just have my quiet time. i love my bedroom. this is my home because this is where i live. me and my children, we love in here, we -- just being with my grand kids and loving somewhere and having somewhere is home. we love being together, and your heart -- wherever your heart is, that makes it home for you. >> i would like to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. when speaking before the commission, please state your name for the record. we would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] we expect other commissioners to be absent today. commissioners, first on your

agenda his consideration of items proposed for continuance and your short agenda will likely get much shorter. items one a and b., conditional use authorization for proposed continuance for august 22nd, 2019. item two, 50 post street, downtown product or three she's -- authorization is proposed for continuous august 22nd, 2019. item three, 121 gates street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuous to august 29th, 2019. item four, 367 hamilton avenue, conditional use authorization, proposed for continuance to september september 12th 2019, item five, 2417 green street, is

proposed for continuance until september 19th, 2019, item six , 3700 california street, the draft environmental impact report is proposed for continuance to september 19th, 2019. further, under your consent calendar, item seven, 1501 c. slow boulevard, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to october third, 2019. we did receive a request from the lakeshore area improvement club to continue item eight as well, but you can take up that matter if you so choose. under your regular calendar, item 16 a, b., and see for the large office development authorization and development

are proposed for continuous until july 25th, 2019. item 18 at 55 belcher street, conditional use authorization, we received a request from the supervisors' office to continue this to september, however, i continue -- i recommend you continue it until october just due to the already scheduled items in september. under your discretionary review calendar, item 19, 215 montana street, discretionary review, has been withdrawn. you have a couple of items to consider today. >> okay. , i would like to open this up for public comment. what anyone like to publicly comment on items proposed for continuance before i take members of the public, i would like to bring up tom from supervisor mandelman's office.

you are next. >> thank you. commissioners, i'm from supervisor mandelman's office. we have requested a continuance of item number 18 to allow for additional design refinement. i think that the recommendation of an october date is fine with our office. thank you for your consideration in this continuance. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. john with -- speaking to two items on continuance. fifty-five belcher, we feel like we will be happier to get on the same page so we are happy with the continuance request and happy to agree to that. we're looking forward to resolving that in the coming months. if this is on your calendar, mrt -- brought it up yet, it is on calendar for today, but we haven't made any resolution in terms of the working out of any final agreement with the neighborhood. i would like to request a continuance to give us a couple more weeks of opportunity to try

to resolve that. i ask for two weeks now on the 25th. not to hold a hearing to fight on it -- fight over it on the 25 th, but i'm hoping we get through this and everyone is on the same page and it is simply just a vote at a staff report. we would make that request, as well. thank you. >> thank. thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am here with a representative from pete's coffee. we would like to hear the case for dean hundred and one -- 1509 , 1511 since we should and you are here today, we are here today so we would like to hear the case on the regular calendar if we could. >> that is number 8, correct? >> yes. thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, representing lakeshore plaza as the owner and

management. we also would like to see pete's move forward. we don't know why there was a continuance. there may be some allegations of issues related to the center, which are not our issues. we're here to talk to the neighborhood at any time they want but we don't see how that can interfere with a retailer going into a former retailer center. we would like to go forward today. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the president of lakeshore improvement club. we are concerned, i have a letter here for you and i can give it to the secretary, it outlines our concerns about the center, but our concerns about public motives when it comes to pete's. pete's is not an issue but the notice is. notices were not received by any of the homeowners that live on the perimeter of the plaza, norwood they were said -- nor were they received by the

organization. apparently there was a meeting held by the public downtown in the middle of the working day, basically for a meet and greet. that is not acceptable. never and 25 years of lakeshore plaza has been there has there ever been a move to change in condition and not have it in the plaza, not have it after 6:00 p.m. as people get home from work, and their kids get home from school. i represent 1100 homeowners out there. they would like to talk to them, but to go shopping downtown in the middle of the workday is not a way, and i'm surprised. this is not good retail. we are asking for continuance until they actually show their original intent of that regulation. i remember years ago where you didn't have the application meetings, it didn't happen. there was more on your agenda

here then there is now. i would ask you, quite simply, to continue this matter until they come out to the plaza, set up a meeting so the public can show up and at least talk to them. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, thank you. >> one second, sorry. i'm sorry, continue. >> we basically met all the requirements for public notice. we weren't intending to take it downtown for any specific reason that was supported by the planner. at this juncture, we would really like to hear this case if we can. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> commissioners, i am david elliot, i am the architect an applicant for item seven. the operation that is going in this plaza, i appreciate the attorney coming. apparently last week they were communications going to the supervisor regarding concerns of the shopping center which is a separate issue from this. there has -- it looks like there was some issues with posting and stuff, too. i stood out in front of the building for quite some time and no one showed up at that time, but apparently there is a need to talk to the community groups and stuff like that, so we felt like we were in compliance with everything and we had staff look at things. we appreciate working with stephanie and all of the staff. there were about three people involved since last august. we are here now formally, the last six months, and we were not understanding that there was anything that we hadn't done incorrectly.

i think we might have been still on the consent item if someone hadn't complained. so i appreciate that we would continue the project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. anymore speakers for public comment on the continuance -- on the consent calendar? i was right, the continuance calendar. anymore public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. just before i chime in with the other commissioners, correct me if i am wrong, the two lakeshore items, the first one was a notice and the second one was a request from the neighborhood group. >> that is right. >> the issues surrounding both of these was related to the noticing for the preapplication meeting that pete's opted for a department facilitated meeting which doesn't meet the requirements of a preapplication meeting. in looking at their packet, they

did complete it according to our noticing instructions. therefore, with regards to the store, they also were aware of the preapplication process. unfortunately the neighborhood organizations were not included in that noticing, which was caught. with regard to that, there is some ability to move forward with a new preapplication. >> great, thank you. before i let you guys chime in, i would be okay with continuing the first one, which is more of a notification issue, and then since it is a formula retail swap with a formula retail, i am okay with hearing the second one today, but let's hear what you guys say. commissioner richards?

>> i can understand the neighbors saying, hey, we should have a clear application meeting on site, there is already people there. i will side with the neighborhood association, but i would hope that the pete's folks can meet with them at the location so that they can honor whatever issues they have. i will move to continue them to the dates specified. item seven and eight, to october 3rd. two item 15, to july 25th. item 16 to july 25th. and 18 to october 3rd. >> commissioner moore? >> before i second, i have a comment i would like to bring to your attention. at 12:00 p.m. this afternoon we received a comment from supervisor you's office that was

asking us to continue the items because they are involved with the center and it is not in front of us but they are asking us to continue regarding issues of maintenance and general issues pertaining to how the center is operating. and since these are new retailers, i assume that they are asking us to take that into consideration until they have resolved those issues. that is how i am interpreting it the e-mail came from the supervisor's office and i would just like to bring that to your attention. is there a second? >> it is a second, yes. >> thank you. >> i had not received anything related to that from supervisor yi's office. >> he e-mailed this morning. >> not me. >> just to clarify that it was sent by supervisor norman yee's office.

>> just to clarify, the continuance was from the community organization, but the e-mail itself just stated that they were involved in discussions with the property owner. they didn't ask for continuance that i saw. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded. would you like me to call the question? >> yeah. >> very good. commissioners, on that motion to continue items one through six as proposed, item seven and eight under consent calendar, and i will read item eight at 1509 through 1511, conditional use authorization. both of those items to october 3 rd. item 15 to july 25th, item 16 a through c. to july 25th, item 18 to october third and

acknowledging the withdrawal of item 19. -- >> jonas, one quick thing. >> i thank you need to do item h. separately. >> is the commission amenable for pulling item eight? >> yes. >> excluding item eight on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. on the motion to continue item eight to october 3rd... [roll call] that motion fails 4-1, excuse me 1-4.

that will remain under your consent calendar. >> and we will continue items one b. to october 22nd and item, sorry 16 see -- sorry 16 c. to july 25th. >> very good, thank you. that will place us under your consent calendar for item eight, conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> i would like to open this up for public comment? >> pull it off consent, please. >> very good. we will hear that at the beginning of your regular calendar.

i apologize, commissioners, there was another item. item nine, 2187 markets -- market street, conditional use authorization, for which i also have no speaker cards. >> would anyone like to public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> moved to approve number 9. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve item number 9 under consent calendar ... [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. that will place us under commission matters, item ten, consideration of adoption dropped me to -- minutes for the june 20th, 2019 joint with the building inspection regular hearing for june 20th and the regular hearing for june 27th, 2019. i have no speaker cards. >> we will now take public comment on this item. would anyone like to comment on the adoption of the draft minutes?

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for june 20th and june 27th... [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. item 11, commission comments and questions. seeing none, we can move onto department matters. item 12, director's announcements. >> commissioners, i would like to spend a couple minutes if i might talking about the current status of proposition m. and the allocation and how we will bring the projects forward. the continuation today was partially or largely in response to a request by the developer to do something slightly different. so as you recall, we have been taking central soma projects in phases in the order that they are ready to be reviewed.

the project sponsor came to us and asked if we would consider approving that and if you would consider approving that project in one phase with a slightly smaller project. when we looked at that, we asked them to -- and part of the reason for that is because this building, the project is really designed as one building, it kind of looks like two, but in reality it is one building. that was coupled with a recent analysis that we started looking at the unused allocation of office space from past approvals and i have asked the zoning administrator to start looking at that. as it turns out, there are -- there could be as much as between four and 500,000 square feet of space that is largely the result of projects not building as much as they were approved to build. and a couple of those projects are quite -- they could be as much as 100 square feet each.

they were billed smaller than they were approved for. when we looked at the request of 88 block some developers along with the fact that we might have 400 to 500,000 square feet, we were able to move forward with the proposal that we have planned in the fall to allow phase one of the central soma projects to move forward, as well as other projects that have come to you asking for approval. if i might, and again, i will put this in the form of a memo, if we are still gathering all the data, but just for your purposes and the public, and the project sponsors, i wanted to outline what is coming in the next couple of phases. you have already approved 598 brannan which was -- next week you are scheduled to approve the first phase of the flower mart, which is just short of 1.4 million, and then the week after that, based on your continuance action just now, you would approve 88 and about 775,000 square feet. that essentially depletes this year's prop and with a few

thousand square feet left over. in october when the next phase of prop m. comes forward, and if we add this additional space that i just described, you would be able to consider six projects , or four projects and then two others on port property that could come forward. those projects are 60,000 square feet at pierce 70. 500,000 square feet at harrison gardens which is the boston property project on harrison and forth, i guess, transbay parcel f., the project on howard street , which is 275,000 square feet, they came to you during one of the hearings requesting that, if you recall, it is a very tall building with hotel and office and housing. he you would be able to consider one vassar, which is lawrence louis' project on harrison street at 420,000, and then both seventy and mission rock would be able to move forward, as well under their agreement.

as you know, you don't approve the prop m. for the port sites, the office space on the port property is comes out of the pool when they pull building permits. again, you would be able to consider four projects in the fall, and it includes all of the phase i phase i and all of the central soma projects that we have been talking to you about. you would be able to do that even if you chose to go ahead and approve the full project at 88 bluxome which is slightly reduced from the original proposal. if that all makes sense, i'll put this in the form of a memo, but i wanted to make sure that you and the project sponsors in the public all understood where we were headed on this. thank you. >> thank you, director. >> my apologies. the one thing i should add to all of that is that to actually capture this space that has been unused, you will have to take an action. we will likely bring that action to you in the early fall to

literally revoke the unused space or the space of the projects that haven't been before you. that will come to you in september, i think. thank you. >> commissioner fung? >> a slight question, director. does that require a legal opinion? on the revocation of unused? >> the commission has done this in the past. there are two options. one is the project sponsor could voluntarily give it up, and if they do not, then the commission can revoke. >> if there's nothing further, item 13, review of past events of the board of supervisors, there is no report from the court of appeals and there was no historic preservation commission hearing. >> good afternoon. aaron starr, minute -- legislative manager. at this land-use hearing, the committee considered supervisor

mandelman's building ordinance. some modifications include decreasing required front setbacks, increasing -- increasing rear yard requirements, the multiple development of buildings on through and corner lots and imposing height limits. commissioners, you heard this item on april 11th and voted to recommend approval with modifications. this modifications were to modify the front setback requirement for properties of narrow streets in the r.h. districts from ten, 215 feet and clarifying the process for non altering confirming structures. and a limit proposed language regarding the proposed -- the purpose of rear yards is providing views into green space several amendments were proposed and clarifying the process for

altering nonconforming structures. supervisor peskin proposed amendments that would tie development into entering into a costa hawkins agreement. public comment was in support of the ordinance, especially the aspects that controlled billed in size and allowed additional density. because the amendments were shown as substantive, they were continuing the item to july 15 th. next, the committee considered supervisor mandelman's ordinance that immense land use controls for the upper market and the zoning districts. the ordinance proposes to increase permissible arts activities, institutional uses, public facilities, general entertainment and other retail uses. you heard this item on may 9th and recommended approval with ten modifications. and those modification sought to provide planning staff with quantitative and consistent standards for liquor store review, maintaining or increasing permissibility of arts activities and health services in the upper market street n.c.t., increase permissibility of liquor stores

only selling beer and wine and the n.c.t. three district, consider arts activities and liquor stories at their first story as active uses in both the zoning district and eliminate zones for administrative uses for the planning code and include health service -- public comment was in support of the ordinance and there is an emphasis on how they could increase storefronts. the committee hearing proposed eight amendments to the amendments. because the amendments were deemed substantial by the city attorney, it was continued. next was the mayor and supervisor brown's small business. this would expand the types of liquor store licenses allowed with our -- commissioners, you

heard this item on march 7th and voted to approve with modifications. your proposed modification was to retain the conditional use authorization requirement for outdoor activity areas associated with the bard use. during the hearing, the committee members discuss whether to eliminate the quarter-mile boundary around restricted use districts. this also discuss whether a business that holds both a nighttime entertainment and full-service restaurant permit should be allowed to operate without meeting the definition of bona fide eating establishment. supervisor peskin argued that buffer zones around these would be -- should be retained unless specific neighborhoods would like to exempt them from having a buffer. they also recommended -- supervisor brown in the city attorney cautioned against controls that are designated and designed by supervisorial

districts. however, brown said she would reach out to her fellow supervisors in the coming weeks to get feedback. this item was continued to the july 22nd hearing. three years as the standard abandonment period in the city in this provision was recently changed to 18 months as part of the article seven reorganization for the supervisor's requests. only the castro district would still use the abandonment period if this ordinance passes. steps not planned to bring this to the planning commission mainly because this ordinance would confirm the abandonment period to the standard

abandonment period throughout the city. further, they are a couple of applications pending review that would benefit from having this ordinance passed. unless i hear from this commission today that they would like to have a public hearing on that item, we would not be using this at a hearing. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> two questions. >> i think it is a very contentious piece of legislation and the dust hasn't settled on that but i will get some clarification. >> the second question is, why is the castro exempt from three years? >> that neighborhood commercial district in north beach didn't want the three year abandonment period.

they wanted an 18 month period. it just happened years ago. >> great. >> if there's nothing further we can move onto 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, except agenda items. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i do have several speaker cards. >> let's start off with georgia, kevin, and richard. if anyone else would like to speak, line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here today to ask you to please rewatch the april 12th, 2018 joined b.i.c. planning commission hearing for context and comparison with your more recent hearing.

i would urge you to particularly watch because you don't want to jump around with it. it is about three hours and 14 minutes for the more recent one. i thank you should watch the staff reports from mr. or riordan and others, as well as all the commissioners' comments, but most particularly those at the end, starting with commissioners more, hillis, and mccarthy at two hours and 48 minutes. commissioner koppel at two hours and 44 minutes had some very important points about life safety that take on further residence since we have those mohave earthquakes last week. most commissioners discussed setting up a working group to deal with the issue and proposed having another hearing prior to the 2018 summer break. from the public, i suggest you request -- you watch the following speakers about setting up a task force or a blue-ribbon panel, whatever you want to call it.

starting at 37 minutes, going to about 50 minutes, i suggest you watch mr. wooding, watch me. and miss petrin talking about the mint, but the most important part of that as i said

previously is a discussion between commissioner richards and the zoning administrator sanchez. what i just said is i am here for the minutes. if you can see the time for yourself, and thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. following up with a discretionary review hearing from may 9th, despite disruptions from commissioner richards, the staff, to review what actually happened from a planning point of view before the d.r. hearing, the planning department provided solution accounts in its case report. staff needs to provide a thorough review that has integrity and transparency to account for the 13 violations with the project. the planning department has ample opportunity over the past three years to provide proper oversight but failed to do so. the planning department review a permit history needs to answer it at least the following questions.

the planning review, why was no application intake taken, how was the project able to be approved over-the-counter. how are historical review and environmental evaluation applications avoided? why were red flags not investigated? such as multiple ceqa exemptions and multiple permits. enforcement review, after multiple public complaints to d.b.i. and planning from 2016 to 2018, why was it serial permitting not investigated? why did planning initially determine that no violations existed in april of 2018? why did the enforcement planner right, it is possible that we will -- i could not find any errors in planning approval. when presented with evidence that what was built was without permit, much less what was not approved, the same enforcement planner wrote, you can't tell what is going on by looking at dumpsters, satellite images, and what is stated in marketing materials.

if the planning commissioner will recall, past presentations substantiating these 13 violations involve pictures of dumpsters, satellite images and statements of marketing materials. discretionary review analysis. given that there were 13 violations, why did the design team recommend changes that literally amounted to no more then a window and door addressing? why did senior management teams not weigh in? case file review, why is staff not making the case file available for review? how can this happen? what should be done? that is what the planning commission needs to investigate. in light of these shortcomings, imagine what would have happened if the d.r. was not filed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon chairperson and commissioners. i would like to continue the discussion on 3333 california street. if you take a look at the start item, the developer is requesting a 15 year entitlement period. i think that -- i think that is outrageous. and the second one, we have -- can any of you imagine living next to are actually inside a construction sight mac for 15 years? no one should be exposed to this type of abuse. so we decided to ask the developer some questions about this. and the first starred item was,

question, you also stated that they wanted to develop mint agreement to lock in entitlements for longer periods of time than it normally would be allowed. simple answer, yes. fifteen years. pretty self-explanatory. second starred item, what is the reason for construction? answer is, if conditions do not exist to build up the entire project, we can phase construction to align with market conditions and financing. what a powerful and ambiguous commitment to housing. it could also mean they want to redo the entitlement or sell it, or pick the reason you want, we will talk about this later. third starred item, during these extended periods would be possible for them to request changes in the project related to height, density, bulk, use, high-rise? simple answer, sure. nothing would prevent us beyond the once a time that this expired, rolling back planning to the commission, the board of supervisors, and request such changes. this opens up immense

opportunity for the developer to radically redesign or observe the site mac -- observe the site in the fourth starred item, could they transfer shares the project to provide for newer or additional investors? we have no plans to transfer any shares. take a closer look at that answer momentarily. there is considerable information to the contrary. so here we have, from the e.i.r. , and the concern is you can't find out what this time limit is going to be on rezoning the site mac. let's just be generous and say five years, say seven years. after five years, the developer could request an entirely new set of zoning. bear in mind that after five years, the -- he has generated very little housing to date. the site to be asked for rezoning before much actual productive work had been done.

the question about where we go from there and what might happen to entitlement, if you look at the last one in the picture, the reality is that entitlements will be sold in san francisco today. many are not being built. so any claims -- is that my time >> it is. >> i appreciate that you got it. thank you, very much. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment? >> sue hester. every commission meeting, at the beginning of the commission should have this overhead projector adjusted to eight and a half by 11. expecting the public, including this last speaker to know how to

do the adjustments so that his entire page is shot on the overhead is unreasonable. the planning commission should do the same thing with the board of appeal starts at the beginning of the hearing, before it starts. the overhead should be adjusted. it is really important. that is the quality of the planning commission and the public understanding what is being talked about. i am not talking about the substance, i'm talking about what appears on the overhead. secondly, a plea. i really want to hear your -- you are important people. when you speak, your words should be spoken and adjusted into the microphone. if there is an adjustment that's is necessary for the room, for people to be heard, ask for it. i am dead serious.

the only person that really has good control of the microphone is the person sitting in the chair, the first chair. the rest of you are sometimes audible and sometimes not. i sit in the third row back here and i can't hear you. please speak into the microphone , adjust the microphone. take lessons that you need to do about how to be audible. it is important. we come to these hearings and we want to hear the commissioners. and sometimes we can't hear you at all. i would say for everyone on the podium, including those people at this side and the commission secretary. it is really important to be heard. thank you. >> thank you. any more speakers for public comment. seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> see nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar item eight was pulled off. we will take up that matter now. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with department staff. the case before you today is a can request for conditional use authorization for the extent -- extension of a formal -- former retail use located within the lakeshore plaza shopping center. the project includes minor interior and exterior

alterations to the existing tenant spaces. no expansion of the existing building envelope is proposed. lakeshore prague -- plaza shopping centre was constructed in 1950 but was completely demolished and reconstructed in 1992. peet's coffee, currently located at 1509 sloat boulevard is proposing to expand into the adjacent commercial space next door at 1511 sloat boulevard. the space was peevishly occupied by a norm or -- another former retail business use. the existing square footage of pete's coffee is 900 square feet after the expansion, the new square footage will be approximately 1,800 square feet. lakeshore plaza is comprised of four parcels occupying approximately 122,000, 864 square feet in combined area, generally bounded by sloat boulevard to the north, ocean avenue to the south, everglades drive to the east and clearfield drive to the west.

the project site is located at the northwest corner of the eastern building within the plaza. the plaza is located in a neighborhood commercial shopping center zoning district within the lakeshore plaza and special use district and a 2640 height and bulk district. the immediate neighborhood -- immediately surrounding in the neighborhood is mostly single family homes. after packets were published, the department received phone calls regarding concerns related to the larger plaza such as security, cleanliness, and a.d.a. compliance and noticing requirements for the pre application meeting. these concerns cannot include opposition to the proposed project itself. staff also received a letter forwarded from supervisor you's office and drafted by the lakeshore acre improvement club requesting a continuance of this item. i have a copy of it for the record, as well.

the department recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan , and all applicable requirements of the planning code. the project will expand an existing formula retail use doing businesses pete's coffee into in adjacent commercial space previously occupied by another formula retail use. it will not replace an existing business, but expand an existing business and provide additional opportunities and services to the neighborhood. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. the project sponsor his here, as well. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a consultant to pete's. i am with jason from pete's coffee. i want to give you some background on the use two

properties. 1509, about ten years ago was a different coffee shop and pete's coffee took the space over and has been running that space responsibly for over ten years, a decade. a short time ago, i was before you asking for a conditional use for all hima heap okay which is 1511. i remember commissioners saying good luck as we left because we were replacing a yogurt shop which was obviously losing money the other shop was also losing money. the concept never caught on. we have an opportunity today to take a stable business and naturally expand into the adjacent space so that we can provide additional seating and accommodations for patrons that come there. i walk through that plaza, i talked to 30 or so merchants, managers, owners, workers. i had a petition signed.

everybody wants this space because when they come in, you know, a lot of people drink coffee at the same time. they want to be able to sit down not only is it necessary, desirable, and compatible, i would say it is compassionate, it is warm, it is inviting, it is a natural expansion, and i think if it is granted today, we don't have to have a vacant storefront. we have someone there that is going to be a good steward of the property. today i have jason over here. just let you know, too, this process took eight months, which there was plenty of opportunity for anyone -- we would love to have talked to anyone. we will still talk to everybody that is interested. the brand is very important to these people so they want to make sure that they accommodate and, you know, bring goodwill to everyone. [please stand by]

. >> and we were also out there with a group from the

supervisor's office and the mayor's office. so i have gone in several times to the management at pete's, and asked them to put me in contact with a manager or someone that could deal with the problems in their space or outside. i mean, they have to have some kind of ground rules for behavior and stuff. when i went in there, i was not impressed from what i saw, and got never feedback from pete's from what i saw. we just want to see a functional, clean shopping center. it's very interesting that these people want to detach themselves except for running their business, what happens outside is not their problem. i think in every kind of neighborhood corridor, everyone should be considerate of what goes on.

thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public is closed. so being that there is a vacant storefront next door, and there is a formula retail -- four formula retail, i'm in support. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. so i think that it's often in the best interest of -- of formula re-taylor any type of retail to really engage the neighborhood. those are your customers, they're your community members, and the way you feel that people moving in and around

your space is the reason they won't or will continue to move around your establishment. i was really heartened by the note that we did get from the supervisor's office. the issues from the larger plaza have come up with them, and they have tried to be and continued to be active and engaging the plaza as a whole and some of the issues that the neighborhood have addressed. at the same time, from our position of where we sit around this particular issue, i do think from a land use perspective, it is a good use. i just want to echo

commission commissioner koppel's comments that i have been in that space, and it's such a small space. i encourage you to continue to work with the supervisor's office and with that, i move to approve. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: the one reason i go to pete's, i was in pete's two days ago, there's no composting, there's no recycling, there was one big trash can. so i'm going to come out to the lake shore pete's, and i'm going to make sure you're doing number 7, well. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there

is a motion to accept. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioner do commissioners, that item passes 5-0. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. lily lengua, planning department staff. we're here to provide an update on the market octavia amendment. it's been almost two years since we've been before you. we've made a lot of progress on the project, and the e.i.r. will be before you in september, so we thought this was a good idea to give you an update and recommendations.

so i think as many of you know, the area of the hub is the area shown in blue, and this was included in the boundaries of the market octavia plan in 2008. it was really envisioned this area known as soma west for a number of creations, including the creation of a special use district which allows for towers and specialty residential towers at market and venice and south of market at venice. we didn't start to receive applications for market development until 2012, and this was largely due to the recession of 2009. so in 2016, we initiated a planning process to kind of look at the area holistically.

we've held four large public workshops, each focusing on different topics. in october of 2017 we started the environmental review process, and we anticipate that the draft e.i.r. will be dropping in about two weeks. so there are three primary goals that are informing this week. first and foremost is to increase the housing and affordable housing near transit. the second is to coordinate designs for the public realm, really looking at the area holistically rather than a thing will block. and the third to advertise how development fees will be spent and the next package of infrastructure projects. so all of this work will result in sort of three main things. first is making amendments to the existing market octavia plan, updating the zoning map, height map, and some of the

objectives and policies, making some policy amendments to reflect the goals that we're trying to address, and currently, there's a market octavia plan projects, and i'll update that accordingly. while this effort is underway, projects do have the option of moving forward under the current zoning, and many of these projects have been before you, and so just wanted to provide an update on what the landscape is. so this map shows the completed projects. many of them should be familiar to you, projects like 100 vanness, 150 vanness, 8 octavia from all been complete. there's a number of projects that are currently under construction today. if you walked to our office from market and vanness, you know there's cranes in the area. 1500 mission is going up.

30 otis broke ground recently, so there's a lot of activity going on right now. there's also a lot of projects that have been commissioned but not started. projects like the car wash at 1601 mission, and these projects were entitled under the existing zoning. and lastly there are three additional projects in the area seeking additional height. 10 vanness, 30 vanness, and 75 franklin. next, i wanted to walk-through some of our recommendations. so first and foremost, when we started this work, the primary goal was into creato increase t of affordable housing. and when we started looking at this, we started looking at are

there ways to increase the affordable housing requirements. so the column on the left shows what the requirements were when we started this work, and the column on the right shows where we are now. as you can see, projects with 25 units or more that are providing on-site units, those requirements have doubled. so there's new requirements depending on the size of the project, type of the project, whether it's rental or condo. and i wanted to tell you that this has changed citywide, so this affects a lot of the projects happening in this area. the next thing i'll mepntion we've been looking at is is there capacity to raise fees or affordable housing requirements for the parcels that are receive additional height. and thus far, it shows that there are not a lot of capacity

to increase fees for the requirements. this is really a trend that we're seeing citywide. projects aren't pencilling due to increased construction costs, but also due to new requirements. construction costs have doubled since 2013 and increased 5% since last year. so increasing, this is also sort of contributing to the feasibility of projects. so we're really trying to find a balance between generating public benefits but also making sure these projects take place. so the next step is to work with public economics a little bit more, and we will revisit this one more time before plan adoption. so given the anticipated development, particularly at market and vanness, there will be even more people that will be accessing this station, and so the sfmta has b