that is family-friendly. but when you have businesses competing and outbidding families, there won't be a lot of families remaining in the sunsets. again, there is 40 storefront vacancies. 150 in the sunsets. you have other local players who know with the sunsets. for example, story book. they choose to be a repair shop for tvs. they will be able to serve 40 kids. it was not a dwelling unit. there were also -- they will also be able to serve 40 kids. so what they did, they took vacant commercial space on the commercial corridor and turned it into a preschool. that is what they should be doing. once again, today we are not talking about permitting childcare and preschool his. it is already permitted on the ground floor. they are licensed to serve the children.

you don't need the upper floor to operate. you will be voting on allowing office space to replace a family -sized home on a zoning property in the middle of the worst housing shortage that we have. literally building no new housing in sunsets. so this kind of behavior, helping people -- removing the home will become a trend. we will tell you we have seen that in other places. and one home that was removed is pretty significant. on the sunset block there are only 45 homes. please keep -- keep the same consideration for removal as -- just like adding. we have outside players. how would you feel if the product -- we are not against small childcare. just not in place of housing and

just not when it will create a trend. a trend that wouldn't matter if the sunset is not building enough homes. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you , very much. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> commissioner richards: commissioner -- questions for the public sponsor. can you please come to the mic? so the speaker in opposition to the loss of the dwelling unit mentioned that other childcare centres are in true commercial spaces. you are in a commercial district but you are a bona fide residence and you are allowed to serve 14 children from the ground floor but maintain the residence above. when you bought this house, did you consider buying a vacant storefront or a vacant commercial building with may be a rental unit above?

>> we would love to find a commercial space provides the type of outdoor space that licensing asks for and the type of exits. we did look at another commercial, fully commercial property in another part san francisco. we try to work with the city and we brought the fire department to, the issue. it was an issue of double exits. proper dimensions and safety for the children was our main concern. and then this property was presented to us by the realtor and discussed with zoning. that is what makes us think -- besides the fact that we are familiar with the area, we live right up the road. we are not a paulo alto -- palo

alto company. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: i support this project. we have a housing shortage and a shortage of childcare space. in san francisco, we have one childcare slot for every 15 kids who needs them. for some populations like latinos and african-americans, that shortage is even higher. so i fully am in support of having this project. i am also in support of being creative of where we use childcare spaces. san francisco is a city that is all filled out. and specific requirements over which we have no control on the local level. because they are state requirements that have exits, you know, open space, all kinds of physical requirements that make it nearly impossible to

find adequate spaces for childcare. so i am fully in support. sunset is a neighborhood that has some of the largest concentration of children and it is woefully underserved. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i am in full support. in addition, he needs to be noted that the applicant stated that this building will be able to return to residential and i think that says enough for me. i moved to approve. >> commissioner richards: second. >> clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded. on that motion -- [roll call]. >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. commissioners, item 13 is case number 2018, for the market at

octavia plan amendment on mission street. this is a general plan amendment this is for your initiation. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the manager of legislative affairs. the item before you is the initiation of general plan amendment to add addresses to map a one of the octavia plan and show them as owned as see three g. on october 23rd of this year you initiated a general plan amendment for the same project. these general planned amendments are in response to a zoning map change introduced by the san francisco real estate division to rezone mission street. the purpose of the real estate division is to align the zoning with the existing and historical uses of the property. the properties have been used for office space that are currently used as city offices. however, the title recently was transferred from the city to a

private owner except for 1650 mission which is still owned and occupied by city departments. the purpose of the proposed general plan amendment is to ensure the real estate division 's proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan. what is before you is only the initiation of the general planned amendment and does not constitute an action on proposed general plan amendment or the zoning amendment. the department is recommending the commission approved a resolution for consideration on or after october 25th, 2018. that concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: thank you , mr starr. is planning staff initiated, write great we will go to public comment on this item, if there is any. seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioners? commissioner koppel cream. >> commissioner koppel: moved to initiate. >> vice-president melgar: second. >> clerk: and also schedule a hearing. very good. on that motion -- [roll call].

>> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously at 6-0 and places us on item 14 a and b. this is a general plan amendment and zoning map amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm from planning staff. before you today are two proposed ordinances don't make changes to the property at 175 golden gate avenue. the proposed zoning map amendment ordinance was introduced by supervisor kim on june 12th. the ordinance to rezone the subject property from rc for, which is residential commercial high density, to see three g which is downtown general commercial so that it may participate in the transfer of development rights program. the proposed general plan ordinance was initiated by the body on august 23rd. it would expand map one of the

downtown area plan to include the property at 175 golden gate avenue. the purpose of the change is to allow 175 golden gate avenue to be eligible to sell their credits. 175 golden gate is located in the tenderloin in a neighborhood made up mostly of midrise apartment buildings and converted industrial buildings. is home to many charitable organizations and religious institutions such as a st. boniface hospital church. the majority of the tenderloin is stoned r.c.4 however some blocks are zoned c3g including the church. in 2014 the board of supervisors approved an ordinance amending the zoning map, rezoning 133 through 135 golden gate avenue which is that saint boniface church directory -- directory and amending map one of the downtown area plan to include

that property in order to provide for eligibility to sell their rights. on september 5th, 2018, the historic preservation commission heard this item and approved the proposed change of designation for 175 golden gate avenue to a category three or contributory building. the preservation planner who took the case before the h.p.c. is also here today to answer any questions you may have related to the hbc's decision. the department recommends a commission approves the proposed map to planning code and general plan amendments. based on the review, this meets all of the proposed criteria used for evaluating a new t.d.r. opportunity. that conclude staff presentation and sharon ferguson and i are both available for question. >> president hillis: thank you , very much. we will open this up for public comment. if there is any. we do have one speaker card. sorry.

>> i am here representing the project sponsor. i will not make a presentation. if you have any questions, we are available. >> president hillis: ok. thank you. >> hello. thank you, so much, commissioners for everything you have done. i represent saint boniface church and i'm here because we found out about this notice on the wall and then -- even though 175 is referred to as the academy, we want to make sure there is a correction about naming saint boniface church as a beneficiary for the t.d.r. rights, the money of the t.d.r. i'm also here representing our corporate attorney. i am part of the finance consult and i work hand to hand with him

we want to make sure. we are here. if you can take note to, our mailing address is 133 golden gate avenue. we have no clue about this until we find out this posting on our wall. and of course, we work for the homeless and also for the children in the tenderloin. we are very happy for the work you guys are doing for us and rezoning this particular building, because the church owns the property. and the address is correct. only 175 needs to be rezoned. that is all. i just wanted to make those corrections. we are actually very happy for what is happening to our church. thank you. >> president hillis: great, thank you, very much. is there any additional public

comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioners? commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: i make a motion that we approve spee 82nd. >> clerk: on that motion, to approve the amendment his, -- amendments -- [roll call]. >> clerk: so moved. at passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, and tim 15 for case number 2014.0376 on mission street, conditional use authorization. >> there were three pieces to this motion. do they all include a, be, and see? >> president hillis: yes.

>> good evening, president to lists and members of the commission. i'm from the planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to allow new construction over 25,000 square feet in the eastern neighborhoods mixed-use district and for the merger of lots resulting in a frontage greater than 100 feet. on november 30th, 2017, the planning commission approved the project via the planning commission motion. on january 2nd, 2018, an appeal of the environmental document was filed citing the project did not qualify for a community plan exemption. at the june 19th, 2018 meeting , the board of supervisors unanimously voted to uphold the appeal, reversing the determination that the project did not require additional environmental review and directing staff to conduct a

more detailed analysis of shadow impacts on an early education school. the cpe has been updated to include a shadow analysis and his back before the commission today along with the project entitlement for your consideration. since the november 2017 approval , the planning commission -- planning code section 121.7 was revised to require conditional use authorization for the merger of lots which will result in a frontage larger than 100 feet in the mission neighborhood commercial zoning district. because the project will result in a frontage of 120 feet, the cua has been added to the entitlement. the project itself has not changed from the november 30th , 2017 approval. this project consists of merging a three lot into a single, 11,653 square foot lot, demolition of a single story

commercial building and construction of an eight story, 84-foot 8-inch tall mixed-use building. the project includes 75 residential units, 6,724 square feet of ground for -- ground floor commercial space, bicycle spaces as well. the project includes eight on site affordable units which will be available for rental. pursuant to california government code s-section-sign section 65915 through 65918, the project sponsor has elected to use a state density bonus law. housing development that includes affordable housing is entitled additional density, concessions and incentives and waivers from development standards that might otherwise preclude the construction of the project. the findings of the planning code have been included in the revised motion, which i handed out at the beginning of the presentation.

in accordance with the planning department's policies regarding projects seeking to perceive under state law, project sponsor has provided a 55 unit base project that would include affordable housing, to very low income households. because low income households income -- pardon me. because the project sponsors providing seven units of affordable housing to very low income households and one unit 2181 income, a 35% density bonus is allowed. the project seeks waivers from the following development standards. rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, bulk, and bulk. height and bulk. the subject property is currently a commercial building occupied by a self served laundromat and associated service parking lot. it is owned and operated by the project sponsor.

therefore no residential uses are existing tenants will be displaced. in addition to the prior public correspondence received and reviewed by the commission of the public hearing on november 30th, 2017, the department has received an additional three e-mails and one letter in opposition to the project. all correspondence cited the building is too large and not appropriate for the neighborhood staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization request as noted in the executive summary. the project is generally consistent with the applicable requirements of the planning code. it is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, it is located in a zoning district, residential ground floor retail uses are principally permitted, the project is consistent with and respects the varied neighborhood character, and provides appropriate massing and scale for the context. the project complies with the first hiring program. it will produce a new mixed-use

development with ground for retail and significant sight mac updates including landscaping and open space. the project is consistent and respects the existing neighborhood character and provides an appropriate massing for midblock site. the project will add 75 new dwelling units to the housing stock, including 18 studios, 27 one-bedroom and 30, two bedroom units. the project provides zero on site parking which supports the transit first policy. it will add on site affordable housing and will designate 14.5% of the total number as the base project dwelling unit as part of the inclusionary affordable housing program and it will fully utilize the eastern neighborhood's area controls and will pay the appropriate development impact fees. to discuss the community plan evaluation, the shadow -- of the shadow impacts, i would like to introduce julie more from the

environment the planning division. i am also available for any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you >> good afternoon members of the commission. i am from the environmental planning and i am joined by our principal planner. as linda mentioned, i will address the additional black and -- environmental review we performed for the project. in response to the board's direction, the planning department updated the c.p.e. to include additional analysis of the shadow effects of the project on the early education school. the remainder of the c.p.e. has not been changed. because the board found the environmental analysis of the project to be adequate in all other respects, the commission's consideration of the revised c.p.e. is limited to whether the additional shadow analysis is adequate. we evaluated the shadow effects on the schoolyards according to the well-established quantitative methodologies used

for shadow analysis on city parks, subject to planning code section 295. although schoolyards are not subject to this section. under these procedures, quantification of shadow effect is expressed as a percentage of the theoretical annual available sunlight. i will summarize the findings on the two schoolyards. to orient to you, i have a map right here. overhead. >> commissioner richards: side down. >> you can see the project site on the right. so there is to schoolyards. the main schoolyard is to the south of the proposed project and it has a large yellow school yard there. that is the prekindergarten yard the one across the alleyway that is on bartlett street has the

schoolyards that faces the project site across the alley. for the prekindergarten yard to the south, the shadow study showed the proposed project would increase shadow by 0.2% of the theoretical annual sunlight. during school hours, projects related shadow would cover approximately 5% in the early morning and leave the player to my 9:00 am or 10:00 am which would overlap for the first ten minutes of the morning recess period. the shadow would reach a prekindergarten yard in the late afternoon, as early as 4:45 pm and most of the late afternoon shade occur -- would occur after the prekindergarten school 5:30 pm closing time. for the transitional kindergarten yard to the west, the project would increase shadow by approximately 17% on an annual basis. net new shadow would fall on the yard year-round in the early morning and would leave the yard by 11:30 am from late february

through mid-november, and by about 10:20 am during the remaining -- remainder of the year. [please stand by]

-- currently shaded by a gazebo, and stand of trees. therefore, the actual amount of

net new shadow would be less than calculated in the shadow study. i have a few photos from a site visit. there you can see the sand box with the cover and the shade of the trees on the south end of the site. and here's on the north end of the property shading between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. hour existing on the schoolyard. shadow from the project, noticeable during morning recess times at certain times of the year, would not substantially affect the use of the schoolyards and would not exceed levels commonly experienced or expected in a dense urban environment. for the above reasons, the proposed project would not result insignificant impacts related to shadow that were fought identified in the eastern neighborhoods program e.i.r. that concludes my presentation

and i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. mark wilbur, on behalf of rrti. i want to start by thanking planning department staff for its tireless work processing the 2918 mission street project in november, 2017, and then defending ceqa in front of the board of supervisors. in particular, special thanks to linda, julie, chris kern and others. as some of you may know, the board of supervisors's actions regarding that project is the subject of ongoing litigation between rrti and the city. unfortunately, until it is resolved, i cannot offer any further comment and refer you to the letter that was sent by

rrti's litigation counsel on tuesday. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. we'll open this item up for public comment. why have any speaker cards. if you would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room and you can approach in any order. >> good afternoon, commission president hillis, and fellow commissioners. i frequently pass by this laundromat. overhead, please. near 25th and mission street. robert tillman is an investor and he is interested in getting his project entitled.

hes is -- he says that once he gets the entitlement, he'll sell it. he's not interested -- he's not capable of putting money into the project to get it built and he doesn't have the expertise. so let's take that into consideration as far as rushing the project through. this is what he is, an investor. second, he didn't like the shadow study. and why like the results of the shadow study. as an educator, and i hold a master's degree in early childhood education and i'm a former preschool director. i see the importance of the children having the sunlight in the morning hours.

you see that the percentage that's going to be covered in the morning hours when the preskochool kids are out there significant. you can't make light of that. and the pictures that you saw of the trees in that photo have no leaves on them. i passed by there. they're cut way back, just to the stumps. so you can't say that there's an overhang of trees, you know, covering that place. if indeed the project does get approved, i'd say you need to have more family housing on that site. and you should listen to the needs of the community, the needs of the childcare, and the children especially. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. gus hernandez. i emailed you earlier today when i found out that this was on the agenda. and my question is -- where is the base density calculation for this project? 2918 mission is a state-analyzed density bonus project. the planning code section 206.5 gives specific instructions on how to demonstrate that you qualify for a height bonus under the density program. 206.5 says, "if the applicant demonstrates that they qualify for a height waiver in the following program. calculate base density and bonus density limits. the planning code continues to calculate base density." 206.2, definitions, "lot area

divided by the maximum lot area per unit permitted by existing density." again, i will ask, where's the calculation for base density for this project? it wasn't included in the application. my guess is that the project sponsor worked backwards, they proposed the building that they wanted to build and then they worked backwards to figure out what the base density would be to get to that number. i know this because we have a very similar project on divisadero, which i've mentioned here before, 9-story building in our 65-foot height limit corridor. we have a prescriptive planning code that defines how to calculate base density why should any project be exempt

from following the planning code? if any project can use the density bonus, then the planning code must be amended to provide a way to calculate that bonus density limit. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. ms. sorenson. >> marie sorenson. i haven't been here for the tillman in a while. and it still fries me that he fights all development in sausalito because he doesn't want his views blocked. well, i just think it's wrong. really, would you send your kids to a -- this is essentially a preschool, that their recess is in a moldy, dank yard that's probably going to be cold because of the shadows?

the new shadow study has found that the proposed project will cast a shadow up on 63% to 67% of the playground up from the current 3% to 8%. the consequences of inadequate sunlight for children, small children in particular, adequate sunlight is essential for the development of bone structures. it doesn't cut it. kids get ricketts. children that spend more time in the sun are less likely to need glasses for nearsightedness due to changes in the eye, influenced by light exposure not enough sunlight early in the day affects sleep patterns and the students' ability to learn. why can't there be a setback or

some other change in the project to mitigate the damage the lack of sunlight that will be inflicted on the playground. it will be kids 0, tillman millions. the children always lose. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i i i'mhere to tuck about the lack of local control that the density has created. like any community, any input into the entitlement process to ensure that projects are affordable, equitable, conceptionual and provide community benefit. this project does not. it hurts us. it hurts the community. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. laurica petrochella, united to save the mission. i wanted to speak about a couple of things, first, the use of density bonus to circumvent the area plan 2.1 that states that those wish to develop market rate housing would be able to do so only under the following requirements. number one, that they provide a high percentage of units, affordable to very low, low, moderate income households on site through super inclusionary requirements, beyond the city's inclusionary program. and the use of the density bonus in this project has not brought us additional affordable housing but rather now makes the percentage 10.7%, which is the lowest to date in the mission on a project that has 75 units. only 8 units will be affordable.

and i know that gus spoke to planning code section 206.5 that we haven't seen the calculation for the base density bonus. and so we'd like to see this reviewed before the project moves forward. when you add this amount of density, it's why the map, 2.1, objective, asks for that. and then the second thing is, k circumventing of the lot mergers the whole idea is so that we have variation in our architecture and don't just have one, large massing. and this large massing and this frontage has also allowed the project sponsor to just do two commercial units that are very large in size. one over 3,000 square feet and

one over 4,000 square feet, which typically are not attainable to our mission businesses and they really should be broken up into at least four spaces. the only people that could afford that size of space are going to be somebody that has a lot of venture capital behind them or some other capital behind them. they will not be available to our local businesses. so we're very concerned about the massing of this building, how it looks, and the circumventing the lot mergers and the affordable housing. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i want to speak here on behalf of the children. if you study the demographics of

san francisco, a population, 830,000 and if you review all the documents from the san francisco unified school district, which really comes under the state, and then you go into our charter schools and then you go into our childcare, you will see that the city hasn't done justice to our children. so when the so-called representatives come, with the backing of the district supervisor hillary ronen, they back a project without representing the children. so what happens in a planning commission like this, you will go to a place of rubber stamping because you do not hear

qualified, meaningful expertise that can represent the children. a couple of the people commenting today have brought to your attention about sunlight. but we don't know the operators, if they could accommodate, say, an atrium, or go to europe and check and see how children are accommodated in those because of the many months they have of winter. we don't look at that. we just look at the drab schools that we built, including willie brown middle school, which is a joke. a lot of money went into that school and he doesn't do

justice. so i don't know this project and where it comes from. and i see them here in planning. most of the time i'm at home and watching it and doing my analysis. but we need the expertise of the people that are on education. you will be surprised. if we don't care for our children, if we don't care for our infants, from being infants to 5 years, 5 to 10, then, you know, we're not doing due justice. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm not sure how much you guys got into the shadow study or how much you were able to look at

it, but i don't think the environmental planner portrayed the numbers as they should be. the entire transitional kindergarten playground will be in shadow most of the year until 11: 30 a.m. the school is only open until 2:00 p.m. that's half the school day. that's is aingsignificant. we're allowing a triple lot merger. if southern lot wasn't built, a lot more sun would hit that schoolyard. that's where a lot of the sun is being blocked from part of the year. it's hard to believe that the planning code will allow the shadow increases for half the school day when we regulate things like the sun on alleys so the sun has to come down 45 degree angle so the sunlight hits the sidewalk for pedestrians. i think the community deserves a better project. the density bonus invoked is a

kick in the face to the vulnerable community being displaced and priced out at an alarming rate. a district made to planning codes stress promoting structures and diversity of land. this is a true example where local control is important. you know that. you feel that. only local jurisdiction can properly oversee that projects move in a direction that benefits the community. this project represents the lowest possible benchmark of community-minded development with the affordability. there's been no community negotiation with the project sponsor. it's kind of an unfortunate thing. wanted to bring those things to your attention. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. there are three things in this project that we want to address and folks have been talking about. first, the shadow study.

there's significant impact in the school, particularly in the back. 63%, even in their documents of the shadow study, says increase of 63% from sunrise to 11:30 a.m. that program only goes until 2:00 p.m. so they're losing a significant amount of sunlight. secondly, the density bonus, that's taken away any input for the community whatsoever, whether it's in design, affordability, whether it's the artwork. even the artwork on the building is not representing the community at all. it's across the street from the latino culture district. we will have impact in the district. just because it's across the street does not mean we will not be affected. we will be affected. the third part, the calculation of the state density bonus. it's not in the package.

how was it calculated? how do we know it's the right amount. and how does he know we need the extra two stories. i think we need it look into that. the city attorneys need to look into that. we had a base percentage in the past allowed. we need to look at that and see that we dot our is and cross our ts, because there are many other buildings like this coming into the area and we need to have some kind of say. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions.

commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: i'm perplexed by the language in the shadow analysis. i don't see how you can call a 63% increase in the shadow insignificant. that's unbelievable. i want to point out that the program is year-round. it's open until 2:00. so this is a significant impact on this playground. i also want to add the context of where this is. it is in the zone, area of the city, deemed by the recreation and parks department as an equity zone, meaning there are not enough public open spaces for kids to play. there are a few around the city where recreation and parks has

put as its focus to increase open space for kids and public health department has identified where the kids suffer from the highest rates of obesity. and it's because there are not enough safe spaces for kids to play. in the ages of 0-5, crucial, crucial ages for kids to develop skills around play, sports, ways to move their body to avoid chronic disease and obesity. i'm disappointed in the language and i do not support this project. >> commissioner richards: in the last couple of weeks, we experienced the fall equinox. and my deck and backyard have

been covered in moisture and condensation about sunset. i go out in the morning and the only thing that gets rid of it is sunshine. as i look at the shadow study and i see my experience personally the last few weeks i think, wow, the school playground will be moist in the fall, winter, spring, and if the sun doesn't hit it early on, it will be dank and damp. and what are the kids going to want to do? will they want to play in the moisture? not even my dogs want to lay on the deck when it's wet. i think several public commenters and commissioner melgar made a really good point. i think it will have an effect on the children, the school. as for the gazebo, the trees, the rec center is being redone.

gazebos come and go with new plans for the parks and schoolyards. trees die, fall off, are pruned. we see that in dubose park, trees are not there that were huge, but buildings stand for 100 years. i also do not support this project. >> president hillis: thank you. i will offer some comments. one, i think we've obviously heard this numerous times and so has the board of supervisors. it's unfortunate that the sponsor is invoking state density bonus the biggest factor to me is the reduction in the amount of affordable housing. so we go from a level that could be up to 25% to 11%. trying to maximize the amount f

of. it can end-around our codes to get a lower percent. we've tried to fix some of that by having fees apply. you are telling me that that rule wouldn't apply. they're still grandfathered in from the prior rules? >> correct, based on our understanding of the way the legislation is written. this application came in prior to the adoption and it includes some grandfathering. >> president hillis: okay. so the state density bonus puts us in a bit of a bind. it's tough for us to do anything to this project, to change it or deny it. i think we'll play it out in the lawsuit, but it's a good site for housing. i don't think the building is out of scale or character. would it be better two stories, smaller? probably. but there are taller, larger buildings there.

it's a transit-rich neighborhood. would i love to see it have more affordable housing. i think passing rules that we cannot shadow is what's led to the state density bonus. we can throw up all kinds of issues about shadowing, shadowing alleys. every project we approve has an impact on its neighbor and light and air. i think it's acute here given it's a childcare center, but we don't have the tools or the law to stop that from happening. i am supportive of it, but this is where we are. i would like to see a project in housing move forward here. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i didn't support it in november and it hasn't changed

the comments i made then hold today. i would be curious to understand why there is no base density calculation. it's managable and we've seen it in other projects and it's missing here. >> our apologies we included the base density calculation in the last version and i might have -- it's part of the record and it was cleared through our consultation with our housing staff. so it's something that has been accessible previously and it was an oversight on our part in including it in this version of the packet. in the prior version that you looked at back in november, 2017, the base calculation has been part of the record and it has been clear in terms of what we used to create the maximum bonus.

>> vice president melgar: i wanted to state that it's not a private preschool. it's a public preschool. it's property of the san francisco unified school district. and even though it's not a public park under the jurisdictional parks department, it's property for the san francisco school district. >> president hillis: but not publicly accessible. i cannot bring my kids there to play there. >> vice president melgar: not right now, but it could be. >> commissioner richards: i'm making my decision based on the new information with the shadow study. and to comment on the density law. it was not created last year or the year before. it was created in 1979, to induce affordable housing development by giving back to developers. it's interesting how nobody's talking about -- and it's overriding our inclusionary in

this sense and i think the city for charging impact fees. can't wait to see projects come forward that have to pay their fair share. are they paying the impact fees other than affordable housing on density bonus piece? >> the other development impact fees would apply to the project as proposed. >> president hillis: for additional square footage? >> right. i may confer to ms. hoagland on that. >> i'm sorry. i'm trying to recollect. i've calculated the fees and i would have to look. i don't recall exactly my calculations. it's been several months.

>> commissioner richards: it's unusual for me to think -- and, again, mauck -- making my decision on the shadow impact fees. housing accountability act was 1979 or 1980 law and they're tightening it up to reflect today's standards of communities are putting up obstacles to housing. nobody is talking about, let's go ahead and change the density bonus law to reflect reality today because we have higher inclusionary fees. so i'm going to call hypocrisy on the abuse we're seeing these days. >> president hillis: is there a motion or further comment? >> commissioner richards: move to disapprove. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion, commissioners, and it would have to be intent to disapprove.

>> commissioner richards: intent to disapprove. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, motion passes 4-3. we should continue this matter then to a date specific in order to allow for a motion to be drafted. >> president hillis: can we do it in two weeks? >> clerk: sure. so october 11. if we can quickly get a motion to continue. >> president hillis: do we need a motion? >> clerk: we need a motion to continue to october 11. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners on that motion -- [roll call vote]

so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-1, with commissioner hillis voting against. that places us on items 16a and b, 2017-016476cua, ofa. conditional use authorization and office allocation. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the commission. nick foster, planning staff. one is conditional use to establish office use at the ground and basement level and annual development of small gap authorizing 38,791 of square feet office use. it's at 420 taylor street, taylor and o'farrell streets.

it's approximately three blocks southeast of union square. the site is developed with a 4-story over basement building constructed in 1940. the project would convert 35,000 square feet of existing public parking garage at the basement and ground floors into new general office use with retail at the ground floor the interior and exterior improvements would be a new 5,000-square-foot mezzanine floor. it would install the curb cuts, o'farrell and also listed as transit preferential. it would add class 1 and 2 and showers and lockers as required by code. as the subject property is losted as article 11 article 5, a minor permit to alter was

required to proposed the scope of work. on september 24, 2018, approved the permit to alter, as it was found to be consistent with the intent as outlined, 0289. to date, the department has received one letter of support. that's in your case packets. and it finds that it's consistent with the balance of the plan and the department finds it necessary to be necessary and compatible with the neighborhood. it would created a -- create additional office. it would subject the two street frontages by creating garage entrance. as well as 924-square-foot retail space. the elimination of garage entrances would reduce conflicts, helping with the street frontage.

the department recommends approval with conditions. that concludes my presentation. project sponsor is here as well. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? >> thank you. john kevlin here. the project before you today proposes to eliminate a public parking garage at the ground floor and basement levels of 420 taylor to be replaced by new office and retail space. as mr. foster said, it's historic. the benefits of the project are clear. we're eliminating 185-space public parking garage and removal of three highly used curb cuts. it will be a real improvement on the pedestrian experience. there should not be concern with the loss of public parking spaces. there are 2,300 public parking spaces and garages within three blocks of this site. so there are significant amounts of public parking the ground floor openings will be enclosed with transparent

frontal. we explored expanding the amount of glazing to further improve the street frontage. there was concern due to the historic character of the building about that. as we got into structural analysis, there are significant feasibility concerns with doing that. that's why it has the transparency with the garage openings now. it will be activated by new retail use. it's small enough for neighborhoods use consistent with this existing neighborhood. we're technically in union square, but it's on the edge of union square and the tenderloin. it's not in the c3r district, where there's been discussion about retail on the ground floor. it's not a place where you would expect to see large retail tenants. in fact, w