Be detrimental to the guard. There is approximately 75 feet of frontage on 7th street and 75 street of frontage on langdon street. The surrounding area is characterized by a variety of us uses including industrial, residential and commercial use. The project site is within a quarter mile of several municipal transit lines and is within a half a mile of the civic center b. A. R. T. Station. The project received an Environmental Review on september 26, 2017 and received a Community Plan exemption under ceqa. To date, the department has received four letters of support and one inquiry regarding the project. Also, pursuant to planning code section 314, the Entertainment Commission was notified about the project because it was just under 300 feet within a place of entertainment, and although a hearing was not held on the project, the project sponsor is present and will address any issues. The project sponsor has included public yououtreach, wh is considered in your presentation. All new shadow cast by the project would occur early in the mornings, with all shadow gone by no later than 9 00 a. M. Thus, the project would not cast shadows in midday or early afternoon hours when the park has maximum sun light exposure. The variation of the shadow cast would vary throughout the year, with new shadow being present for a high of 138 minutes and an average of 78 minutes. New shadow would not be present throughout the year, and no new shadow cast throughout the winter. New shadow would affect about one half of the garden plots in summer and onethird of the plots in spring and fall. This is why the park and Rec Department find that the new shadow cast by the proposed project at 7th street would not have a significant adverse impact on the use of Howard Langdon mini park garden pursuant to 295. Additionally under the large project authorization, some things to consider. The overall math and scale is consistent with the changing context of the i cant irrelevant and Residential Development along 7th street. Lankdon streets historical facade will be preserved for the main buildings entrance. And it will provide a code complying rear yard. Overall, it provides for contemporary and consistent architectural design, and the use of high quality building materials. The projects ground floor on 7th street will contain the retail to provide an active frontage, and as previously mentioned, lankton street will function as the main residential trench which will activate lankton street in that alley. Overall, it enhances pedestrian experience, encompassing street activity. The new parking is provided at the edge of the project near 7th street near an existing vehicle Access Corridor on the adjacent property. This consolidates the off Street Parking at the location to ensure pedestrian oriented for the remaining of the project. It provides 3800 feet of open space. Street trees and class 2 bicycle parking will also be provided for the project. The Department Recommends approval with the conditions and the basis for the approval is it is consistent with our planning priority policies and general plans. Its located in a Zoning District where residential 2 permits are admitted, providing an appropriate massing and scale for the subject block. It is an Infill Development that will add 40 new dwelling units to the citys Housing Stock, as well as approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial retail in an area of high density housing and continuous ground floor commercial frontage. The designs of high quality will complement the rapidly changing nature of its location in western soma, provide five permanently affordable rental Housing Units onsite, convert an under used site to a productive mixed use, development, fully utilize area controls and pay the appropriate developmental impact fees, and it complies with first source hiring program. That concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you very much. Vice president richards opening it up for comment im sorry. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. If we can share the presentation. So good evening, commissioners. I am the project sponsor, from cullis wallace. We were the founders. I wanted to add just a few comments with regard to the presentation that kimberly just made with regards to the history of the project and highlights on the design. So again, the site is on 7th between howard and folsom, backs up to landton and frontage on 7th, with the Howard Community gardens on langdon. Again, its a sixth Story Building that was proposed to replace the kpichting building. 40 units, five bmr units onsite. I want to highlight some significant modifications to the project since we first introduced it to planning staff and the community in 2014. Specifically, the original project had a four Story Building on langdon and a four Story Building on 7th street, separated by a courtyard. In conjunction with working with staff and the community, made it a position to eliminate the four Story Building on langdon pushing the massing of the building on 7th street, significantly reducing the shadowing that is casting on the garden by 32 , and enabling the preservation of a portion of the existing building on the langdon frontage. This is a visual of the elimination of the fourStory Building and pushing of the massing toward 7th street. It enabled the creation of essentially a pure pedestrian and cyclist entry point on langdon, which you will see is important to the neighbors of the Community Garden and langdon. This is the entrance of the langdon which will be visible the courtyard itself will be visible from the street, and there will be the primary entrance to the building. From a Community Engagement perspective, as i mentioned, we introduced a project in 2014, had Community Meetings starting in 2015. Worked extensively with the Community Garden to obtain their support, and they have endorsed the project. They came to our hearings with the rec and park mission as kimberly mentioned. The San Francisco rec and Park Commission has voted to recommend the project for approval, and neighbors have expressed support for the additional eyes and ears on the street that the project represents. Ill highlight a couple of things with regards to design. Again, this is a visual of the frontage on 7th street. Some visuals of the existing building, both on 7th and langdon. As ive mentioned before, that facade is being preserved. The i and i will highlight that in the process of redesigning the project, we also reduced parking significantly from 29 stalls to 20. I really would, you know, at this point, open it up to any questions that you might have for me with regards to the project. These are some visuals of the rear courtyard from the interior of the building, and the again, the facade on the langdon side. Vice president richards thank you. May whi we may have questions after Public Comment x so open it up for Public Comment on items 16a and b, any Public Comments . Seeing none, commissioners . Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore yes. I think its turned into a very interesting project. I think its much more exciting and unique than it was before. I appreciate the variation to langdon with the courtyard, and i think it will complement the small street. I think it will make it truly residential, rather than just open the back of another commercial building, and i dont see anything other than moving to approve. Second. Vice president Richards Commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson with this one, i think id like to continue adding the trend for three years. Vice president richards like we did in 2018, change the verbiage. Commissioner johnson two years. Vice president richards two years. Clerk so basically changing the first clause to say up to two years . Commissioner johnson yes. Okay, and is the second clause and third clause still remain the same. Commissioner johnson that one, too. So you want the same kind of language for first things and the second. Vice president richards is that amenable to the maker of the motion. Commissioner moore i would like mr. Michael to come to the mic. Im not sure if you were in the room earlier. We asked the previous architect if he felt that was in line with standard architectural and trade practices. I dont want to throw a wrench into the realization of this project, but im asking for your guidance in terms of where you know where you are in this project. Vice president richards so before we go on, do you understand what commissioner moore he was in the room. I saw him. I think two years to get a site permit is a reasonable period of time, and that seems to be the standard by which if you dont have a site permit for two years, youll schedule a hearing to find out why and consider a revocation, and i believe thats a reasonable position to take, to have a site permit within two years. You know, as the prior attorney mentioned, there are a lot of things that are outside the projects control, whether financing dries up, whether contractors are available, whether dbi timely processes permits, but i think the two years to get a site permit is a reasonable standard ro. Commissioner moore well, architectee just stepped into the room. Architectee, the project is up for approval. Commissioner johnson is trying to add an amendment that site permit should be issued under two years. Im asking for guidance from the attorney general or for the attorney for the project. Two years for site permit is probably reasonable for this project, of course. Commissioner moore i will move to. Vice president richards with the secondary, you move for that modification. Commissioner johnson two years. You were making a motion. Mr. Fong was the secondary. Supervisor so i see what youre doing. I see what you want to do. Its transparent. It its obvious. I get it, but i think we should tread lightly and have a real discussion from staff, from other folks and other professionals about throwing that around, and i guess what youre trying to do, and im going to put the screws to building more Affordable Housing and living up to the mayors mandate, but i think that last project was special, and whether we start throwing this around for every single project Going Forward either tonight or next year, i want to know exactly what were doing to these projects and what it does economically reducing it by putting it on this project from two years to three years. Commissioner moore youre talking to commissioner johnson, i assume, because youre looking towards me. Commissioner fong yeah, because she had an amendment. Sometimes it takes about a month, month and a half to get the nsrs together and get all those documents together. I dont know enough about try to pass any suggestion on that, thats why im cautious about it. Commissioner moore i share your caution. Supervisor so youre not going to second that . Commissioner fong so i, with due respect, not going to second the motion and add that to it. Commissioner moore then the motion stabbeds as it does without the modification dense dense great, and i think this would be a great item, jonas, to add to the mayors directive. I was going to chime in, commissioners, that maybe that we do some internal research with staff to look at some dates for what were commonly seeing in permit review, basically, and provide some input to the the either Commission Officers to present back to the commission at a later date. Vice president richards and include the dbi improvements with that, not just what theyve been doing. Thanks. Commissioner moore can can i Say Something real quick . Vice president richards yes, please. I guess what commissioner fong is saying, just from my perspective, i said this before. I have thought about it before. I think it is well within our rights and responsibilities to ask projects to make progress in a 24 month period, and a revocation hearing doesnt mean thats whats happening, its a discussion hearing where they present progress and hopefully, if we do move forward with that as something that we do more regularly, those hearings will be very uneventful, and theyll either be continued or taken off the calendar, and then, the ones where we need to have it, thats what happens. Its just a shift its definitely a shift. Personally, i felt ive thought through the ramifications of that shift. Okay. Totally agree and totally worthy of a full discussion. Vice president Richards Commissioners, theres a motion and second to consider that motion and adopt secondary findings on that. [ roll call. ] so moved that motion passes unanimously 60. Item 17, 2014001400 enx at 275019th street. This is a large project 19th s. This is a large project authorization. Good evening, commissioners. Im ellen, Planning Department staff. What ive just distributed are copies of the cp that was that has a typo in it but has been corrected, so thats whats being handed out to you now. The request before you is request for authorization of a new construction, 68 story mixed use building. The project site is the corner lot at the intersection of bryant and 19th street. The project is located within the Mission Area Plan and is subject to the requirements for a medium project, pursuant to the 2016 Mission Interim controls. The project proposes the econo demolition of a six Story Building, and construction of a new building. Of the ground floor commercial space, approximately 2,500 impair feet would be operated as a limited restaurant use that will function as a culinary business use restaurant accelerator in partnership with a Community Based organization. The project would include approximately 4,800 square feet of common open space, 24 off street vehicle Parking Spaces in a below grade garage, 81 class 4 bicycle Parking Spaces, and 20 class 2 bicycle Parking Spaces. T it locates the rear courtyard to connect with developing midblock open space. The ground floor provides pedestrian oriented commercial space on both frantages, retains the original bring facade of the industrial building and the project will satisfy the requirements of the inclusionary Affordable Housing program by having Affordable Housing onsite equivalent to 11 units and has elected to provide 20 of the uniting by adding one additional unit above what is required by section 415. As part of the large project authorization, the project is requesting exceptions from the planning code requirements for rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, and transparency for the street frontages, and this is to retain the brick facade. Compliance for each of the criteria is described in section 329 of your packets. Staff believe it is warranted in overall design. In regard to the 2016 Mission Interim controls the project sponsor provided a summary of compliance for these controls. Staff reviewed the sponsors submittal and has spot checked that those originated from qualified independent professionals. The motion important topics for the commissions consideration would be the construction of new market rate housing and a mobile pdr space. In regards to the housing, the project will not demolish existing Housing Stock nor displace residential tenants with the construction of new units. In the construction of new market rate housing on project and displacement, the project sponsor cited two studies from the market rate controls. Based on these reports, the project sponsors analysis concludes the project is contributing to the supply of housing and likely has no direct or indirect on housing displacement in the unit. The project sponsor discussed the effect of pdr business and the effect of commercial activity in the neighborhood. The existing pdr tenant, Fitzgerald Furniture Company is part of the project sponsor team as the owner of the property, and will voluntarily relocate their business. The project will include space for new business and Community Serving retail, including the culinary Business Accelerator space that will promote new Business People to develop their businesses. Although the project will remove existing pdr space, the Department Found that this project, which includes new market rate housing, inclusionary housing space complies with the general plan related to the mission zoning control. To date, the department has received a significant amount of public correspondence after the original correlation date of the packet. To date, the department has received communication from the united to save the mission, calle 24 latino cultural district in opposition of the proposal. They have done so because it provides less than 25 of the units as inclusionary, does not have a commitment to hiring union labor and does not provide replacement pdr space. They further find the project to be contrary to the mission of the plan, and that it does not contribute positively to the neighborhood and the affordablity of housing. They also rais