You have any announcements . Be sure to sign all cell phones and electronic devices. Any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items will appear on the octobef supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you. Could you please read the first item. Item one, 190810. Ordinance amending the administrative code and public works code to require that any resolution approving a jurisdictional transfer of Real Property a transfer of the authority over cityowned Real Property between city departments be recorded in the office of the recorder together with a legal description and map of the Real Property; to require that any petition to the board of supervisors for a street vacation include a legal description and county surveyorapproved map, and that the clerk of the board record in the office of the recorder a copy of the adopted ordinance together with the legal description and map; and affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act. This is a piece of earth shattering legislation that i have brought to the board of supervisors to deal with an unknown, actually problematic issue wherein city departments transfer land between themselv themselves, and really have not had a process for properly recording those jurisdictional transfers. This legislation is aimed at fixing that problem by requiring the departments to actually record these at the Recorders Office as private property transactions. Also do. It our county surveyor, mr. Stores here . I think i made one little mistake in this legislation, which i will fix. Subject to Public Comment on page two, by removing items 11 and 12. The fact that a title policy description would be sufficient and i believe to anything, a legal description that is approved by the county surveyor and you, if you would like to give us a brief description about this legislation. The floor is yours. I am not super familiar with this other than what has been forwarded to me. A lot of times when there is a jurisdictional transfer, it is not uncommon for the details, of the process, to get lost in the shuffle and years later, through not any specific faults, there is a clear understanding of who the property really belongs to, even though it is all city property. Whether he got separated, whether went to the Fire Department, and having approved legal description in some sort of map that is recorded will greatly facilitate adding clarity to this entire process. You will get get a assessors parcel numbers, all kind of indexing that doesnt currently exist. I professionally think it is a very good idea. All right. Any questions from colleagues . Are there any members of the public who would like, number one, earth shattering legislation . Please come on up. It will actually make the world a better place. Seeing no Public Comment. Public comment is closed. Colleagues, as i would like to come on page two lines 11 and 12 remove the words either the legal description in the insurance title policy for the Real Property, or. The verified legal description is a legal description approved by the county surveyor and you just saw him. That is language that is acceptable to the department of public works. I would like to move that amendment. Can we take that amendment without objection . It shall be. Can we forward this item, as amended, with recommendation to the full board without objecti objection . That will be the order. Adam clarke can you read the next item . Item two, 190839. Ordinance amending the planning code to allow a Grocery Store use that is a formula retail use in the fulton street Grocery Store special use district on fulton street between laguna and octavia streets, subject to conditional use authorization, and adding criteria for such authorization; clarify the definition of a Grocery Store use within the district; eliminate Square Footage requirements for commercial uses in the district other than a Grocery Store and for subsequent uses in a location previously approved for a Grocery Store; extend the time period for effectiveness of controls for the district to five years from the Effective Date of the ordinance; and making environmental findings, findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. We are joined by supervisor brown, on this issue. A supervisor brown, the floor is yours. 1020 thank you. I am here to present inc. You, im here to thank you. The fulton street Grocery Store special use district. This is 555 fulton at laguna. I would like to acknowledge the representatives of the property to veltman at 555 fulton. As well as the potential grocer trader joes is in the audit audience. I would like to cement to the record that i have over of Community Support for this Grocery Store. These letters are in full support for trader joes coming into the neighborhood. Our Community Members in the Western District have been working for years to get a full service, affordable, fresh Grocery Store. Actually i have an ad add from 1881 that is actually, i think its on the overhead. This is an add actually looking for a Grocery Store at this location from 1881. A kind of shows you it has been a long haul for this neighborhood looking for an affordable Grocery Store. Personally, ive spent about seven years as legislative aide then as supervisor trying to bring a full service Grocery Store 2555 fulton. The process started when mayor reed was a supervisor. It has been a real stronger struggle to find someone to fill up the space and keep prices affordable to the community. The developer reached out to a number of local boutique grocers. Many of these owners decline opportunity due to their high price point for groceries. They had to look for larger companies. When i was legislative aide, we came very close to having the portland based new seasons come into this space which would have been great. The company pulled out of the bay area expansion entirely. Its been several years since the new season deal fell through and the neighborhood still does not have a full service Grocery Store. Now there is finally light at the end of the tunnel. Weve had interested tenant, trader joes, they have signed a lease. However, this is not a done deal. They are still in the process of Due Diligence and exploring the viability of opening a store in this location. As many of you know, hayes valley has a formula retail band. Legislatively i need to make a special exemption to allow a formula retail Grocery Store to come into hayes valley. This exemption only applies to this potential Grocery Store. If this legislation passes the retailer will still have to go through conditional use authorization process which will include time to discuss and address community concerns. It is not an open door. Just to be clear, the formula retail band in hayes valley will be intact. The legislation does not allow certain uses. It doesnt allow medical cannabis dispensaries, hospitals, nonprofit Administrative Services or office space. It does allow general retail sales and services, pharmacy, Hardware Stores and et cetera. We also know the Property Developer has out reached to over 89 formula businesses to potentially occupy the two other rental spaces with the development. Securing a major tenant, like trader joes, will assist in this process. Further, under my ordinance, the potential retailer is subject to affordability requirements to make sure the Western Addition in hayes valley have access to fresh, affordable, and healthy food. This is an incredibly important as the Median Income just north of fulton street is 24,000 per year. Over one third of the residents live below the poverty line. The nearby Development Center hayes valley, frederick d haynes, lauren miller, benefit homes, a ballpark. Serving low income africanamericans and asianpacific islander tenants. Options of this neighborhood are too expensive, dont accept ebt, or they have a terrible reputation for the quality of freshness of their food, lack of local hiring or treating the Community Members poorly, or actually profiling them. It is a real problem, and we desperately need to address this. Our residents really deserve better. Now we have a viable option. This is actually the only first step if this legislation passes. Then trader joes was to have to go through a conditional use authorization and entitlement process. I want to stress that we want to see Strong Community benefits connected to this location. I support local hire and i am working with the proposed tenant to secure commitment that they will hire locally. From the start i have stressed that the developer and the potential grocery tenant must work with the community. The ordinance today has a strong potential to delay or derail a project that will bring lowcost affordable food to a community that has been waiting, as we know, since 1881 for a Grocery Store in their neighborhood. Further, and he said measures will need to be vetted by a traffic engineer. My preference is to maintain the flexibility and to adjust the conditions as they change, or evolve. We want to avoid a huge gaping vacancy on fulton, and bring a good affordable option to the neighborhood. Trader joes has been in San Francisco for 25 years and has shown to be a good neighbor, in different parts of the city. We will 100 press upon them to do the same in this neighborhood. The Market Research shows that local residents tend to shop at Convenience Stores and full service Grocery Stores for their needs. We can sustain our smaller markets and take care of our full Service Grocery shopping. In closing, i want the Western Addition in hayes valley to thrive, and finally provide relief in a food desert. I will continue to work hard to support our Diverse Businesses and Food Security needs of our district residence. I would like to call up Veronica Florez for comment. And then we can have Public Comment. Thank you, supervisor brown. Good afternoon, supervisors. Veronica florez, Planning Department staff. The item before you today was heard by last week. During which time they voted unanimously to approve the ordinance with modifications. Dont go away. First, let me start with, not trying to be argumentative. Insofar as i believe staffs recommendation to the commission, the commissions augmentation to the board was to eliminate subsection e. You have a clerical change. I assume the only reason you recommended that clerical change was if this body disagreed. In which case we should fix the file numbers, is that correct . That is correct. Okay. It was not a part of the staffs did not bring this up, but on page three at the first line. There is a phrase that i dont think is supported by any evidence should be a finding, and doesnt belong in the body of an ordinance, or at least in my opinion which is not a non formula retail Grocery Store may be less affordable. Why did staff not recommend to the commission that this language be removed . I dont think there is any body of evidence, i think theres a body of evidence to the contrary grade any comment on that . With respect to the non formula retail Grocery Stores being less affordable. That is coming from data showing that formula retail Grocery Stores are able to purchase inventory and supplies in bulk. From there they are able to share that cost savings onto. Do you want to cite any data . Is this just a general theory if you buy in bulk, the stuff is cheaper . I mean, whole foods buys in bu bulk, i dont think anybody would argue here that they are cheaper. I dont have an exhaust exact source for you here today. I will resourcefully recommend to the maker of the ordinance that that language be removed. Thank you for that. And then to the maker of the ordinance, i assume the periodic recording requirement and the sunset provision were really based on a notion that if a successor in interest no longer complied with all of the thing things i take at face value that since the late 1800s until the current day there has not been a real serving Grocery Store in this part of the city. A motion of ongoing enforceability. The Planning Department and commission recommendation, notwithstanding, i am not sure why these things have come out. I actually think its not the worst thing in the world to have a legal nonconforming use. I dont think it is a bad thing if the city has the means to say that when trader joes sold it to, making this up, whole foods and whole foods did not comply with the underpinnings of rhe conditional use findings that there is an ability for the city to enforce. I think that is presumably why the maker of the ordinance put them in in the first place. I see mr. Store wants to come up. Supervisor brown, if you want to take a crack at that. I was not down with staff, and the commissions recommendatio recommendations, but my mind is somewhat open. I mean, when we were looking at this it was definitely looking at if one Grocery Store went out that we would still have that control that there would be unaffordable Grocery Store that would have to come in. The thing we are worried about though if a Grocery Store went out we would have years of an empty space. That was the battle back and forth of, you know, if we, you know, if we dont do this week could have an empty space for years and years to come. But, i actually have some amendments that i am going to put forward. I am actually removing, you know, i wanted to remove the periodic reporting requirements. You know, if a new grocery sto store, they need to provide the affordability information at the time of their application revi review. That is how we were looking at it. A conditional use runs with the land. I am sure mr. Starr will weigh in and, by the way, i belie believe, ill i am not a lawyer and we can defer to counsel. Conditional use can be granted for a. Of time. Alternatively if an owner of a conditional use does not adhere to the terms of the conditional use the city can enforce, because those conditions are not being met. My fear is here is despite trader joes 25 year history in San Francisco that they have a change in their business model, or they convey it to who does not meet all of the affordability criteria that needs to be approved under this conditional use regimen. Basically the changes, with all due respect that staff on the basically mean that the city has no ability to enforce. I am down with this legislation, or he would not be on this calendar as the chair of this committee. The sunset or alternatively, have a conditional use expire after a. Of years and theyve got to go back in and prove that they are doing all of the affordability. This is a Site Specific zoning for a particular company at a particular place. By the way, i do have to say i generally like it when i spend my weekend and i read this, and it actually says, trader joes, at this location. It doesnt say that anywhere in the file. Just as a matter of transparency which is now transparent and supervisor brown brought that up. That should be in the paperwork that the public gets to read. Mr. Starr . Thank you. Regarding the conditional use authorization. As you said, if they are not in compliance, staff can take them to the Planning Commission and have their conditional use authorization revoked. How many times has that happened in the last ten years . I would have to check the record. Can you count them on one hand . I dont know how many times that has happened. We do have the ability to enforce the conditional use approval. If trader joes went out of business, or was bought by another Company Whole Foods has more locations than trader joes, maybe not, i dont know. Any formula retail that has more locations than the existing would be considered an intensification so they have to come back for approval. When that new storm moved in they would have to show that they meet all of the findings, in the conditional use. Staff felt there was enough and there that we couldve forced upon the affordability requirement without having them do a yearly report to us. Im not stepping on the reporting requirement. I am stepping on the sunset. The sunset is not so much being a legal nonconforming use, we have a lot of those. If trader joes goes out of business and another Company Wants to come in, that we have to do this whole ordinance again. They want an affordable Grocery Store there. We felt it was prudent to keep the ordinance they are, so if it went out of business, we wouldnt have to come in and create a new planning code. I am down with the supervisor browns ordinance. Im just worried about the future. Supervisor brown originally introduced a, i can live without the reporting requirement. Its worth checking in five years to see how it is working. I think that gives the community a chance to come in and say everything is beautiful. It keeps trader joes. I think the way supervisor brown drafted this was the right way to go. Im not inclined to take that recommendation of staff, and the commission. This is one member of a threemember panel. For what it is worth. Supervisor safai . Are you referring to page s six . That is correct. I believe that in. They are saying strike that . Yes, sir. Why . Because they do not want to create a legal nonconforming u use. As mr. Starr said, there are a lot of legal nonconforming uses. It is kind of a no harm, no foul. Come back in five years and let the community seeing trader joes or their successors praises, and god bless. Supervisor brown . I just want to make sure that we can secure affordable Grocery Store for over five years. When i talk to planning and lets save trader joes leaves. My biggest fear is having to go through this process again. This process has taken us seven years respectfully, supervisor. I know you have two trader joes in your district, right . I have zero. I just feel that i dont want to be in a position where it takes seven years to get another Grocery Store in this space. When planning said that to me we would have to redo this ordinance. I get that. We have a representative here from trader joes, sir, or ma maam, we please come up . Will you please come up . Sorry to put you on the spot. What is your name . Daryl hollis. Let me ask you a question, insofar as presumably the original ordinance that supervisor brown introduced was enough to entice you, and thank you, and, i mean, that sincerely to come to this location. Insofar as the ordinance as originally introduced would in no way harm you if you undo business there for 100 years. Can you live with the ordinance as originally introduced . It is a yes or no question . Yes. 1020 thank you. Thank you. All right, is there any Public Comment on item number two . Seeing no Public Comment. So supervisor brown, i think we just heard, and i hear what the Public Policy tradeoff is, and i do have to say, as a supervisor who has had two trader joes, one on bay street at mason, and one on california street both of which i have been known to shop at and they have been great tenants and Great Community participants. I hope that they stay there forever. I think the Public Policy tradeoff is a tradeoff between a fear of a future vacancy versus enforceability of what really is underpinning which i completely associate myself with, as a matter of Public Policy, about whether or not whoever is in that spot, do the community right. Do you end up with a store that does not do the community right, or a vacancy . I am willing to take that bet. Trader joes is willing to live without. Insofar as we are actually changing a piece of formula retail legislation to bring them in. That enticement was here which is precisely why this is on the calendar. I would respectfully, in addition to the change i indicated on page three relatively to the unsupportable finding of a non formula retail Grocery Store being less affordable which i would remove, and i will make a motion to that so it would start with a capital, this one time left on the and tended to support. And then i would agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission on page five, subsection c, to be eliminated. I would suggest that we keep, on pages six, section e and make the change and that asked ms. Florez about at line 11 which is to change in the file number from 182 18 up to 19. One more clerical change which was to amend of the lot references on page two, insofar as lots 15 and 28 were subdivided and are now lots 15198 and i think the way you are an amendment that said 15 198, and i dont know, mr. Gartner gartner, i would personally say 15 through 198 inclusive. That is up to you. Deputy City Attorney, job gartner, that is fine. Either way works whatever the community prefers. Apparently i have done my weekend reading. If that is acceptable to you, supervisor brown, i would make that motion as i just set forth. That is acceptable. I want to Grocery Store. God bless. I want to Grocery Store, too, or this would not be on for the first time in 100 years. Let the record show that there is a girth of Grocery Stores long before there was a formula retail band in this part of the city. Without objection, we will take that amendment and without objection we will forward the item as amended with a recommendation the full board. Next item, please. Three through five together. Item three, ordinance approving project to occupy portions of presidio avenue, masonic avenue, pine street, euclid avenue, mayfair drive, and laurel street adjacent to 3333 california street for the purpose of installing and improvements; waiving conflicting requirements under public works codes and appropriate finding. Item four, 190844. 3333 california street special use district. Ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to create the 3333 california street special use district; and making environmental findings, item five, 190845. Laurel heights partners, 3333 california street project. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and Laurel Heights partners, llc. Thank you. This project which is over 10 acres in a very rare piece of land in San Francisco lies in supervisor safai district and we are joined by supervisor. Nine. The floor is yours. Thank you. Im going to be brief in my opening remarks and simply set the stage for the Department Presentations on three pieces of legislation pertinent to this project. Before you is a special use districts, a Development Agreement ordinance and a major encroachment ordinance. The site come as you just mentioned is the current ucsf Laurel Heights campus which is currently in office park fence in by a brick wall. The Development Agreement before you is for 744 units of housing with 186 units dedicated to muchneeded Affordable Housing and low income seniors. The developer will be responsible for finding onsite Senior Housing in the Development Agreement is the best way for the city to assure that this major benefit is realized. My understanding is that we have presentations from three departments today, planning, office of economic worth of Course Development and public. We also have a brief presentation from the project sponsor. I am ready to dive into those presentations, if that is okay . Lead to dive. Let us dive. Sf gov tv, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im nick foster with Department Staff. Im joined with several colleagues by the Planning Department. All of whom are available to answer specific questions during your deliberations after providing a brief overview of the project. I will hand the presentation over to owd, public works as well as the project sponsor representative. Well provide a more detailed overview of the project. The items before your consideration a part of a suite required approval to facilitate the proposed mixeduse project located at 3333 california street. Community items and ordinance submitting planning code and zoning map amendments. Finally and ordinance approving a major encroachment permit. On september 5, 2019 the Planning Commission heard and consider the testimony presented on behalf of the project sponsor, Department Staff and took action on the following items. Certification of the final Environmental Impact report pursuant to the sequel. Adoption of sql findings, adoption of recommendation for approval and map amendments. Adoption of a recommendation of approval for develop an agreement and lastly approval request for conditional use authorization and planning develop men. Now onto the project itself. This project is located at 3333 california street which is redeveloped at the project site with residential retail childcare, open space and parking uses. Existing 14,000 squarefoot annex building, would be demolished and the existing a proximally 455,000 squarefoot Office Building would be partially demolished and reused. With residential use above three stories of each building. The project would then construct 13 New Buildings ranging from either fourstory townhomes to six story apartment buildings either residential only or mixed building containing nonresidential uses on the first and second floor. Overall, the project received a total of 744 dwelling units with 25 provided as onsite senior affordable units with a proximally 35,000 square feet of retail area. 847 Parking Spaces in 839 bicycle Parking Spaces. Related to the site plan the project will provide approximately 52 of the overall lot area and grade level open space. Some of this would be privately. In total the project would include a total of approximately 2. 88 acres of a privately owned, publicly us assessable area. The project would include streetscape improvements to strengthen the network of existing sidewalks, street crossings including improvements along travertine, masonic, euclid avenue, laurel street. These improvements meet goals and objectives of the cities that are streets. On july 30th of this year, a planning code text ordinance was introduced that established the 3333 s. U. D. [reading notes] subject to the controls of the planning district including subsequent retail use, and other nonresidential uses. The ordinance was specify offstreet parking for childcare use established for the housing and meet space requirements, establish procedures for permit approvals and distinguish a development restriction on the property otherwise known as the city Planning Commission resolution 41. 09. Change the height and the bulk of the site. That concludes my prepared remarks. I want to hang my presentation to my colleague. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am from the office of Economic Development on the project manager on this project. The project before you today represents a significant contribution to the efforts at housing, particularly Affordable Housing in all parts of the city while remaining contextual to the neighborhood. The proposed Development Agreement includes a broad package of Community Benefits in exchange for the entitlement. During which the project sponsor will build up the project. The benefits are specifically targeted to the neighborhood and are appropriate for the smaller scale of this project. As is the 15 year da term which is shorter than the city. The da benefits are onsite Affordable Housing. Over 2 acres of rehabilitated and publicly accessible open space and additional private residential open space. Which of the developer will fund, operate and maintain. The key element of this redesign space is that it opens up the site by creating a network of accessible public pathways from all directions. It will preserve the existing green lawn at euclid avenue as public open space. The general operating rules and regulation vision for the open spaces are specified in the da and are consistent with the public parks in the city. Additional benefits include 14,000 squarefoot Childcare Center with 10 reserve for low income families and provider will work with San Franciscos office of early childcare and education to facilitate scholarships for these families. Enhance commitments and streetscape Pedestrian Safety and improvements are included. And negotiated Fire Department auxiliary water system v. I want to focus on the key project benefit which is the Affordable Housing plan. 25 of the projects units will be onsite Affordable Housing for low income seniors. A mix of studio and one bedrooms will make up the 185 units reserved for senior households with an average income of 59 of the ami. With an additional unit Onsite Building manager. The affordable building will be located on california street adjacent to supporting ameniti amenities, retail transit and colocated with the Childcare Center. Residents within a threequarter mile radius of the site will receive targeted marketing and intended preference for units. The terms require the project sponsor to complete and open the senior building before more than 386 market rate units are completed. This project includes no city subsidies. Which means that that is in the third phase . Roundabout, yes. What security does the city have to ensure that that will actually happen . Great timing. Thats information im getting ready to provide on my next as security for the city the project sponsor is also required to see out on each of those market rate units into an escrow account to be used to fund the senior affordable building. If the development is not completed and available for its intended residence the da specifies that the city has the right to acquire the scene or at no cost and to use the escrow funds to complete the senior building starting year 12 of the term. The city and developer are currently working with the Housing Accelerator Fund to try to expedite the construction of that senior affordable building. These affordable units represent a significant benefit from the project and will be a major increase in the Affordable Housing stock in the Northwest Side of the city. By the way, we did not rehearse that, nor did we work to match our ties today. No, i pride myself on being get on my feet. So thank you for that. At this time i will hand over this portion of the presentation to my colleagues. We have a lot of questions about trees, so be prepared. Good afternoon. Engineer, Infrastructure Task force. San francisco public works received an application from the developer to do the following within the public rightofway that falls under what we call a major encroachment permit. That would include the elimination of specifically what we call a swift language is a lane of traffic that goes there without stopping at various intersections. Wall street and presidio and on masonic and travertine avenues. In those cases the sidewalk will be widened to provide better Pedestrian Access and crossings to those areas. As part of this, as you can see on the drawing, there are proposed future stairs, steps, low retraining walls, planners and various landscaping features that leads to the develop insight. These elements are, in this case, are more than what public works can normally approve on encroachment permit administratively. As part of the Development Agreement the developer, as well as the Planning Department has identified the need to remove of street trees and significant trees along the frontage during the development, and there is a proposed replacement of trees in the area. Because of how the Development Agreement and everything is structured in consultation of the City Attorneys Office we determined it is more appropriate to combine both the tree removal permit with the major encroachment permit making it into an ordinance instead of a resolution. I will be here to answer any questions you may have. I dont know if this is in your wheelhouse, this is that public works code section 800 which is the urban forestry ordinance and significant tree portion of the part of the public works code. Some of these are trees on public land. Some of the trees that are slated for removal are on private land. But within this ordinance, which is item three on our calendar, which is the major encroachment permit legislation, refers to the removal of 15 street trees and 19 significant trees with the required replacement of 88 street trees and 49 significant trees and the payment of an in lieu fee for 12 trees. Can you explain all of that to us. Thats probably not in your wheelhouse where youd wheelhouse . Perv the public works, obviously street trees in the public rightofway falls under jurisdiction of the public works. There is a permit associated with it. You need to apply for, and there is postings on hearing requirements for said removal. There are also specific regulations as it regulates to the size of trees within a certains distance from the public rightofway that will trigger this removal requirement also. As is listed, these significant trees is identified. Does that mean a significant tree gets replaced with a 36a 48inch box. I mean, presumably if we are removing trees and replacing it with 88, they are smaller boxes. Presumably, and i have not looked up the codes, although maybe be our deputy City Attorney is to look them up. Does this mean box sizes on replacements . What is the in lou fee . From my understanding it has been the replacement of trees you always want to try to replace them at the same size, if not it is negotiated for the removal of trees and sizes correspondingly. The inlieu fee in this case would be when trees cannot be replaced upon removal. As is is Additional Charge for the in lieu. I would like to have a more specific answer. This is obviously a huge change in land use for a former insurance sites, former university of california site that has been the subject of a very, very famous court decisi decision, and Laurel Heights decision in 1984 it cited many ceqa cases. But we have all been inundated with many, many emails. The three members of this committee, and im sure supervisor stefani. Many, if not most of them, actually have to do with the trees, both within the public rightofway and on the private property. The general preponderance of the emails have to do with the replacement with lollipop trees. Im trying to get to the bottom of if this is like like for like. I for one is a member of this panel who am in no mood to rubberstamp anything need to get to the bottom of the tree issue which seems to be causing great concern to a number of our constituents. If i may, we would like, if we could during the Public Comment. To dig into the answer on this question, talk to the landscape people with the project sponsor and then bring back to you, after we come back from Public Comment a specific answer to your concern. Thank you. Anything you want to add, i do not mean to cut you off. That definitely seems to be the gist of what we are hearing. Public works will provide any information ultimately prior to construction and permitting on these facilities. Thank you. Are there any additional presenters from the city and county of San Francisco. Alright right, seeing none. I will open this up to supervisor stefani. I believe we are going here briefly from the project sponsor. 1020 absolutely. Absolutely. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am dan with Laurel Heights supervisors. I will try to be brief and am available to answer questions afterwards. Over the past 4. 5 years weve had over 120 hundred hundred 60 meetings with this project and it has evolved significantly from its initial ppa based on community and city input. The project will provide 744 muchneeded Housing Units on the west side of San Francisco where very little has been built over the past 50 years. 186 of those homes as you heard will be onsite affordable Senior Housing, 25 of the total homes rather than the 18 required. We have also expanded the neighborhood preference up to three cores of a mile from half a mile. 58 of the non senior homes will be familyfriendly two, three, four bedroom units. The existing site was developed as a suburban office park in the middle of a neighborhood and is disconnected from its surroundings. Our proposed project design removes the walls and breaks down the scale of the existing site, reconnecting it to the city grid. The project includes more than a comprising half the property to design for pedestrians who have incorporated more generous and comfortable sidewalks and eliminated slip planes in a distant to pedestrian improvements. In addition we are implementing a sitespecific program all the project is required to provide 50 of the applicable target points we will implement 75 and we are contributing an additional 218,000 towards buses above and beyond the project requirement to enhance and support the transit first policy. The projects the ground retail component is now limited to california street and will reconnect the fabric and hands pedestrian and approve the walkable options and for the neighborhood, the groundfloor retail is now 35,000 square feet consisting of neighborhood shop space. This is a 68 reduction in commercial space from the original proposed 110,000 square feet. The retail will create visual interest and human scale where the current site brick wall creates an uninviting barrier and gap in the retail fabric of california street. To summarize, this is an opportunity to transform a walled off suburban Office Campus and a walkable, connected and sustainable mixeduse community with a 744 new homes onsite Affordable Housing, public open space, groundfloor shops and onsite childcare. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional presentations. Seeing none. Why dont we open this up to Public Comment and we have a number of speaker cards. If you will line up to my left, youre right, starting with mary jacoby, michael nolte. These may be different items. We called altogether. Why dont we start with that, if you will line up to my left, youre right and if you would like to speak, if you want to submit speaker cards over here in the red block red box. First speaker, please. Is your name mary jacoby . Youre on the right track to go on wrong way again. You set the ami scale of 59 . That means that the lowest income tenant in the building has got to make an income of 51,700 per year and 47,400 per year. Youre talking about Affordable Housing acting like youre helping people. That means everybodys income that is between this cannot be a tenant in the building. That is called pricefixing and price gouging. You do that every god damn time and you have the audacity to sit up here and act like you are helping people. That means Senior Citizens that has income, that is not making that much money, cannot even put an application to be a tenant in the it is clear . Another thing youre doing, you are discriminating based on age discrimination, youre only providing housing opportunity for seniors, and low income brackets. That is not low income bracket. The low income bracket starts at the top of the scale, not down 25 of the scale in the middle of the scale down to the bottom of the scale. Those of the people that is homeless out in the god damn straight. Those of the people as polka for an order to get that issue addressed like the rest of the people that are always speaking up for. That is not only housing discrimination, pricefixing and price gouging you are discriminating based on age. That is age discrimination. You have a situation for Senior Citizens on low income brackets, but not joined by Senior Citizens that are not Senior Citizens and low income brackets. You are in a violation of state law pertaining to the act. Violation of the 14th amendment for a due process and equal protection under the law. That is not equal protection dividing housing opportunities for high income brackets and not people in low income brackets. What do you have to say about that . Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is mary jacoby. My husband, peter jacoby, and i own the property at 41 and 43 immediately above lee euclid. And the 3333 project in question. We strongly oppose the Developers Project is designed. We support either of the Community Alternative plans that oppose construction of the same numbers of muchneeded units of living space and senior Affordable Housing. Also protecting historic green space of cross from our building. The need for housing is at its greatest right now. To approve a plan that takes 15 years to complete is absurd when there is an alternate that would take half that amount of time. Additionally absurd it is to destroy the green space and trees and views when there is a way to develop a numbers of housing without ruining the charm of the neighborhood, or spending twice the amount of time doing it. More retail space is neither needed nor wanted considering there is adequate retail in Laurel Village and sacramento street, including trader joes and gary street. In supporting one of the Community Alternatives you would be thoughtfully developing muchneeded housing as well as meeting standards for historic properties. In other words the old Firemans Fund building and its surroundings. I thoughtful evaluation would not permit flexible retail, which is not allowed anywhere else in in district to, or in the sacramento fillmore Street Commercial district. Please do limit hours of Retail Operations val foz. Next speaker, please. Sir, if you will take either one of those microphones. There is one to your left or went to your right. I need the overhead. Stepped to the right, but whatever you want on the overhead it will magically appear. There you go. It only magically appears part of it. All right, it will magically appear the rest of it, if he would slide it up just a hair. There you go. Explained to me where the magic is . I want them to see it all at once, but thank you very much. Sir, i need to start your time. If he will step up to the microphone. We, by the way, have both of those in our file. But go ahead. Good afternoon, i am richard frisby. The Commission Recommended this project as a planned unit development. Planning code section 304 provides to you these may include commercial uses only to the extent of such use is necessary to serve residents of the immediate vicinity subject to limitations for the nc one district. However, the special use district would go further and give the developer of highly intensive neighborhood shopping center, commercial uses up to 6,000 square feet. The Committee Shall recommend changing the controls to and one which would close at 11 00 p. M. , allow less intense use and require conditional use authorization for commercial spaces. It allows a host of highly intensive uses. Also, under no circumstances be accepted from any height limit. The commissions motion unlawfully proposes to pass off light height limit increases up to 90 feet 92 feet