>> please silence any mobile devices that may sound up and when speaking before the commissioner, if you care to state your name for the record. i would like to tak take role at this time. (taking roll). >> we expect commissionerrer koppel to be absent today. first is consisto items for cone at 50 post street. downtown authorization proposed for continuance to october 19. 175 mission street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to december 5th, 2019. you have to other items proposed for continuance and no speaker

cards. >> do any members of the public wish to provide comment on the items proposed for continuance? >> ok, for that, public comment is closed. commissioner fung? >> i move approval of the continuances. >> i second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue items as proposed -- (role call). >> so moved commissioners and that passed unanimously 5-0. placing us consent calendar under constituted consent calendar are routine by the commission and may be acted upon by the role call. from the consent calendar considered as a separate item or

a future hearing and item 3, case 2019-006948c at 650 jackson street, conditional use authorization and 0045 crv, waivers from development standards, i have two speaker card for item 4 and you will assume people want to speak to that item and in order to do so, we will have to remove it from the consent calendar. shall we hear that at the beginning. so item 3 on the consent calendar, commissioners. >> commissioner fung -- i'm sorry, any members of the public have further comments on item 3, proposed on the consent calendar? ok, public comment is closed. commissioner fung? >> general comment.

this particular case doesn't seem like it should be a conditional use and at some point in the future, you will bring that up among the commission, just adding that beer and wine doesn't seem necessary for conditional use, but i will move the approval of that. >> seconded. >> thank you, commissioners. (role call). >> so moved, and that passed unanimously 5-0. item 4 will be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar. placing us commission matters item 5, consideration of off adoption draft minutes for the joint large with the health commission and regular hearing, i have no speaker cards.

>> does any member of the public have any public comment? ok, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson? >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minuteminutes for october 3, jod regular hearings -- (role call). >> so moved, commissioners and that passed 5-0. >> commissioner richards? >> interesting enough, as i was looking for the fulton street item on today's calendar, i know on our action item, we have an open action and commissioner fung walked right into what i was going to say. i remember the nc20 project, which is in 2007, and i remember

2017 saying maybe we need an nc30, look at the commercial districts and what's allowed, not allowed so maybe we do an nc33 and 34 and look at beer and wine and all other things we need cus for and look at the retail landscape to see what today probably should not be cus, et cetera. >> anyone else? >> ok, so i did have a request for staff. for the last three years i've been on this commission, we have consistently applied a policy of trying to get more housing units whenever folks wanted to expand space. and we've applied it in different ways. sometimes by requesting an adu when folks were doing expansion, when there were tenants in buildings wanting to expand,

we've been mindful of tenant protection and wanting to get moreunits when it affects tenants rather than space, resulting in evictions. so i wanted to formalize that policy, you know, pass this commissioner and give guidance. right now, the way we do it is oftentimes it comes to us as a discretionary review request and we address it that way but doesn't address all of the projects that don't get dred or that are approved as a rider. so i wanted us to formalize and i'm requesting that staff work with a city attorney to draft a resolution for us to vote on so that we can formalize this policy going forward.

commissioner richards? >> i think this harks back to our discussion two years ago when we act like a defacto board because we have a lot of emails with adu abuse, where tenants are evicted. i talked to robin collins on the rent board and she said our job is to determine what level of services or what amenities are taken away and adjust the rent, which i don't think is the right answer. so i come back and i'm going to ask again in this next budget cycle that we have a dedicated tenant advocate to look at every project through the tenant's eyes to understand how they're impacted. thank you. >> there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to director's announcements. >> thank you, no new announcments except to say i'm happy to work on that policy and

maybe we can run a draft by you in meantime to make sure we're capturing the right issues for your attention. >> thank you, director. >> item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, no report from the board of appeals and no commission large yesterday. >> i'm the manager of legislative affairs. the board was on resource for indigenous people's day and italian day. i'll going over last week since i was absent. the landmark passed the full street at the full board and the south of market community adviser community by supervisor hainey passed and at the board, it considered the sequa appeal with 60 residential use units and the planning commission approved this on july 25th of this year, with conditions, pro

prohibiting corporate housing. primary concern with the department of environmental analysis for the project did not off account for the soil conditions and the appellant contends the proposed projected would alter existing drainage in the area and result in significant impacts to adjacent buildings in the woodward street district. the appellant contends it was approved under an eir and the impacts of changes since the plan was adopted were not adequately studied through the plan. during the public hearing, they spoke against the project due to impacts on residents and businesses in regards to displacement in the commission. public comment was opposed due to changes in groundwater, hydrology.

supervisors confirmed this and denied the appeal. lastly, the city administrators office introduced an ordinance to change from the office of cannabis to cannabis regulation, as this is a only a name change with no other substantive changes. stuff was not bringing this to a public hearing, unless you hear otherwise and that concludes my report. >> thank you, are star. commissioner richards? >> just one comment on -- it's ok. i know the eastern neighborhoods planning ir was taken to court and it went through a lot of iterations. does anybody have the status on what the ruling was? >> well, i was used -- it was questioned in a court case. >> i know, 116. >> that was resolved and the court ruled in favour of the

project. >> so i'm sorry, i'm going to ask the director about this, as well, not about the legality of it, but i watched the hearing at the board of supervisors and, you know, while there's no expiration date, the eir, the community's contention is that things changed in the last 20 years, particularly in the eastern neighborhoods and transportation patterns have changed, as we now have uber and lyft and just at what point are assumptions outdated? i realize that there's no expiration date but at what point do we say, hey, it's worth investing, in doing more environmental analysis going forward? >> i mean, there's not a clean answer to that question and i'm happy to have a further discussion with the environmental staff and kind of talk about maybe a memo to talk

about where that trigger might be and how we might approach i mean, you know, the eie made assumptions that a good amount -- a certain amount of housing and office would happen. a lot of the housing has happened. the office has not happened in that part of the city, to nearly the part of eir covered. so there's differences in assumptions and the transportation patterns have changed dramatically. you can't tell you right here and now whether there is a trigger to require us to move into more environmental analysis, but we can give you guidance on that. >> i wasn't expecting a clean-cut answer. i was more wanting to raise the issue as a point of discussion because aside from uber and lyft, i remember being involved in these discussions in our eastern neighborhoods. we did not quite foresee what would happen to pdr in the mission or in soma.

you know, we could imagine so you think from the community's perspective every project that's being built is being built with assumptions that we had to 20 years ago. so it would be belov behoove uso think about it. thank you. commissioner richards? >> one other comment, maybe in the memo, you could pull out the hub eir and compare it to the eastern neighborhoods to see if there's different assumptions now that we're doing one in 2019 versus 2005 or 2007 or whatever it was. i would love to see what the differences actually are. thanks. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners. we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the autos within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commissioner, except agenda items. the opportunity to address the commissioner will be afforded when the item is reached in the

meeting. each member may address the commissioner for up to three minutes. i had just the one speaker card from miss shutus. >> come on up. >> i'll read something from 2007, may 17th, and it was the background document for section 317. and here is what it says. it says, applicants who would otherwise apply for a demolition permit have attempted to avoid review under the commissioner's policy by configuring their projects to comply with the technicalities of dbi's determination as a project of alter augusts, rather thaalteran demolition. this is section 317, draft ordinance, defines this independently so that projects are proposed, removal of a substantial portion of that building envelopes will be subject to the requirements of

section 317. i gave you a copy of this memo that i gave to the building inspection back on the 12th, with three other sheets. and i'm going to give it again because i think i want to emphasize that i think what's been talked about by you and by the building commission has been triggered by illegal demolitions or what people think are illegal dem lugses. and i think that what needs to happen is you need a definition that happened at intalk so you don't have demolitions and i think one definition should be total tearing down of a building and the second should follow section 317 with a little more not as liberal as it is. it needs to be adjusted and you can do that any time according to 317. so here are the four sheets and just to remind you what they are. one is this memo i just read

from 2007. the other is the section 103 spaciou103afrom the building cod demolition without permit and 106 explains what they think is a de demolition and dbi sheet dd june 2015. so that's kind of what i think. i hate to belabou belabor it bun be adjusted. it may not solve all problems but something that should be done based on the fact that the value in the rh1 has steadily been changed over the last five years. and i think they're linked. i hope you read the memo and look at the definitions on she's sheets. here is another one from mr. iona if he wants to put it in the record.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm kevin chang. i'm following up from last week to 3847 to 3849 18th street. the materials submitted reflect the original condition of the property at the start of work on october 2014. please mans arplease plans are d and not referenced in either staff reports from the planning and/or departments. there are lack of added condition space and stairs connecting from the second floor, the lack of stairs from the first floor to a first space

and limited crawl space included excavation deeper fan four feet deep, steeper grade in the rear yard understating the excavation performed and lower original roof peak than the original actual peak constructed in a replacement. the plan department could not have missed the issues back in 2016 when they abated the first set of complaints. in 2018, when issuing the 311 announc311311notification or whg various staff reports because code enforcement reviewed these plans submitted to this body last week. simply put, the most recent 311 notification set of drawings falsely represent the as-built conditions of the property and staff new about this but did nothing about it. staff needs to explain why. why is the explanation important?

staff has understated the extent of code violations on purpose. commissioner moore requested a verified and corrected as-built conditions at the first hearing in may of this year and none were provided by either project sponsor or by staff. these misrepresentations have direct community impacts. they understate the capacity changes and school fees that project sponsors have to pay. the planning department should require project sponsor to correct all misrepresentations and renotice. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of liveable city and i was intrigued by some of the things in your last conversation and i think there's a lot to work with. commissioner melgar, that idea of guidance around residential

expansion and all that, looking again at that guidance would be good and adus have changed a trucks numbeterrific number of . as we look at how it ripples out into the policies of the department, you need an address. the room's down standard are prevent you from creating an adu and maybe they could be relaxed or thought of in a different way for multigenerational households, et cetera. the residential design guidelines, we've done design expansions and all apply but there's nothing in the residential design about adding adu or cottages. it wasn't conceived of in the '70s. there's requirements in there about parking and they tell you how to add a parking space, not talk one away. but now, actually, both of those things are permitted. so it would be great to have

that housing discussion, open space. we don't require additional open space when we add an adu but if there's a private yard, do tents tenants get to use that yard? we think that would be a great conversation to have and we would like to be a part of now that we're in a different universe around zoning, adus, how does it grow and adapt? you think on transportation planning, a lot has changed in terms of transportation modes available. you know a lot more about transportation behaviour. in 2014, when you did the tdm policy, you got a huge compendium of research saying these are the effective things changing travel behaviours. so the amount of parking in a building affects travel behaviour, transit passes affect it, et cetera.

what you're doing rely on the old 2003 guidelines, so rather than doing an eir, eis because directors and others have said maybe sequa maybe isn't the best place, you can create a new place. let's do a transportation study and not redoing the eirs but trying to understand what you know now and how it might policies and how they might change. we think it's a great time for a refresh because we know a lot more. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> jessie hernandez for health and justice. good day. on august 22nd, some 20

community members took time off of their work and family to impress on you their very deep concerns with the proposed development at 65 ocean and that day you heard a unified voice against the largest ever luxury housing development proposed in the exc elsior to date. the community asked for a response in a month's time and today it two months since that day and we have not received a formal response. so nearly two months, immigrant working class, people of colour, residents have not received a response from this body and yet, 65 ocean project has now been calendarized on the 24t 24th planning meeting. what happened? that's a question. today, though, i'm here to present over 1,000 petitions

signed by district 11 residents and neighborhoods in opposition to the 65 ocean luxury housing development. these are the voices and experiences of residents that have real valid concerns about how their neighborhood will be impacted by this major development. yet, only learned of the project, many of whom learned of the project because of outreach efforts by community leaders. these are the names that today i can only invoke in this room because their experiences and struggles, i can't do justice in my few short minutes. they will show up if you allow it. thank you. i have petitions and the copies of the names for you. >> thank you, mr. fernandez. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a community organizer. here instead of using my voice to repeat to you what we've said on august 22nd, i would like to read one of the petition

cards. it's a letter attached. you will note that in the petition cards not everyone is a resident of district 11 and i would like to read this letter as an example of why. to whom it may concern, i'm amelia, a teacher at balboa high school. i grew up in the city attending glenn park elementary, james middle school and balboa high school. as both a teacher in my 11t 11th area and a single parent, the housing proposed at 65 ocean is financially out of reach for me and especially inaccessible to my students and families. for those who qualify for free and reduced lunch. as a community, we should be looking to build housing to retain our vibrant community, not displace i. it.i wish there were options but there are simply zero option for me and my daughter. we should be using these opportunities to create those

option. we know that when large market rate developments have built in these neighborhoods, they speed up the genderfication. developments like this push out and keep treatments out. developments like this take away the character of the neighborhood and make us feel like outsiders in a place we grew up in. as my landlord looks to sell the home i have lived in for over seven years, i do not know if i can continue to teach in sanfrancisco. i look up apartments and the rates are too expensive. before going to glenn park, i attended kindergarten and first grade at the discovery center school which was at 65 ocean. how ironing the place i learned to play hopscotch and all of the other childhood favourite games will become a symbol of my own displacement. i urge you to listen to the community and build the housing for the community and not at the cost of it.

thank you, digitally signed amelia pierce of balboa high school and this is one of the examples of why we don't discard the people who sign these pledge cards in the district because they work here and they invest here and can't afford to live here. so we urge you to make this way more affordable to the communities and accessible to which it will be built. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, distinguished members. one of the residents of the district 11 and i'm here because i sneak out of my job because this is really important for me. i've been here more than 45 years in this city. i was here by the earthquake and who would tell me i would be here begging for mentio intercen

this. the developer talked to us about a month and a half ago and they're liars, and they think we're stupid and they come up with proposed decision about that they have 45% of the 191 units that i'm going to be able for us to live in, right. so they bring up these prices. we don't make 4500. we won't pay 4500 for a two-bedroom apartment. and then, they said that they got 45%, like 20 of these units. and we make numbers, because we're not stupid, it's only three units for us and the rest we can't afford. what happen with old people? we have been living there many, many years. we're tired of this society. i mean, the je it's been so lonn

this district for 15 years. my landlord will think about money and say, you know what, you have to go. so please, i'm really angry and a lot of people i spoke to in the last two months, because i've been walking on the street. we have homelessness and the business owners have afraid that the landlord is going to charge them because they have one-year lease left and they will get, you know, charged 10 thawed forr the businesses they have. they are living in anguish everyday. so it's not own us, the working-class people but the

openers oopenowners of the busi. this sunday, we'll have a street fair and come by and see how we live. we're happy there. we have businesses there. this is destroying san francisco. i went to see the last black man in san francisco. that's san francisco, how everybody portrays san francisco. that's not fair. leave us where we are because we work hard. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your comment. any other general public comment? with that, public comment is now closed. oh, commissioner richards. >> several comments. we've been talking about section 317 longer than i wish to admit. i know supervisor peskin and mendleman put forth legislation

around expansions and demolitions. part of the reason they did that was because of this dysfunctional limits of dbi and so forth and i keep questioning the legality of so4, overwriting the building code and i'll keep asking for a ruling on that. i see cal smiley is here and i'll ask, our district 8 has been the hardest hit by demolitions, whether one stick left, hanging up a shingle or the ones the zoning administrator have done that are unaffordable and i really hope that supervisor mendelman cap take away the power of the zoning administrator and not allow over-the-counter demolitions. every one turns into a $6 million or $7 million house. we have the super sizing of the

city happening in district 8. on 3847-44949 18th street, it troubled me the drawings were smutted tsubmitted to the commi. if we had renoticed it, the original has-builts, why we would be doing this? i'm very troubled. this issue around not paying school fee or. or puc fees. i'll go to ben rosenfield to ask him to do a study of all that have not been submitted and put a price is costing us in terms of money. six years on this commission, i've never seen so many petitions handed in against a

project. i don't know how many voters are there in there, but every time we as a city do something, somebody at the state tries to overrule us. so i hear your plight. your beef should be with senator weiner, assemblyman chu and ting. they need to hear from you and the community because we are powerless to do anything for you because state law overrules our local law and i would hope you call senator weiner and give him a piece of your mind. i see the anger, but i hope you direct it at the person that needs to hear it. >> there's nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar. item 4 was taken off of consent and we'll consider that now. case number 2018-004545 cr have at 354 12th street, a request

from waivers are for development standard. >> good afternoon, veronica flores. this is a request for approving findings related to the requested concession and incentives and waivers for a state bonus project at 351 12th street. for the rest of the presentation, i'll refer to concession and incentives as incentives. the project site is located within the western soma mixed use zoning districts, the western plan and a 55 high-end district. it involves removal of an automobile parking lot, a new construction of 68-foot tall 6'p housing room. the area by the base project includes 40-group housing rooms and the project is seeking a deniesty bonus of 20% or grade eight housing room forkin for al

of eight. eight will be affordable to low-income house holds and two affordable to low-income and the remaining to middle-income households. and the project is seeking one incentive for open space. the projects require to provide 80 square feet of feasible open space for a total of 3,840 square feet. the project provides 490 square feet of qualifying open space. therefore, the project has a deficiency of more than 3,000 square feet which triggers more than $1 million for open space not provided. this incentive would reduce the cost of the project overall with the increased density on the project. the project is also seeking three waivers for rear yard exposure and height. the project provides a rear yard equal to 12 feet to better

accommodate the circulation space necessary to accommodate additional group housing rooms. it requires a minimum rear yard at 25% of the lot. and the project requires that all rooms are facing on to an open area specified in section 140. however, only 28 face on to the reduced rear yard which does not qualify as one of the qualified open spaces to satisfy the requirements. and without a waiver from the exposure requirements, the project and density bonus would not be feasible. lastly, the project has a maximum height limit of 55 feet. the project proposes a height of 6 feet to accommodate an additional story with nine group housing rooms. the department is supported of the affordable group housing project and recommends approval of the findings related to the requested incentive under the state density bonus program. this concludes staff

presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor presentation? >> i have printed copies here for the commissioners?

>> hello. although we were excited to be on the consent calendar, we're excited to present a butt of our project. this is to design louin living e to mere mortals where we have

the highest rent. after building the first pilot project in san francisco at 1321 mixer stree1321mission street ie concluded they were too expensive to build as they demand rents above the reachch our workforce. we began building compact family family-sized dwelling units. this functions as a stand-alone. some of you may have toured the iterations when it was parked on ninth street or the second iteration located at 1321 mission street today. this unit enables us to charge rents that require a standard bedroom in the city. we feel this unit can be a model for workforce housing, supportive housing, teacher housing or any other number of

uses, so i'll turn it over to keith dabinsky to walk you through it. >> hello. i'm the project architect and i'm here to present this project on behalf of panoramic interests city spaces at 351 12t 351 12th street. the projects of the group housing development with 48-bedroom suites all required state and local inclusionary housing, eight in total on site. this is car-free and highly walkable enclave of western soma and rai rainbow grocery and trar joe's is close by as night life with numerous transit connections to the city. this is a sampling of neighborhood architecture and urban industrial context and here is a plan of the block with our project in red.

here is a view of the project aspect from 12th street. to the left of panoramic 33 12th street known as city gardens consisting of two hundred units. to the right of harrison street project which will have 136 units of conventional rental housing, so an assortment. our office designed both projects under construction, anticipated to complete in the second quarter of next year. these are plans of the project proposed here. on the left is a first of the street level containing a shared living and chef kitchen. the generous ceiling eight. the typical upper floor plans in the center, containing six bedroom suites and a languag lor

kitchen spac ette. there are numerous sheet metal clad buildings, there is cortan in the upper stories and a finished stainless steel. this an aerial view of a typical bedroom suite with all of the functioning of a studio but much more compressed amount of space and each suite has nine-foot clear ceiling and contains a living/sleeping area and contains limited cooking facilities per the planning custody and built-in table for two. these are sectional views of the bedroom suite looking in opposite directions and these are photographs of the full-sized mock-up that you could come see at panoramic's building at 1321 mission street.

on the left is a daytime view showing the sofa and on the right, a nighttime bed deplo deployment. these are other photographs of it and the interior and i'll continue up with a comparison we did of the proposed project bedroom suite on the left and some typical or current studio dwelling units that are produced in san francisco. our suite is about 180 square feet and the town studio averages 127 square feet. according toly, our bedroom suites are less expensive to produce and can be rented for let's. so we've considered this a test case for middle-income workforce housing and a potential model for low-income or homeless transitional housing in the future.

>> here is the diagram of the waivers that were discussed earlier. >> we can't see it, but your time is up. >> ok, thanthank you so much ane have questions, we'll call you again. >> thank you. >> we will now take public comment on this item. i have two speaker cards. paul dalley and david hieman and anyone else h who wishes to comment, come on up. >> this is a 1 16,000 square fot building adding new residents on what was winner onc once a park.

this shadows the eagle bar in 1981, san francisco's iconic and lg btq bar. the proposed structure has no community or meeting space used by our groups, for example. the loss of these spaces increases the demand for remaining -- pardon me, for the residential spaces, pushing up prices and making it unaffordable in the district. the developer claims this is affordable housing. i find that to be a casual use of the term because, in fact,

most units are market rate. it is true that they were smaller units, therefore less expensive than other housing options but does not make them affordable. with that, the district was created to mitigate exactly this type of project. our mission is to preserve, create spaces for a community to meet and cell brought celebrate. we would like more time to negotiate adequate evacuation tn the neighborhood. please schedule the hearing on this project at a later date to allow us time to meet a mutually acceptable agreement. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is david hieman and i'm

on the board of the lgbtq cultural district and leather alliance and i'm also a member of the friends of eagle plaza. this 300 block of 12th street, between fullsome and harrison is important to our community. we worked very hard to preserve the character of the san francisco eagle and we consider this area to be sort of the cornerstone of the cultural district which extends out from seventh and howard. we're concerned about seeing yet another major change taking place even before the impact of these two new buildings, also on 12th street, can be felt. i would note that the construction at 1532 harrison, the corner after harrison and 12th, the builders of that took a great interest in our community and extended

themselves in support of the eagle plaza and many other projects we have supported to extend housing in our community. we know housing is needed. we're not opposed to it. but we do appreciate it when a building project looks at the community and says, what can we do to help. we think there's a lot of things that this project could do. we would note that the project 33 twelth has done nothing. there are things this project could do and note they have a community room but not available to the public. there's nothing like a community space that our groups could use. they could do more to -- they could offer some kind of material help to eagle plaza and make a commitment to do outreach to our community when they go out to sell or to market these

units. we are also asking them to be very clear about what they're going to say to the incoming residents to make sure they know the community that they're moving into and they understand the culture of this district. so there is this opportunity for them to think carefully about what they can do and if we give them time, i think they can be much more helpful. i will add a couple of interesting observations about the project from what i've seen of it. i have noticed the instances, the exceptions they're asking for, both increase the number of units they fit in here. (please stand by).

>> this is in foreign based density so instead of looking at units that would be allowed by the standards zoning regulations, we're looking at

the square footage they're proposing. what we have gotten and what are we getting? >> their base project is 13,000 and 127 square feet while their bonus project is -- 15,559 square feet. >> so, at the base project they prior 19% affordable based on san francisco -- >> essentially, yes. >> we worked backwards. so what we do is we evaluate the preportion of the project so that we take 13,127 and over

15,557. we apply that percentage to the number of units that are in the bonus project. and then we apply the inclusionary rate to that number. and so, it's essentially 19% of the base project and the area represented by the base project. >> 10% of the remaining floor area is also -- we use the combination and the remaining area will be is to the inclusionary housing fee. the 19% on site inclusionary is eight affordable units. for low income to middle and two at moderate. >> subject to the fee, which is still at 19%. >> it would be the core responding feet so for rental projects it's a 30%. >> so this is 30% on top of it? >> it's 30% times the fee rate times the number. >> ok.

>> thank you. commissioner fung. >> question for the developer. at your ninth and mission project, what percentage of the units are rented out to students. >> 100%. >> how many units were there? >> that one has 160 units. >> thank you. >> is there any student housing in the projected project. >> no, ace spawned it's a pilot project and we want to test the market and find the applicable uses for this unit typology. >> thank you. before i let you go, i did come have a couple questions, you talked about you envisioned this

being a pilot project for sort of you know, workforce housing and. >> we hope it falls in line with what a bedroom rents for in this town between 1500, $1800. it functions as a big residential home but it's an alternative to renting a studio in this town for $3200 and it's an alternative to renting a bedroom and renting on craig's list. >> commissioner richards. >> one other comment.

i think it's from the ruben and rose and we talk about no other exceptions or this project requires no other exceptions. you kind of get to chose your own planning zoning code when you get these waivers and incentives and to say well beyond this, we don't want anything else. you are getting everything that you want. i just want to do, on record, it's a little bit of a misnomer. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. >> so i think in general in this town we need to be as creative as possible about housing and all times of housing and dcns reminding in units in japan and are more compact for folks to use in a variety of ways. i certainly understand the desire to make sure that there's

continued community space for meetings for the community and i think the unique nature of this building means the common space needs to be used for residents and so over all, an unbalanced this is a good project and i support it and i make a motion to approve. >> i second. >> thank you, commissioners. to adopt findings for requested waivers. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richards. >> no. >> president melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. the motion passes 4-1 with commissioner richards voting against. case number 2019-014525pca. parking requirements planning code amendments.

>> we could take item 10 out of order. >> very good, taking 10 out of order. pca for the full ton street grocery store special use district this is a planning code amendment.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is proposed legislation regarding the flton greece respecial use. it's by adviser brown. >> good afternoon, commissioners. president melgar. and our fellow planning commissioners. i'm a legislative aid for supervisor vallie brown who represents district 5. i'm here to allow form lar retail grocery store to be permitted within the fulton street grocery store special use district known as the sud. this specific location in question is at 555fulton at laguna in the hayes valley

border. before i present, i'd like to note to our commissioners that we have representatives from the property developer as well as leadership from the potential grocery tenants in the audience for any specific questions. and secondly, i'd like to submit into the public record that we have 37 letters of support from the western edition and hayes valley community and these letters are in support of supervisor brown's legislation and of the potential retailers, trader joes, coming into the neighbourhood. i'd like to submit these with the commission secretary. i'll introduce to move quickly. our community members in the western addition of hayes valley neighbourhood have been agitating for full-service, affordable and fresh grocery store for years. in fact, it has sfgov overhead projector -- one of our

communities have found a newspaper clipping from 1881 that promised a new produce store at that very corner and this is a heck of a long time to wait for a grocery store. so, supervisor brown has spent over a decade actually working to bring a full service grocery store to 505fulton and it was when mayor breed was supervisor. it's been a struggle to find a grocery tenant that can maintain and fill up that space and keep prices affordable for the community. we know that the property developer has reached out to a number of local boutique grocery retailers but many of those owners over the past several years decline as an opportunity due to their higher price point for groceries. the developer had to look for larger companies. supervisor brown was close to negotiating with portland based new seasons market into the space but the company pulled out suddenly of the bay area