>> commissioner ransom-scott: t. >> chair mondejar: that's good to know you don't have to pay for parking. as long as you don't stay all day or more than three hours. thank you so much for responding. do i have a motion to approve? >> i move. >> chair mondejar: motioned by commissioner rosales and seconded by commissioner singh and scott. please take the roll call. [roll call] the vote is 4 ayes and 1 absent. >> chair mondejar: motion carries. thank you for being hero and responding to our questions. thank you gus's for coming to our area.

madam secretary please call the next item. >> the next order of business is 5b, approving the california public employees retirement system calpers, resolution authorizing an amendment to the contract between the successor agency and calpers to employee contribution to retirement benefits. discussion and action resolution number 43-2018. >> this item is routine. it's come before the commission for approval so we can see an election t. this is just presentation reporting out to the results of the election and then an approval. i'll turn it over to april ward to present on this item. >> thank you director.

good afternoon chair mondejar and commissioners. i'm april ward senior personnel analyst. i come to seek approval for the contract amendment for the california public reemployees retirement season has calpers ocii we provide retirement benefits to our employees with calpers. in 2015, ocii management team along with the units from local 21 and local 2021 entered negotiations to match the shared provision in comparable with the city and county of san francisco labor agreements. this in addition to the policy offsets the employer shared contributions by employees required to contribute a portion of their salary to the retirement program. the memorandum of agreement negotiated that employees

contribution should be on pretax basis effective date the new calpers contract. in 2015, the successor agency commission previously approved salary increases to the memorandum of agreement with both local 21 and local 1021 along with the employees cost sharing negotiated. all contributions be taken on a pretax basis, as of today the agency treated all contributions on pretax basis. the implementation dates on the contribution are as follow. one percent taken effective the first day of a full pay period february 2015, 1.25 was effect in october of 2015 and 1.25 was on the first full pay period of july in 2016. the current contract that we have with calpers only incorporates the 1% and 1.25.

the 1.25 that was taken in july 2016 is not currently incorporated. the commission item was brought june 2018 for ocii to seek your approval to hold an election for staff. the election was mandated pi by calpers to approve the contribution to the proposed contract that was taken in july 2016. the election was held in september of 2015 and results were 33 employees approved, zero employees disapproved. the vote was tallied by our commission secretary. that is required by calpers that the commission secretary tallies the vote. today, we request your approval of this resolution toc authorize

the agency to amend the calpers contract to include the third employee contribution of 1.25%. also with this approval, this will also resolve the current way the contribution are taxed on a pretax basis and will allow separated employees to receive their full refund or their contributions. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions and answers. thank you. >> chair mondejar: before we do that, do we have any public comment? no speaker quiet afternoon. ly closi -- i will close public comment. any comments or questions? none? okay. no questions. i need a motion. moved by commissioner singh and

seconded by commissioner scott. please take the roll call. [roll call] the vote is 4 ayes 1 absent. >> chair mondejar: motion carries. thank you. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> item six public comment on nonagenda items. we have no speaker cards. next or the of business is item seven report of the chair. madam chair. >> i don't have a report. >> next order of business is item eight, report of the executive director. 8a informational memorandum on marketing outcomes project report, 2500 arelious walker

drive for 122-unit hope sf affordable housing including 93 public housing replacement units, 28 affordable housing rental unit and one manager's unit. 8b, informational memorandum on marketing outcome project report 255 fremont street known as natalie gubb commons for 120-unit affordable rental development which includes one manager's unit and redevelopment project area discussion. >> thank you. it's nice to be in position where we're completing these projects. they are getting leased up. today we have 240 units. all are affordable.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i am pam sims. i'm a senior development specialist if the housing division. the first project, there were 28 affordable lottery units. the balance of the other units are the 94 other units were public housing replacement units for those of you who attended. those people living there now in the 94 units are relocatees from the old one to the if you. there were a total of 12c.o.p. holders who applied to live there. two c.o.p. holders were

successful. demographics of the 28 householdses are 43% are black, 7% asian and and 25% are latino. this is interesting. there are 61% of the households living there, 61% are returnees. it's one of our special project that has a special preference for households that were living there. they -- they moved before the new unit was developed. they have the first preference to relocate pack at alice griffith. who's really excite -- what's really exciting many households are taking advantage of that. 32% were rent burden and 7% the

people now are c.o.p. holders. 12 of the households originated from district 10. i thought that was interesting too. total of 21 households were from san francisco originally. for transbay 7, it's different. primarily because they done have the alice griffith preference. maybe also because they're in transbay. this project is much larger, 120 units, 95 were lottery units. they were affordable at 40% and 50%. 24 units were subsidized with project-based vouchers and 23 of those households relocatees from sunnydale. this is the first site hope sf

project. it was extremely successful and you'll be happy to know those residents in those households from sunnydale are thriving. we had 10c.o. holders, one holder was living there. they're living there through the lottery process. another c.o.p. holder is living there. the other holder was the second preference after the sunnydale households. the c.o.p.o. holders have the second preference for this property. we got another c.o.p. holder in that way. we had 6580 applications. there are now 320 residents now living at transbay block 7. the demographics are different

again from alice griffith, 11.5% black, 34.7% saying ago and 21%e latino. 75% of the residents living there are have the preference of residents and workers. that's very different. which is kind of exciting. this is our first project where all the districts are represented. there's households from all over san francisco. that's kind of exciting too. that's my report. >> chair mondejar: thank you, i can feel your excitement. do we+ have -- we don't need speaker card on this right? speaker cards? >> no speaker cards.

we'll close public comment. questions and answers from commissioners? commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: this is one of the more fun segment of our calendar. thank you for the report. i guess, one question. i wrote it down. alice griffith, 61% returned? >> yes. >> commissioner rosales: why wasn't it 1 un%? >> that's a great question. there's public housing replacement units. that was the 94 other units that weren't in the lottery. these are alice griffith households returning who was not living on the site of the gem information notice.

they lost their standing to have a public housing replacement unit. that said, we really wanted to embrace the community to come back to alice griffith. those households moved away, went other places. we have provided a first preference for those households to come back. >> commissioner rosales: , wow. that's a different way looking at it. we had a meeting in the bayview early on as a commission. i think this was the project where folks were worried about moving out of their units. they didn't trust that they will be able to come back. do you remember that? maybe not. >> i heard about it.

i remember you mentioning that in that talk. >> commissioner rosales: i think this one of those projects where people were just worried that if they moved on, they wouldn't be able to come back. we assured them, yes, they could come back. >> what's interesting is in phases one and two, as you know, alice griffith is a multiphase project, we had just a handful of alice griffith people who applied. this time we this 36 applied to return. which was such a nice representation and showing. it's successful.

>> commissioner rosales: it's nice. we promise things, i do remember if we delivered so thank you. the other question is always, c.o.p. holders, how is it that we have 12 applicants but only two get in? why -- it seems we're always having that story. >> for these two properties in particular, it really depends when we're leasing out. of the households that under income, there were a few under income, but not the majority of households that didn't get in. the subsidies that are usually available like through the foundation, unfortunately, while this lease was going on, they had run out of their subsidies for the year. that's number one. number two is people are funny and kno they change their mind. we have a number of c.o.p.

holders that did not return calls, return mail, they didn't return any type of outreach done to them. they requested to be put on the wait list. they're not ready yet. >> commissioner rosales: that says they have confidence they can let this opportunity pass and another one will come up. >> chair mondejar: if you're c.o.p. you're automatically approved. >> you're number one in the lottery. >> chair mondejar: they still have to qualify. we support them if they win and then we help them with that. you said we run out of money? >> iif they needed subsidy, we generally go to the - cue

foundation and work with them to help our c.o.p. holders receive a subsidy. they ran out of funds this year. >> chair mondejar: they can always come back? >> absolutely. >> chair mondejar: did you have further questions? i interrupted you. >> commissioner rosales: i would love to meet the cue foundation folks. they seem like they're always stepping up. >> they've been really wonderful partners. that's an excellent idea. i'll invite them next time. >> chair mondejar: commissioner scott? >> commissioner ransom-scott: oh some of the people with c.o.p. they were very excited but then

they were also making just a little too much to fit the qualification but not enough to live in san francisco anywhere else. that was so hard. they thought by moving out, they would have a place to come back to. they got another job. just a couple of dollars more. they can't get into the housing. that kind of just bewilders me. i don't know what to say. >> chair mondejar: isn't there an allowance or a percentage? my understanding is, if you are of the maximum limit, there's like a 5% allowance. i don't know how much more they made. am i correct?

okay, jeff would have the answer. >> good afternoon jeff white housing program manager. i wanted to give you an update. we've mentioned this to the commission couple of time this year. the tack credit regulations in 2018 have changed. it's kind of fancy phrase called income averaging, which is going to allow us to take some of our affordable units up to 80% median income instead what was previously 60. to the earlier comment, c.o.p. holders that are couple of dollars over what was 60% median income, then qualify maybe 60 to 65% or something even up to 80%. the evidence that we have on the c.o.p. holders that for our past five or six lotteries, it's a

pretty wide range and representative range that kind of every a.m.i. level. we definitely missed some of the folks at the 60 to 80% level. with our next project that you'll see, mission bay south, we're planning on using that approach. the last time we were talking about transbay block 4 where there's that wide range and a.m.i. is much higher an transbay block 4. >> chair mondejar: i hope we're communitying this to everyone on the list. there are changes a there will be other opportunities. especially when it relates to income. once you get turned down, you're informed that overqualified because you make two dollars more than the max numb.

it's important for them to understand there is. maybe a briefing, changes in this regulation. just so we're communicating to our demographics, especially c.o.p. holders. >> that's a fantastic idea. we don't have any of those units coming on for couple years. >> chair mondejar: in the pipeline and planning. we owe it to them. these are the people we disadvantaged. thank you jeff. >> also just to piggy back on what jeff said, what we tried to do also when we -- when the developer or the leasing agent has deemed household under-over income, we let them know about the next opportunity coming up. what made it really much easier holders to apply for every opportunity, which is

great is -- it's an amazing thing how consistent people are applying for it. >> chair mondejar: it's really working? >> before i was daunting and paper and the application. now it's just automatic. >> chair mondejar: it's exciting to know lot our projects and all the things we discussed through the years is finally working and it's effective. i share your energy because i was with you in both of thiswjü openings that we had natalie gubb commons. it's a great feeling to see the residents and everybody who contributed to the project. it's just amazing. beautiful day too, which was a bonus. the same thing with alice

griffith. the natalie commons, are they one bedroom studios? >> they are one, two and three bedrooms. >> chair mondejar: okay. that's great. i saw some of the pictures. alice griffith have five bedrooms? >> not in the lottery. the lottery was one, two and threes. >> chair mondejar: they are larger units >> they do have fours and one or two fives. those are for the public housing replacement units. >> chair mondejar: that's exciting. thanksgiving is coming up. there's no action here. this is more of discussion and sharing of great news.

the next madam secretary, can we please call the next item. >> next order of business is item nine commissioner's questions and matters. >> chair mondejar: commissioners , do you have any questions? >> commissioner singh: next meeting on the 18th. >> before thanksgiving, no. it's the holiday week. we didn't think we'll get a quorum. >> commissioner singh: so prepare for the home day holida. >> and december? >> we had one item.

and it didn't seem fair to have the commission meet. we're going to have a busy christmas week. any other questions? >> chair mondejar: iwould you like to submit a card? okay, can we do that? this is a commissioner's questions and matters. we can call for a public comment? okay, we will open the public

comment for you sir. >> my name is mr. gregory williams. does this housing development, what we trying to do is adequately calculate the information in regards to the funding process, which i have that. we want to make sure that the funding was appropriate to the proposals that were addressed to the panel. my question is, are we following under the h.f.a. authority. united states california code? anyone familiar with that?

what that is, it is the housing -- i can't think of it. it deals with housing. i didn't bring the paper here. it's in regards to the acorn versus kentucky somewhere. it falls under the graystone. are you familiar with it. federal housing authority? the f.h.a.? the reason why i'm discussing this, i've been trying to acquire for 11 or 12 years. my indication is that the reason why i'm here is to provide a better stability and to utilize the financial means in appropriate establishment where

the proposals are legit and provide the in-depth to the funding towards it. so that we don't utilize it for self-gain or selfish reasons but yet to develop the proposal. on the indication we trying to deter the homeless situation. i understand the process is. i want the proposal to be more adequate and in-depth and the city and state. that include -- i don't know if 25,000 was presented to all the treasure island community event. it was supposed to be for

transportation and other developments. we fleed to -- we need to stop doing that. what we need to start doing is submitting our intelligence of governorship to the where the establishments require and the governor called for the united states and protocol. >> chair mondejar: thank you. >> no mr. speaker card. >> chair mondejar: thank you sir. please call the next item. >> next order of business is item 10, closed session. there are no closed session." items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. >> chair mondejar: i need a motion to adjourn. >> i move that the meeting be adjourned >> chair mondejar: this meeting is ended at 2:01 p.m. thank you.

we met good afternoon and welcome to the regular hearing for thursday, november 8th, 2018. the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. silence your mobile devices that may sound off. when speaking before the commission, to state your name for the record.

the people standing in front of the doors cannot stay there. i will see if i can't find an overflow room. standing on the other side of the door would be a good thing to do for now. [roll call] >> we do expect commission or more to be absent today first on your agenda, his consideration of items proposed for continuance. conditional use authorization as proposed for continuance for december 6, 2018. item two is a conditional use authorization. it is proposed for continuance to december 20th, 2018. item three at 380 holliday avenue is a discretionary

reviews as proposed by for continuance for january 10th, 2019. i have no other items proposed for continuance that i have no speaker cards. >> thank you. welcome anybody. do we have any public conch -- public comments on the items proposed for continuance? seeing them, we will close public comment. commissioner? >> i move to continue items one, 12 a and three. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. placing a sunday or consent calendar. all matters listed here are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or the public so requests. the matters will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item.

item four at 1541 snowden boulevard is a conditional use authorization. item five, 400 winston drive. conditional use authorization. item six, 69,314th street, conditional use authorization and item seven, five '06 vallejo street. mandatory discretionary review. i have no speaker cards. >> okay. is there any member of the public that would like to remove any of these items from the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner richard? >> move to approve item four through six. >> thank you. on that motion to approve items 436 and take d.r. to approve the project on seven. [roll call]

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. commission matters. item eight, consideration consideration of adoption of draft minutes for october 8th and october 25th, 2018. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> i moved to approve the draft minutes for october 18th and october 25th. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that mission --dash that motion to adopt the minutes. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. item nine. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards? >> i mentioned --dash i mentioned a year and a half ago that someone from sfmta said they missed the whole transportation networking company's ride hailing, uber and

lyft. they said they were caught by surprise. a couple of sundays ago in the san francisco chronicle headline caught my eye that set a driver of these cars will not help traffic planners. they noted an urban planner said that if we think that self driving cars will alleviate congestion, we need to think again because he has done simulations and a distinction that he has is a number of people will be driving in each car and it will be sold out when people realize the convenience of a self driving car, they will go to the dry cleaners and get the groceries and then they will go home and he says that total vehicle miles travelled will increase. i think that is one thing. i may say --dash i may send a letter to the sfmta. the other one was i met with the h.p.c. vice president hyland and i know we got a whole docket of things need to talk about.

housing being the biggest priority. but we put together a draft dose a list of items he wanted to talk about when we have our joint h.p.c. planning commission and i will send it to the secretary secretary to circulate for a comment. >> okay. we can move on. >> very good. department mattress. item ten is director's announcements. >> commissioners, good afternoon i am filling in for director ram who is overseas at the moment. the only brief item for your acknowledgement today is to call out the commission secretary and wish him a very happy birthday. [cheering] >> happy birthday! [applause] [laughter] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. [laughter] >> now you know while i'll be leaving early today. [laughter] >> item 11 his review of past events of the board of supervisors, court of appeals,

and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners i have two weeks worth of reports for you. at the land use committee last week, the committee considered the ordinance to amend the central waterfront area planned within the general plan to incorporate the dogpatch plan. this ordinance was originally sponsored by you to supervise and cup door supervisor cohen took up sponsorship once it was introduced at the board. we heard this item on august 23 rd of this year and voted to approve the ordinance. there was no public comment and no comments or questions by the committee members. they then voted to recommend this unanimously to the full board. next on the agenda where the amendments to the 1628 market street s. ud and the developed agreement for 1629 market street you heard this item on october 11th and voted to approve both at the land use hearing their two speakers in favor of the proposed amendments and no significant questions or comments from the committee

members. they then voted to recommend the items to the full board. they then heard the prepared ordinance that would extend the entitlement for grandfathering projects with lower inclusionary rates. you heard this on october 18th and approved without modifications. at the commission hearing, public comment was mixed. at this hearing, many members of the development community came out to discuss the potential impact to projects and challenges in the development process. those that spoke in opposition said it was against the will of the voters who voted to inc. increase inclusionary rate. committee members had questions and they were mainly specific to projects included on the last -- list of effective projects. they voted to amend the ordinance to change the timeframe to 18 months from the date of entitlement and to include an entitled projects. they then recommended the item to the full board as amended. at the land use hearing this week, the committee heard supervisor brown's ordinance of

establishing inclusionary housing requirements for the mct district. you heard this item on june 30 th of 2016 and voted to approve with modifications. this item was continued from the land use hearing on october 22 nd. the ordinance was amended so that inclusionary rates for divisive narrow street would be 23% for owner occupied and 20% for rental housing. the fillmore street n.c.t. was also taken out of the proposed ordinance and will be subject to the citywide inclusionary requirements. the land use committee voted unanimously to accept the ordinance and continue it to the november 5th land use committee meeting to allow time for the change to be properly noted. the committee considered supervisor if you are's ordinance that would create the 43,029th avenue s. ud to allow social services on property owned by a church. as you heard this item on october 11th of this year and recommended approval with modifications. the main modification was to

make sure there would be no on site services provided. during the hearing, supervisor cam gave opening remarks and propose the ordinance be amended to include sir george include the recommendations. that amended was added without objection. there is no public comment on this item and it was recommended to the full board with a positive recommendation. they submitted a flexible retail ordinance. you heard this item and recommended approval with modifications. those modifications included items at supervisor tang presented to the commission which staff also recommended. after they heard the item, supervisor tag we introduce the ordinance to include the commission's recommendations. those were to require specific uses within the --dash it --dash definition of flexible retail be permitted in the underlying zoning district to under -- to operate under the flexible use. all other department required approval still apply. they are required to establish

and maintain the flexible retail use, the site must operate at least two of this abuse is at any given time and i manage the planning code to create a pop up temporary use and include supervisors at district one, five, ten, and 11 in the legislation and include n.c.t. and mcs and enter c3. and amend the n.c.t. and districts to permit arts activities. the supervisor also amended the ordinance to allow flexible retail uses 90 days to find replacements abuses before becoming noncompliant and prior to that it was a 60 day time period. there was no public comment on this item and they voted to forward it to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, the committee considered the better street ordinance. you heard -- you may recall that this item is duplicated on

october 22nd and the duplicated file was amended to remove the minimum parking requirements citywide. as recommended by this commission at the october 18th hearing. during the hearing, supervisor cam gave a comprehensive overview of how the amendments fits with the city goals and policies and how most of the zoning districts no longer have minimum parking controls and how we already have minimum parking requirements or move citywide by allowing bike parking to replace any car parking space. a planner reiterated the same comments and affirms the parking maximums would remain the same. the city is most often pushing to reduce parking proposed by developers and has, in recent memory, ever asked developers to increase parking. a dozen people spoke all in favor. speakers included representatives -- representatives from the sfmta, c.t.a., walk s.f., the san francisco bicycle coalition and others. i will express full support for the proposed amendment and the

direction to take the city to meet environmental and public policy safety goals. some supervisors were sceptical. some families have to use their cars on a small daily basis. in response, staff has supervised that this did not reenter rice parking maximums or prevent any developer or homeowner for having parking. supervisor tang was concerned about the lack of outreach because they felt they would be more comfortable with the amendment if more was done. in the end, the committee moved to continue the item. they also requested the interim planning staff his outreach to groups and the community. they are determining the process of setting up those meetings with supervisor can's office. finally, the committee heard the central soma suite of amendments supervisor cam introduced key amendments at the land use

hearing. rezone rezone a 150-foot bite 200 portion of the site to encourage housing production at the project. eliminate the incentives for posts to provide playgrounds, dog runs and prohibiting s.r.o. and group housing uses in the plan area except for certain uses including 100% affordable projects. student and senior housing and residential care facilities. requiring that key sites provide childcare facilities on site subject to review by the planning commission and restoring the funding from the u.s. mint from 15 million- $20 million. there were 14 commenters and there were comments included feedback from several flower marked vendors and the project sponsor that residential uses on the site would not be compatible with more operations. they also set a plan to acquire and dedicate land elsewhere or

full housing if the flower mart site is allowed to remain commercial. and a call to reject the prohibition on s.r.o. group housing given the potential for affordable modular housing and other emerging housing types. supervisor tang asked oewd to describe a planning process for the old meant and why the 20 million in funding from central soma is important. the flower mart site should remain. the committee did finally vote to forward the plan out of committee and to the full board for a hearing on november 13th with the amendments. at the full board last week, this week they had taken a break for election day. the mission alcoholic beverage s. ud amendment sponsored by supervisor ronan, affordable housing projects on undeveloped lots in the sally district

sponsored by supervisor cam and modifying the original modifying better street his plan requirements and curb cut restriction sponsored by supervisor kim and to the general plan amendment for the central waterfront dogpatch all passed their first read. the appeal for the environmental exemption at the washington square water conservation project was continued to november 13th. and the board heard the appeal for 271,519th street. this includes a demolition of three existing industrial buildings and the construction of a six story mixed use building with approximately 10,000 square feet of ground floor at p.d.r. and residential units. this commission heard the item october 23rd and approved it as a large project authorization the appellants appealed the community plan evaluation citing the eastern neighborhood analysis out of date and cannot be relied upon. the c.p.e. does not consider the gentrification and displacement effects of the proposed project

and the eastern neighborhood e.i.r. is not valid because the benefit plan is not fully funded all these issues raised have been raised in previous appeals including those of 2675 folsom, 1296 chartwell, nine '01 16th and 2918 mission. they reiterated the above points of the appeal. commenters also referred to the merits of the project including the need for more flexible housing in the mission. the project includes replacement of demolished p.d.r. and agreement for the current p.d.r. to return to the project's p.d.r. space once completed. some comments expressed concern that the space became known p.d.r. space without department approval. other public comments expressed the desire for stronger guarantee of a local p.d.r. tenant if the current tenant chooses not to return. supervisor ronen and president cohen ask questions and provided comments. they both discussed transportation issues including the growth of t.n.c.s.

in the end, the appeal was denied and the cpu affirmed by unanimous vote. this is all i have for you today >> thank you. >> commissioner richard squeeze. >> one question. i you i know you mentioned nine '01 16th street and the appeal on these different projects based on the community plan e.i.r. if you could see where the appeal of the 90,116th street is in the courts. they actually appealed to the e.i.r. it is still winding its way through the courts. if you could get a status, i would really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> i will remind members of the public that you cannot lock the doors and stand in front of the doors. there is a button that automatically opens the door up against that wall. if you are leaning up against it , it may be opening and closing the door. i will not arrange for an

overflow through room yet because there are number of speakers under general public comment that may end up vacating some seats. the board of appeals met last night and considered the large project authorization for 27 --dash 275,019th street. they heard multiple hearings. they upheld the approval however added a condition of approval requiring ground floor p.d.r. in perpetuity. while the approval included the p.d.r. use as part of the project, this condition will require to remain and prohibit a change to a nonp.d.r. use. >> good afternoon. i am here to share with you a few items from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. i would also like to update you on the six pending applications. those items were heard at the government audit and oversight committee yesterday and were given a favourable recommendation and will be forwarded to the full board for a vote next week.

one certificate of appropriateness that i think would be eight of relevance to you because of this commission will consider a conditional use authorization for it in the near future. that is 3620 buchanan street. the location of the s.f. gas and light company building and maryvale antiques. the property as landmarked is landmarked as 58. it has a very lean case report and local designation ordinance. to that effect, there is a garden structure on the site that appears to be noncontributing. however, the designating ordinance is silence. there is a proposal to build eight residential units on the side of that structure. the staff determines the structure was not contributing to the site however caps on commissioner still have concern over the design of this project. a motion continued -- a motion

to continue failed and referred back to the architectural review of the commission. there was in a motion to approve the project as proposed with department recommendations. the reason for the motion to approve the commissioners cited that the provident -- that the project sponsor had complied with all the recommendations from the previous architectural review committee hearing of the h.p.c. and felt that the project should move forward as proposed. that motion passed 4-3 and again , as there was a good deal of public comment, also stating concern over the overall mapping and location of the new structure, these items will likely come up at your hearing as well. in addition to that item, there were to watch what landmarked designations that are moving forward to the full board. the first one, if i get the overhead, is two and henry adams

street. as you are probably aware from the news, this item had been tabled for some time at the full board. supervisor cohen reintroduce the item so the property owner may take advantage of more flexible zoning uses at the site which are afforded by the planning code for landmark properties. the commission voted unanimously for that recommendation to the board of supervisors for approval. the second designation is for 422 beaver street. this is a property from the 18 seventies. it has been designated with the help of commissioner richards for the benedict dealing house. this property is a unique property in the neighborhood and in san francisco due to its

rarity and its age. again, the commission felt it warranted local designation for article ten and we believe both of these items will be heard within the next few weeks at the full board of supervisors. that concludes my comments, unless you have any questions. >> thank you. >> seeing no questions, we can move onto the next question. >> very good. that will place us under general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. you have an opportunity to address the commission and it will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public will receive two minutes. we have a large number of speaker cards. >> thank you. we've got about three dozen speaker cards. i think people want to come and talk about the mission street project due to our council his meeting. we will be rescheduling that meeting as soon as we can.

probably in february. i just ask that you try to limit your comments and knowing we will hear this item and we have a full calendar ahead of us. i will call names and you can line up on the screen side of the room and speak in any order. catherine, anastasia, angelica, bobby, isaiah, tee anna, armando , selena, joseph. again, you can speak in any order if your name has been called. >> good afternoon. i would like to acknowledge first that i presented some documents saying that 3939 24 th street was not a historic site but low and behold, those documents have been superseded by a study in 2015 which does

designate the property as a historic type a resource. i correct the record. next, i want to publicly condemn maximum real estate for the stench they pulled in derailing the meeting last week. it was publicized that there would be a meeting at 4:00 pm. everybody knew about it. the leaders were thrilled and this is what they said. as leaders, this concerns us. are condition steps are traditions call us to care for the most vulnerable. this may include families battling cruel gentrification. for them there is no sanctuary in our sanctuary city -- sanctuary city. as an example of how cruel policies can ravage a typical neighborhood, perhaps even one like yours, consider the ten

story, 331 unit new york speculator maximum real estate wants to build at the 16th street b.r.t. station. locals call it the monster in the mission. it was never designed with our community in mind. >> thank you. >> just let me say, rather this luxury development of mostly one-bedroom million dollar condos will offer a small room for a little low income families and no community space. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i have some letters for you. >> we will reset. go ahead. >> all right. good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to read a statement on

behalf of the coalition. in september of last year, we came to a planning commission hearing to ask for an official neighborhood hearing on the monster in the mission. at times referred to as 1979 mission street. for the past year, we have been working diligently with the commission and the planning department to make this a success. that hearing was supposed to happen last thursday, on november 1st. it didn't. we have come here to formulate solicit an official response to the recent actions of maximus real estate partners. the developer of the monster that led to, and ultimately caused, a cancellation of that hearing. representative of maximus posing as a planning commissioner made a call to the principle of mission high school and claims that the plaza 16 coalition, along with its community, immigrant, low income, and faith-based reporters would

incite violence. this prompted a cancellation of the hearing due to security concerns during the time of an open house happening at the site these tactics have roots in racism and classism. the cycles of colonialism. these are not tactics that should be tolerated by the governing agency obligated to upload -- upholds the values of fairness, respect and trust. impersonating a planning commissioner back in order to sabotage a public hearing is not defensible under any circumstance. no entity should be exempted from ethical accountability and maximus real estate partners must be held responsible for their actions. we fully expect the planning commission and planning department take this with a level of critical priority warranted as normalization of this behavior cannot be allowed to transpire. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners.

i have a mechanic business on 17 th street and i have been running it for 48 years. i am a native san franciscan and a live in the mission district. this seems like an excellent program and construction project it seems to me they've done the best that they can to address community issues. and i support the project. i urge you to do so. we need as much new housing as possible. it doesn't matter what the style is. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a piledriver, carpenter. i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm here to speak about this upcoming project. 1979 mission project. it provides below-market rate apartments and low income units made availab