. so you will be seeing that project in a number of different ways. >> commissioner richards: so ab73 applies to housing, not office? >> yes, that's right. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: it's a codify rule that cannot be explained without the buildings, had that on harrison. there are rules that can be easily explained. >> president hillis: thank you. and thank you, staff, and members of the public, who continue to positively shape this plan. we'll see you back here on april 12. all right. we're going to go to the item that was called off consent next. >> clerk: moving to items 7a and b for 2009.0753c and v, 3155

cesar chavez street. consider conditional use authorization and request for variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> if people could keep it down. >> constructional use authorization to construct a second story to a religious institution within an rh2 zoning district.