Is usually included by, excuse me by the permit holder. I didnt see that either. Lastly in the last page of their submission they show various sites that they attempted to look out, i presume, but they provide very Little Information there. The code says something about good faith efforts. When so many puts on the table that there was no interest. I have no idea whether that is a good faith effort, or not. I need to see these things before i make a final decision. I would be happy to respond. My understanding, the first item you brought up was our compliance with the Design Guidelines and preservation review. Did i understand that correctly . Historical review. I can respond to that. This is not within the webster street historic district. It is immediately adjacent to the district which was established in 1981. This property was not included. It is a category d building for our preservation standards. Included in the report is a ceqa exemption which is signed by our Historic Preservat
Mismatch between the number of jobs that are being created and the housing particularly Affordable Housing thats needed to meet that demand. We are also helping here to meet a need that ive heard again and again from the Mayors Office of housing one of the meetings i had early on was to go through the pipeline of Housing Project Affordable Housing projects in my district. One of the most frustrating things was there were a number of projects where we already have the land the city owns the land, and i was told that we cant even begin to build on these sites for in some cases six seven eight years from now because we dont have the funding, because we dont yet have enough money available for the Mayors Office of housing in order to start these projects. So with that, this legislation which im very proud to have introduced and cosponsored, with supervisors mar ronen, peskin brown walton fewer and im hopeful that well have the support of this committee and of the entire board. As you saw i
Is usually included by, excuse me by the permit holder. I didnt see that either. Lastly in the last page of their submission they show various sites that they attempted to look out, i presume, but they provide very Little Information there. The code says something about good faith efforts. When so many puts on the table that there was no interest. I have no idea whether that is a good faith effort, or not. I need to see these things before i make a final decision. I would be happy to respond. My understanding, the first item you brought up was our compliance with the Design Guidelines and preservation review. Did i understand that correctly . Historical review. I can respond to that. This is not within the webster street historic district. It is immediately adjacent to the district which was established in 1981. This property was not included. It is a category d building for our preservation standards. Included in the report is a ceqa exemption which is signed by our Historic Preservat
The past several months. I really want to thank all those for coming out for my colleagues on this committee for listening and asking some very pointed questions, especially about the trees and parking. And with that, i would like to move the amendments, i believe you have a copy first on the sud. Do you all three have copies of those amendments . We do, supervisor. Thank you. Well, i cant move since im not a member of the committee. But i would ask somebody on this committee would be so kind to do so. So that would be as to the sud item number 4, uses that are not permitted that include auto service, driveup facility mortuary notwithstanding any other provisions, the uses that would require conditional use liquor stores, massage neighborhood agriculture. So those are the changes in item number 4 item number 5. Can we take a moment of time . We can take a moment of time. I make a motion to propose those amendments as read into the record. The only one you didnt read was the time, from
One of several housing bills approved by the state Legislature Earlier this month. This bill, sponsored by senators , mandates many elements in the planning process and forces by right approval for many projects. It has been amended many times. I have given up on trying to read it, and understand it. Your work here looks like, you know, planning for dummies, so clear, so understandable when compared to the state legislature and the bills. It is unbelievable. I am asking you to help us understand what this means for the city of San Francisco . Ive had to appeal on planning of projects, that have been proposed. I have worked with other neighbors who have wanted to help shape a project where there is elements that are impacting them personally. I know you see these every week, and i appreciate the time you take to listen to these, and resolve them. If we are subject to very mandatory deadlines and no slippage, we will not be able to, i think, achieve the compromises and changes that are s