in the absence of the proposed s.u.d.'s removal of the affordable housing grandfather clause, the project would be required to provide 14.5% or 14 of the 95 units as permanently affordable. the s.u.d. language as proposed by supervisor farrell would require 17 of the 95 units to be affordable. commensurate with the removal of the dwelling unit density control proposed in the geary masonic s.u.d., increasing the number of dwelling units from 21 to 95, the planning department recommends that the s.u.d.s be modified to increase the affordable housing rate from the current requirement of 18% from rental projects to 23% and from the current requirement of 20% for ownership projects to 26%. at the a.m.i. levels prescribed by section 413-.3 of the planning code. it's based on staff review of the level of density increase provided by the proposed s.u.d. as well as other current relevant city policies. more specifically, the city's inclusionary affordable housing program was recently revised by unanimous action at the board of supervisors this past august. to require all residential projects of mo than 25 units or more that select the on-site alternative to provide 18% of the units for rental projects or 20% for ownership. these requirements apply to projects that have not received any form of density increase and are supported by the controllers' inclusionary housing, economic feasibility study published in february of 2017. dpitionally the city established the home s.f. program also by unanimous vote by the board of supervisors effective as of july this year, which prevent increases of significant density at similar levels as those provided by the proposed s.u.d. as well as building heights and other exceptions and modifications, for projects that provide 30% of the units as on-site affordable. finally t city's 2016 residential affordable housing nexus study establishes maximum legally supported inclusionary rates that can be required of a project at 24.1% for rental projects or 27.3% for ownership projects. given that the proposed s.u.d.s confers density increases commensurate with the level of increases in the home s.f. program, it is the best judgment of the planning department that an appropriate on-site requirement for projects within the proposed s.u.d. be increased accordingly. commissioners, i two ulds like to draw your atonesing a propose ed condition of approval on page 26 of the draft motion. reads currently that the commission's approval of the recommendation is contingent upon the final adoption of the draft ordinance by the board of supervisors. as modified with the higher affordability rates. should planning -- should the planning code and zoning map amendments fail to receive approval, be disapproved or otherwise modified to lower affordable housing requirement all proposed entitlement for the subject project should be null and void. commissioners, sinces the publication of the staff report, the department has received 13 e-mails including one from the anza vista neighborhood association, generally in support of the revised project. although several expressed concerns with the proposed number of parking spaces and the impact that that may have on photographic in the area. the department received an e-mail from a representative of the laurel heights improvement association, formally withdrawing their opposition to the former home s.f. version of the project. and i have copies hire for the commission. the department has also receive aned agreement between the project sponsor and the city. which reflects the proposed increase on-site affordability rate of 23%. the planning department recommends amending the proposed geary masonic s.u.d. to 23% for rental projects or 26% for ownership projects. and the commission recommends the request to implement the proposed s.u.d. and to improve the proposed projects with the aforementioned conditions of approval on the basis that the project represents the sensitive redevelopment of an underutilized site and because the project is in overall compliance with the policies and the general plan and the requirements of the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for my questions. thank you. >> thank you. we'll next hear from the project sponsor. you have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is cyrus and i'm here with the project applicant. do you know if i can turn on -- oh, perfect. thank you. first off, i want to thank all of you for your time this afternoon. and thank the supervisor and his staff along with the planning department. this is certainly a long and arduous process to get here. but one that we've been very excited about. i wanted to start off by giving you a little bit of context about the site itself. it is the site formerly of the lucky penny founded by geary and masonic. immediately adjacent to trader joe's. it's heavily serviced site of public transit and the future site of the geary rapid transit line as well, which is currently under construction there. will actually be a stop for that right at masonic, immediately adjacent to the proposed development. i wanted to spend a few minutes, although the supervisor did do a great job of outlining the evolution of this project. just outlining the various iterations that have come forth and that planning have considered and preface all of this by saying that, as with all of our projects, we've been extremely committed to working with the neighborhood. both individuals and the formal associations if respondinging to their various concerns, their feedback and so on. and that is really what's helped shape the project itself. as was mentioned earlier by planning staff, we've received unanimous from all the organizations in the neighborhood, along with labor as well as the supervisor touched on. so the initial project itself was working within the limits of the existing zoning, which restricted us to 21 units. given the location of the site, office use would not make sense, would not be financially feasible and so medical office was explored. that was initially proposed, but with the existing geological conditions at the site, which is bedrock with a tremendous amount of serpentine, any excavation that would have been required to satisfy the parking requirements and to make an m.o.b. feasible were unfortunately financially infeasible so despite us initially submiting the proposed project that consisted truly of retail, medical office and 21 units, we had to evolve that project and that is where the conversations with the supervisor's office began as it related to taking advantage of the opportunity that was presented to us by this transit-rich site to work within the existing height and volt precision but to address the fact that due to this one in 600 density limit, we could only have 21 units and to see if we can actually introduce with significant increase here in dwelling units to help with various housing -- well, the housing crisis and affordability issues that the city is currently plagued by. so, the original s.u.d. itself, which was introduced in october of 2016, was a work in progress. concurrent to that, the home s.f. discussion was ongoing and a few weeks prior to us actually coming to present to the commission, home s.f. was formally approved and the planning department directed us to revise the project once again. i'll fast forward as the implication of home s.f. because i believe the supervisor addressed those pointedly. but we were ready to come to commission with the revised project and, unfortunately, the conditions and the feedback from the neighborhood was extremely consistent and loud and which was at the height limit, was really not? ing that fit the neighborhood character or one that they would support and, quite frankly, would have resulted in us being tied up in litigation and having zero units built with a lucky penny shuttered on the site. we subsequently were able to work with the supervisor's office and planning staff to revise the project once again back to the s.u.d., which is a project being prejudiced here to you. we have no change in the height limit. we managed to secure 95 unit tons site along with retail and 16-parking space allocation which we're able to accomplish due to the great change without having to do any sort of expensive excavation, which was the initial problem we had with the m.o.b. design. unanimous support, as was already indicated for this project, i just want to make one comment that ties in with our responsiveness to the neighborhood. there was a minor, last-minute change that was made to the design and i believe the package was just handed out to you, which pertains just to to the [inaudible] treatment. but in essence, we removed the cranialations and that was completed last night. in response again to neighborhood requests. i'll skip over this. i wanted to pass this on to our architect who can walk you through the floor plans and elevations and the renderings as well. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to talk about this project on geary. as cyrus mentioned, i'll walk you through the details of the design. we had initial goals and some constraints and some challenges. the goals that we wanted to adhere to were to provide as many high-quality dwelling units available to the residents, of variant incomes and living needs, provide the residents with abundant open space and amenity, mitigate the bulk of the building by creating two towers, respond to the natural grade of the site by stepping each building block,anchor the corner of what we think is somewhat chaotic intersection architecture. liven the street scape with active uses and interspace open greenery in a variety of locations throughout building in. this view, which is looking at the view at the corner of masonic and geary, you can see the elements that i just described. the vertical can orientation of the skin of the building, that is part of the ordered and more rigorous design approach that we took for this corner. the verdictcality paid some homage to our neighboring building to the west. and the building basically is clearly segmented such that there is a base of a commercial level and then the residential levels are a consistent pattern and then see the opening up of the courtyard. this view looking from masonic shows a different side of the building, literally and figuratively,. another design approach was that -- in responding to the site, we have -- one of the challenges is that this was a curved street and that always presents certain design challenges and we wanted to enliven that a libby creating -- using our vertical patterning on the facade and angling it with the curvature on the street and it creates a thin system that allows us to use one face of it, of a northerly face with the different material, different color and the building has almost a different appearance from this side, being that it changes color as you walk around it. this view lookinging from geary boulevard shows you that they maintained this pattern of the vertical vieations on the building. however, where the facade is flat, the elements are pronounced but not angled as they are on the curved side. coming in closer looking at the intersection, also if you've ever been to the street corners it is a tight corner and we wanted to open up the corner and donate a certain amount of space at the center to the commercial space. that gives you a little more breathing room and comfortable navigation around that busy intersection. here you can also see there's an approach to doesn't tiez the columns at the base of the building with the vertical columns up at the residential floors and i might also point out that there are small balconies. they're really decorative elements. it was part of a design evolution that we worked on with planning staff and with the urban design team. to also create a little more visual interest of the facade. we put the lobby in the center of the courtyard. as you come into the lobby, you can see through to one of the open spaces that i'll show in a moment. and the two towers basically focus can around this organization. behind the lobby and within the main court, we have this open space and this provides lighten and views to the fitness area. and similarly, we have another open space that is in modified rear yard with a flow-through planter that's at the rear of the building. as i'm running short on time, i'll point out quickly on the elevations you can, again, see the interdigitation of the facade and pronounced entriway and court yard and i'll skip quickly to the roof where we also have our open space. >> thank you. i'm available for questions, of course. >> ok. thank you. >> president, my apologies. there's one important condition that was in response to the neighborhood feedback that i'd like your permission to introduce. if that's ok. >> ok. can you give us a -- can you do it in a minute? >> sure. absolutely. the condition of approval has to do with the parapin traoe. itself and we agreed with the neighborhood groups to utilize transparent glazing or translucent glazing for anything that would be installed above the 42-inch parapin itself. >> i think we have it. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. so, we'll open this item up for public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. if i call your name, line up on the screen side of the room and approach in any order. barbara, tim, scott, and ryan. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. i just want to say that this is not a project that we've reviewed so we don't opinions on the project per se. i just want to comment on the number of units. certainly obviously we would love to have the most units possible. but as supervisor farrell said, we certainly don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good and i think that the number of units a really nice number. obviously it would be better if it were more. but it is much better than 19. the one thing they do kind of want to bring attention to, this is something that i'm starting to hear a lot from people who build housing. is projects are not penciling out with home s.f. and with the inclusionary numbers. and i'm talking to a lot of people who are building housing right now or trying to build housing, that they're passing on projects. the fact that we heard that the home s.f. did not pencil for this particular project is very consistent with the p/esingaging that i'm hearing from a lot of people. so just something to keep in mind as we move forward to the new year. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm richard frisbee. i live near the project. first of all, there's been a very active neighborhood effort on this and we've had a good dialogue with the developer and supervisor, which is not always the case, which has led to the changes that i think supervisor farrell and the developer pointed out. i think the place that we still have a concern is the parking. 16 for 95 is 1 to 6. and i would argue that that probably comes near the lower end of what else has been approved in the city today. we really believe that a one to three would be more appropriate which would be about 30, 31 units. and there is nowhere that those cars, which people are going to park, except on the street. and that is an a incredibly come plex intersection so the neighbors that live on emmerson woods will be burdened significantly by these cars and equally importantly as muni comes through there, the fire department comes through there and there are going to be cars where there aren't cars today and it is already a difficult place. so, i would ask that it be looked and i think kathy will point out that we believe there is some opportunity and that is one area that we still feel could use some looking at. but we have been pleased by the response we've got both from the supervisor and from the developer on this. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker. >> hello, commissioners. i'm a long-term resident and property owner just a block or two away from the project. and i'm here in to speak in support of it. i really appreciate the developer and their transparency. we had a couple hour meeting just down the hall several weeks ago. they have been very forthcoming in trying to meet our needs and where the project now stands as an eight-story building matching the storage building and other speakers have said and the supervisor. it's wonderful that there is a collaboration where i think with your approval we can get a building built there. and add not only the 95-units but the 17 -- the 17 units of affordable housing. as the prior speaker, rich frisbee, did mention there is a concern about parking. you may be aware that there is a very large development going in to the neighborhood as well at 3333 california street. some 555 odd units which, you know, we want to support the housing in the neighborhood. we understand that. but there is going to be a whole lot more traffic. so, we ask you to consider that. i also wanted to finally just speak to the planning staff, specifically christopher may, who i think has been really responsive to the neighborhood. and to our concerns and helping these neighborhoods get better housing. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. jim ryan. i live right around the corner from the project. i'm here in support of the project. i think 95 units is going to be a lot. it is going to be -- it is goinging to take a lot of deep thought to make the logistics of the whole situation work. where you have that many people coming and going from the project. in not only this, but i think the commission could look at not only uber and lyft, but the logistics of package delivery happening on a very congested corner that is on the b.r.t. and we twanlt b.r.t. to work because geary street is a valuable resource. if the b.r.t. doesn't work because uber and lyft block it at the intersection or u.p.s. or whatever is there, then it is going to hold everybody up all down the line. we think it deserves some deep thought on the matter. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm scott fong. i'm a resident just one block behind on emmerson street. and i support the project. one thing i would like the request is for more parking spaces in the project. as we mentioned, there's 95 residents and only 16 spaces. our street on emmerson is directly impacked during the work hours with overflow already from the trader joe's -- [coughing] and very little park on the street already so if we can have more spaces, i think the one to three ratio or even somewhere in between there, one to four ratio of parking spaces to actual residences would be great. this s a it. thank you. [coughing] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is calla winkler. i'm a resident about a block away from the project. i also wanted to express my thanks to the supervisor and to the planners and developers of the project. we do very much support more housing. we know that the city is in a housing crisis. we do -- we're very happy that they are going to have the -- just the eight-story limit which we had wanted in the first place. we're glad that they have agreed to that and we -- we do -- again, i want to express also the parking space is extremely bad already with ucsf 3333 california. they're going in right now as they're there, even though it is only being used probably 50% of the capacity of the building is being used currently with the muni bus barn rides across the street. also there's already a lack of parking and there are drivers circling constantly from 5:00 in the morning until 8:00 for work and then it is so hard to find parking everywhere. a few spaces -- if there is any what thayaruban -- any way that they could accommodate more on the site, it would be appreciated by neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm barbara ray and i lived on emmerson street since 1949. and i'm not opposed to the housing. i'm opposed to the parking. >> ma'am, i'm sorry. could you put the microphone so you can speak into the microphone. there you go. >> perfect. >> sorry. where was i? i'm not opposed to anything except for the parking. our street is a mess. and parking is just really, i think you can sell it. it's so valuable. but anyway. good luck. [laughter] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. [whispering] >> my name is colleen. i live on emmerson street around the corner from the project. and we wanted to thank the developers. they did spend time listening to us and addressed our concerns, keeping this at an 80-foot height limit, which is big for us. also they're agreing to keep the roof screen and wind control components, transparents or translucent and will allow light over the neighborhood and the framing support for screening would be don't a minimum. that is a big impact on us because currently there is only a one-storey building there. and that is really small. it's actually, according to your city assessors, it's not 12730 but 12634 and we feel you have made it 95 units. that is a big change from 21. so, we're supporting that. we understand there's a housing crunch. i grew up in this city. i've lived on emmerson street for 24 years and we congratulate you and the developers for crafting this project. the big concern is the park. 16 spots for 95 units? i mean, commissioner richards was just talking about the lawn -- laundromats disappeared. and anyone can acknowledge that the traffic is unbelievable. that is our big concern. we appreciate everybody trying to create more housing. i have three kids. they need housing. but we also appreciate our neighborhood being considered, too, with the parking issue because 16 spots is just not enough. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker and i'll call additional names. catherine mcgee, zarine, teresa cole, kathy, laura clark and jane natalie. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon. short of sounding like a broken record, i live at 43 emmerson street. we have lived there, the house has been in our family for 65 years. and our biggest concern, my biggest concern, of course, is parking. the congestion at that corner, i think it is one of the most treacherous in the city. and besides the city center, and the muni bus barn, a dialysis on one side of the corner of emmerson street and a wine bar across the street, you can see that parking is at a minimum. that is my greatest concern. i do appreciate the commission here and also the developer for working with us. i appreciate that. very much. because at least i feel my voice has been heard and i do hope that something can be done about the parking situation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, commissioners. my name is bob and i'm a member of the neighborhood group called grow the richmond. my friends and i in grow the richmond all live in the richmond and support more housing and, in particular, we support this project. i guess i didn't really come with any really prepared remarks, but the one thing i wanted to highlight is that i understand the parking concerns of a lot of the neighbors both in and around the project. i really do. but we know that we have macrochallenges in the city and frankly in the country and globe around climate change and global warming and all of the things that will happen if we do not change the way we've been livinging in our society for the last 50 to 100 years and one of the things that has to change is our overreliance on automobile usage. i do get that there is enough parking. i live on the western-most point of the richmond district. i understand it is as bad there as it is where this project site is. but it is not going to get any better if we create more spaces for cars to exist. we have to work to get more of our residents to take muni. we have to work to not only get the b.r.t. to be in a place where it's a treasured element of the city and the geary core doe -- corridor, but we have to get light rail and maybe bart. i know that is a thing supervisor fewer has talked about a lot. i just wanted to come up here and just say that i like this project. i hope that you will approve it and i understand the concerns that have been raised about parking. but i think we need to look a little further down field and worry about what the city will be like, not just five-years from now, but 20, 30, 50 years from now and then ideally a universe where we don't have nearly as much car usage as we do now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. and thank you for the chance to speak today. my name jay. i'm also here with grow the richmond and i wanted to implore you to support this project as it is. it's a great opportunity. it is 95 units in a location that we could really use it and obviously has echoed this. we need more housing and everybody knows that. i hear the concerns on parking and definitely wanted to echo what bob said. i think it's something that is a great opportunity to start doing that. this is a project in a location that is walkable. it's transit accessible. and it can help shift that. we need to move away from automobiles and this prioritizes people over housing cars, which is something that i would love to see us move towards. i know this has been through a lot of process. this is agreeable. i think a lot of people have had their say. i do think that this is somethinging that we can move forward with and be happy. it will continue to serve the neighborhood and this is 95 new homes for people in a location that we don't see on the west side frequently. this is a rare opportunity. maximizing housing for people is a great thing and that is all i wanted to share. >> great. thank you. next speaker, please. [please stand by] >> we are urban dwellers and we need to run into people and there's something fun in our community and lives inherent to public transit and walking and biking and making biking less dangerous on the west side and making the cars not go so fast. in fact we need it make our streets safer. this is a great project but i also think we should to take a minute to reflect on what we lost in the project. this could have been taller and could have had more people living in. the fact it was scaled down to accommodate concerns is not great we in fact need to go the other direction. i appreciate it will be a density bonus and that's something but we should think bigger. i want everybody in the room to be less intimidated of humans joining the west side. we can have more people walking, biking, taking the bus. we can beef up the transit infrastructure but we can't have so many parking spaces anymore. that's a dead end for our society. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live on pine of over 30 years there. we definitely as neighbors of this project we definitely support the team who worked so diligently with this with supervisor farrell and i worked at sf general and half my medical patients drive cars. they drive cars still. they're not electric they're maybe 10, 15-year-old cars and show the pictures in the clinic and they drive throughout the city. i think it's a lofty goal to get rid of cars in the city but everybody has a reason to use them. the disabled. you won't see a family of five going to the doctor's office on a muni bus that takes five hours to crosstown. keep that in the back of your mind when you are planning on the projects i implore you that cars are necessity in our society still leaving out those with seizures i agree, you can't drive a car. going back to the project, we support the eight story. the ten-story unit we had a study and it conducts shadows over where residents get the only sunshine in the courtyard so we appreciate the eight stories the project has come down to. we have traffic concerns especially by the trader joe's area. so many accidents and people get hit jay walking too. to implore for safety zones around the area especially for lyft and uber drivers. you'd see more neighbors out today but they're working-class neighbors and they're at their stores and shops and business and working at hospitals across town too. we have a lot of health care providers. thank you for your time. >> thank you, ms. mcgee. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you. first i want to thank the developer for working with our neighborhood organization and echoing the same as the height of the public storage building next to the project. i want to ask the competitioners as well as the room who -- commissioners who here drove today. just a show of hands. so maybe 50%, maybe a little less. just to point out i know we want to ride bikes, take busses, walk car share, uber, lyft, the modes of transportation but the reality is we're not there yet. so our little neighborhood and that tight area that one little road that takes you from geary and masonic and loop pine is tight. we have busses there and bike traffic and pedestrian traffic. i would like you to look in the plans to see if there's some way you can maybe give a few more parking spots, i'm echoing everything the neighborhood said but please give it some consideration. >> have you very much. next speaker, please. >> president hills and commissioners, i'm a long-term resident of the neighborhood and happy to support the project before you today and i appreciate the professionalism of the developers and their willingness to work with us as you know is not always the case, unfortunately. so i think density increase is good and serve the city's goal for housing units. and this accommodation is reasonable because the building would conform with the height limit and match the adjacent public storage building height and this would strike a reasonable balance and having 95 housing units woul be better than commercial use in the majority of the building. a taller building would have shaded the windows and gardens of the homes behind emmerson and hurt the long-term residents on emerson who have commissioned a shadow study we held in advance and haven't finished because, as you fknow, there's been a revision and appreciate they worked with the neighbors on the height and roof screening. they agreed to our request for a condition of approval that everything above the solid parapet would be transparent to the extent allowed by law and i have that language for you also along with ten letters of support from neighbors. i want to make sure you have all the language of that condition. and the developers here responded to our request for information. as a result where we could find common ground, we have only forked an alliance with them. of course, we would like more parking spaces but they say there's not room for them. i note the commercial space in the basement was enlarged by about 400 feet. and an electrical room was moved from the first story to the basement. there could be some tinkering placed upstairs in the 400 feet could be adjusted but the developer does not support that so we will leave that to you. s so in all the balance struck will allow the project to be built with about 18 months which is very quick. it will provide needed housing. i just want to clarify that it is confusing that the prior opposition to the taller building was not withdrawn because of the concern about modification but the building that is before you today, which is within the 80-foot height limit, is something we do support. so thank you very much and once again we appreciate the collaboration with the developers here. >> great, thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you for having us give our views on this project. i'm zarin ronderia behind the proposed building. i enjoyed listening to the young people who said we don't need cars. i'm over 70 years old and when i need to go to the doctor, i cannot go on geary boulevard trying to go across trader joe's where i can only get killed with people trying to get in and out and not feeling well. i do need my car. and i would love to have more parking spaces. for this project as well as maybe some restrictions in our own streets so other people don't use up our space so we cannot park our own cars. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name's anthony urbina for the sheet workers union 104 and on behalf of the trades, we're pleased to support this project as proposed by the developer. we have extensive discussions with the project applicant that has led to a project that will not only add to our city's much-needed housing stock but also contribute to the social infrastructure that we all agree is important. we applaud the labor compliance and strong prevailing wage regulation and agreements and it's evident the city is serious about putting resources to achieve the goals. this is by private agreement such as the one such as this one are key to creating the opportunities to put san franciscans we're bringing into the trade unions and work throughout the city and region. the project will benefit our city by creating career pathways to the middle class for san franciscans through the unions' apprenticeship programs and jobs that pay middle-class wages with health care and benefits and we urge you in joining us in supporting the project. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is john corisol a member of the union and san francisco building trades. we'd like to thank the developer for recognizing and choosing to talk to the building trades and we know that there will be paying union wages infringes on all workers and supporting training programs for apprentices within the city. and on behalf of the local 38 we urge you to support the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. if there's any other members of the public that would like to speak line up on the side of the room. >> for all the reasons i talked about earlier, this project should be approved without delay. i want to offer congestion has gotten me out of my car and into public transit and seeing this as a broad trend especially with people younger than me. and in addition to that i want to offer a moment of silence for the 24 homes lost and the families that would have lived there. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is neil ryan. i live on emmerson street. i hear the concerns for parking and more housing. though it would be good in the future to rely less on the automobile, i had to look at the status quo and even though there are people who ride the bus i myself ride the bus, i only bus or walk but there's people who ride bicycles but others still use ride sharing program and a would say the congestion in the city has not gotten better but worse because of more automobiles and i would think the new residents at this site will of course use muni and walk and ride bicycles but will also drive and will also use ride-sharing services and i that will contribute to the congestion of the area which will also negatively effect the brt line as well and i think everyone could be harmed by this congestion and the gridlock it will create. that's all. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ryan. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm mark nevin and own the wine shop and bar at geary and emmerson. i'm very excited about this project. i think the developer and the community have done great work to come together and really look at this. as a small business owner and independent business owner, we are very concerned about the parking situation. 16 parking spots for 95 units guarantees the neighborhood will be jammed up with more cars. we're dependent on street parking for our customers coming in both on the geary access road where there's metered parking and the available parking on emmerson. we have been very invested in that corner and that community for almost four and a half years now. we have been open for close to three years. we took a space that was vacant for more than six years and poured our own money into it. the business is owned by my wife and myself. she's a san francisco native resident. we moved from new york with our small son. he attends school in san francisco. we watched a business -- the corner store restaurant across the street go out of business. that's a very -- it is a very challenging neighborhood to have a small business in. we have invested everything in making that business work, making it succeed. we are continuing to do that. we are by no means killing it and we don't want to be blown out of there because the same time we have new residents and an increase in foot traffic. it kills our existing business. our existing ability for customers to reach us to drive up and be able to buy a case of wine, load it in their car and drive off. it's not practical for a wine shot to assume people can come in public transit on their bicycle. we sell bottles of wine, we're a wine bar. we do events and we're a retail shop. so as a small business owner right next door i would really implore you to look at the parking situation and give a little consideration to not only the residents but the other businesses in the community. thank you. >> thank you, sir. any additional public comment? seeing none we'll close public comment and open up to questions and comments. commissioner richards. >> i support a project here. i support the s.u.d. it seems most the comments and concerns have been around traffic congestion, parking. i look through the packet, all the delivery services, uber ride share, etcetera. where are they going to drop off and pick up, please? >> sir, the 16 parking spaces campus on the ground floor and off geary. we anticipate that's going to serve as off-street loading for uber, list and ups and so on and share rides whether it's zip car or other companies. >> so they'll go inside the building? >> yes. >> and especially as residents order them which is what's going to be happening or as residents get dropped off as the going to be the pick up spot and we'll have a designated spot for uber and lyft. >> i think that's admirable. i think there needs to be work done on people standing on the corner and hailing a cab or uber or lyft or pizza delivery person not understanding stopping and causing congestion. >> there's a similar parallel. ours is smaller in scale. nima at the intersection of 10th and market with the reach-out to uber and lyft to set the pick up point inside the building the drivers and delivery folks, amazon fresh and so on will be trained to realize the loading pick up spots are inside the building and that's what we anticipate on doing. it may take our while but that's our intention. >> is interest there a -- is there a parking permit program? >> i believe there is. >> i guess the other question i have is if -- i do support staff's recommendation for the revision in the affordability -- i just want to get that out there. but if we go with 16 parking space iz spaces we should be smarter in how we use them for 95 residents i'd amp that up to four. >> in fact though it's not designated we were planning on primarily providing more than -- and there's only so much we can do. it's more the talks we can have with the service providers to determine what the demand is because it's not just for the building but the neighborhood as well and amenities. >> and when we approve this with conditions i think we should look at number of spaces we feel comfortable in. >> thank you. >> commissioner fong. >> this to me is a significant and important project and for those critical about building on the west side i think this is the beginning of it. for those who have been critical of me not wanting to build on the west side this is what we want on the corridor on geary boulevard, on noriega where there's transit. when we go big on the streets we go as big as possible. so as far as a mass and height i'm supportive of the project. i'm glad to see it finally happen. i welcome the corn beef hash and eggs sunny side up on sunday but my cholesterol won't appreciate that. there's concern and i bring up the conversation for this project and maybe for other projects going forward about the parking. about the true need for use of uber and lyft when the woman asked how many drove today or own a car not even drove i'm going to guess more than 50% of us own a car probably 20% to 30% own more than one car, two cars. so i think there's a sense of reality. there's a great shift. laura -- >> excuse me, folks. you're all out of order at this time. >> public test money is over. >> i don't want to get into a war with laura but there are people in the room that don't have a voice and i think us commissioners understand it's part of our responsibility to li listen and speak and represent the voices -- >> excuse me, ma'am, you're out of order. >> we had time for public testimony. that was your time to tell us what you thought. >> there are paid voices here as well in addition to those not represented. so my point though is that support growth on the west side and again this isn't an example of how to do it. as far as going back to cars, we have a huge lot and i realize it's a separate ownership and separate parcel across the street at target. i'd love to see the shared idea where a retail commercial use across the street a stone's throw away that does not use parking at night and stops around 7:00 be attempted to at least try to use -- and i don't want to make this a condition but the ability to contract 100 spaces at nighttime and use technology to secure the cars and have a gate. but it's crazy to fight over that kind of parking. maybe best buy i don't think is there anymore -- target. have a conversation where they rent out that lot at night and it's just we're struggling for street space and it's across the street. maybe we can look across the street and see what's there and the mere ability to ask. i don't know if the project sponsor did and i would love if they said i tried and they'll do their own development in the future and it's fot a possibility. but it is right in front of us. i want to make those important -- to me, important comments. but do support this kind of growth and density on these transit corridors. >> thank you. johnson, you were up next. >> i'll go ahead. so i appreciate this project. i appreciate supervisor farrell and before i go into my questions, comments and potential scruggss i wanted to ask the project sponsor, did you say there was a threat of a lawsuit on your project? >> yes -- well, implicit. the support of the home ms project. >> i thought i heard that. i wanted to make sure. i'm going to start big and go smaller. i want to make it very clear to everyone here that some of the contortions that we are trying to do around affordability and project design are because this project is not a home project and it's a project we spent a lot of time on and todd david and other developers are telling him more generally home sf is becoming problematic and not pencilling out or problematic for other issues. that is something we've discussed to get higher affordability and get more units and try to accommodate more housing in the city. it's unfortunate we are now seeing a project not going to do that. 95 units is way more than 21 but i think it was 121 is more than 25. i won't make more hay of it than we are today or suggest we send it back and start a war on this particular lot but i think it's really important we recognize that is a little bit of a loss for us today. going forward just a couple things. everyone's talking about parking so i'll start there and go into a number of other things about the project. i have supported projects that have had more parking in the past and they have been brought to us with developers telling us their investors will not invest if there's not enough parking or they see the actual need there and i have said we are quickly about to move into an era where there will not be as much need for parking as individual auto ownership. i was in mission bay. if go to the new building with one to one parking or more, they're empty. those buildings have maybe 10, 15 cars in a three-story excavated parking garage and people are not owning cars as much as. we're in an area where a lot of people are driving but i think we'll be there faster than we think we'll be in a place where that's going to be different than it is today. so i think hopefully we'll be in that transition period by the time the building is actually built. one other thing i want to make

Related Keywords

New York , United States , California , Richmond District , Anza , Mission Bay , San Francisco , Todd David , Richard Frisbee , Catherine Mcgee , Laura Clark , Jim Ryan , Barbara Ray , Neil Ryan , Anthony Urbina ,