as you may know, our homes are located at 1310 fillmore and are attached at the hip to the commercial parcel. the reason we are here is because there have been numerous meetings both public and private regarding the sale and use of the parcel from which we have either been included or input has been minimized. we're here to correct that and obtain a voice in the process. the homeowners of fillmore heritage center are physically and financially and emotionally tied to the commercial parcel. physically we share the corridors and adjoining walls. financially we share the common areas and maintenance dues and because what happens at this parcel has a significant impact on our well being. so i'm sure the ocii commission members here today are not surprised we are here today to stand up and make our voices heard in the wake of the brutal killing that happened march 23rd just steps from our front door. the shooting death as well as tragic injuries made us question our safety and security and galvanized to wake up and speak up as community stakeholders. as long standing members we're aware of the si

we found it necessary to address ongoing issues for the commercial parcel at 1330 fillmore.is typical concerns of crowd control and noise complaints, and crowd disbursement upon closing, the reason we are here is because there have been numerous meetings public and private regarding the sale and use of the commercial parcel from which we have been excluded or our point of view has been minimized we are here to correct that and obtain a voice in the process. the format -- homeowners of the fillmore heritage centre are tied to the commercial parcel, fiscally in that we share corridors and adjoining walls, and financially because we share the common areas, and because emotionally, what happens at this parcel has a significant impact on our will be -- well-being. i'm sure members are not surprised that we're here to stand up and make our voices heard in the wake of a brutal killing that happened march 23 rd just steps from our front door. that shooting death of innocent bystanders have made us question concerns for our safety and has galvanized as to wake up as community harold

we said in san francisco, we believe, this will mainly apply to low density commercial zones or vacant parcels. in this report by the turner institute, actually looked at how it does apply in a wealthy area versus a lower income area. what is the likelihood development will happen in one versus the area. they pick minlow versus fruitville. it'll about 40% in total. extremely high. fruitville profit margin will be much lower 11.56. that's looking at some of the hard costs and potential incomes. you can get different rental prices. when you add on the cost of inclusionary housing. what you see it would drop the profitability. >> supervisor mar: maybe we can go to public comment. we have quite a few. i count the 53 speaker cards that we selected so far. i think there's a few more. thank you so much everyone coming out and sharing your perspective on this important issue. i will call speakers in groups of 10. if you hear your name -- >> supervisor fewer question, they had three major findings it's short. i can give a copy of this to the clerk of the board so you can read the full thing. there's th

they are being squeezed years after being overlooked and that has established a parcel tax but it is on commercial properties. $2.50 per square feet of commercial space. both cities are using those -- the proceeds from those taxes for various transportation needs and various initiatives to address the impacts of these large companies and the wealth they've created on some of the lower income residents. another option is provide incentives and assistance to other income plans. there is a plan operated to the state of california to get more employees in small companies with low incomes to sign up for and put some of your income into retirement plans, and then finally, changes to federal and state tax policies, obviously all of the matters have just been discussing don't just exist in san francisco, many of them are tied to policies. it is quite likely san francisco can solve these problems. some of these need to be addressed at a different level. but the other policy options we believe are doable at this city level could be considered by the board of supervisors to address these issues. that is the

parcels have been evaluated. the areas outlined in black represent most of the city's neighborhood commercial districts where we have a draft survey that's not yet been adopted. even with these shaded areas and the properties within them surveyed, only approximately 20% of the parcels in the city have been surveyed to date. this map is the map of the designated properties and districts that are designated either locally at the state level or at the federal level. this is just to show sort of their distribution across the city and to demonstrate how few there actually are as compared to rest of the city. and then also meant to point out that while survey information can provide background for a designates, survey itself does not equate to designation. so one of the things the previous maps demonstrate is there are large swabs that remain to be surveyed. all of the grey areas in the previous maps are without surveys. and within these unsurveyed areas within the majority of properties are currently identified in our property database that the planning department maintains as category b, which means they're age eligible

approximately 470 square feet of common pon -- open space and the parcel along randolph street east of 19th avenue with an active commercial use on the ground floor such as this are allotted an additional five feet in height and the project take advantage of this additional light. subject property is proposing the maximum density permit. it requires mixed use. the project salt lake city seeking a rear yard modification from the zoning administrator. the project is exempt from ceqa as class 32 exception and general rule exception. the department has received two e-mail let ers of opposition. one is included in your packet. i'm forwarding a series of signatures after the packet was established. and it considering the potential loss of parking, architecture, height and scale. the planning department urban design team looked at the masting including the rear yard modification and the commercial street frontage and architecture as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner. my name is shawn malik on behalf of the sponsorship speaking on beha

parcel from the post office. we were before you make a decision of huge importance at the ballot box should be no different. a commercialots and the decades of experience in northern ireland show that photo id does not have an adverse effect on election turnout or participation. lustre 350 people we re participation. lustre 350 people were stopped from voting for not having a valid id. three and a half million citizens or seven and a half ‘x: million citizens or seven and a half %of million citizens or seven and a half % of the electorate don't actually have access to any photo id. and if our voter id requirements are restricted to passports or drivers licenses, which it is in some areas, that number arises to 11 million people, just eight cases actually related to fraud at the polling station which is what the minister claims is what this trail is designed to tackle. that's only eight cases out of the 266 investigated. does the minister think that her government has the right priorities when despite most of the electoral offences being committed by political candidates, the innocent voters are being excluded from the p

parcel block 6954, lot 039 from an r.h. one residential house district, and excelsior outer mission street neighborhood commercial district to excelsior outer mission street commercial district, and to affirm the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate findings for all three items. >> okay. supervisor safai pleas rise. >> i'm very happy to be standing here with years and years of process on this particular pot just project. this is a particular milestone for district 11 and the excelsior neighborhood. we have not had any affordable housing belts for families. we had we had not had any affordable housing built for families. we had four seniors, but not any affordable family housing built in decades. this project is voluntarily doing 50% affordable for families from 55% up to 100% of a.m.i. that is between 40 and $100,000 for a family of four. this is being voluntarily done by the family. it is almost two and a half times what would be required of this project. they are 70% of the units that are family-friendly. two and three bedrooms, and on top of the 116 units, which means 58 of them will be affordable, an additional

parcels owned by the developer and not part of the affordable project owned by ocii. section 9.07 of the dda reads if the develop ears -- developer's unable to enter into a lease with a commercial tenant on terms acceptable to the developer within 12 months prior to the anticipated completion date the developer may seek approval from the commission to terminate its obligation and approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned or delayed. at the december 18 meeting, the commission continued for 90 days at the developer's request to terminate the grocery obligation so the developer could reach out to grocers and look at alternative models for the space and research additional incentives for possible tenants. since january 1, the developers met with representatives the cac and cbd staff to get their ideas about potential grocers and reached out to grocers that previously declined the space as well as 15 new grocers. some of whom provide lower-priced food and alternative grocery models. we response -- we also reached out to napa farms and they offered tenant allowances. none of the growers is were due to the split level, small side and prompt proximity to wood lands mar