The bayview area plan. It requires an authorization under 2010. 3. The establishment to cultivate cannabis. This site also includes an unpermitted second floor. The applicant also applied for a variance to legalize. After working with their architect and city staff, the applicant has withdrawn that request and proposes to remove the second floor and render the site back into compliance with 145. 5 of the planning code. The department has received no correspondence regarding this application. This site is a preexisting use which is legitamizing and will be required to comply with the office of Cannabis Licensing Office and will submit a review by the police department. This site existed for eight years. The use is consistent with the intent of the core district and general plan and meets the requirements of the planning code. The Department Recommends approval of the requested authorization. This concludes my presentation. Im available for any questions. Thank you very much. Do we have
On the whole, i am supportive of this project, and i will turn it over to the director. Thank you, commissioner. I will emphasize this is 25 affordable. It is a pretty su substantial number of affordable. To commissioner johnsons point, it is common in much of the city to have taller buildings at the corners especially in the commercial districts. It is common in the richmond and Pacific Heights with the multiple story buildings with lower rise Single Family or two family between, and because this is on a major transit line, as many of you pointed out, this felt like the right place for this amount of density. With respect to the transition. This is a very narrow lot. It would be extremely difficult, i think, to carve out some parts of this building without losing more units and getting into that whole discussion about the loss of units with respect to other aspects of city law and policy. I think on the whole weared on the side of saying this was the right project in the right place a
Finding and the general plan. It is true, though, the intent of the finding was to get to a point where we are having a better geographic spread of these uses throughout the city. The finding itself does cover a lot of topic areas. It kind of should be split into multiple findings. The truth is when we look geographically at the city, the eastern neighborhoods, particularly the mission are overconcentrated. So while we do find that theres particular location and where its locating is not exacerbating an overconcentration on a microlevel, we need to address in the finding that at a macrolevel the city does have a concentration in the eastern neighborhoods. So it is a bit of a finding. Is that overconcentration reason to turn it down . Or is that a statistic you would use for additional regulation Going Forward . Its a policy the city is tr. I believe the City Controllers Office is going to be releasing a report soon that will go a little bit deeper into this. The finding itself only say
Number of affordable. To commissioner johnsons point, it is common in much of the city to have taller buildings at the corners especially in the commercial districts. It is common in the richmond and Pacific Heights with the multiple story buildings with lower rise Single Family or two family between, and because this is on a major transit line, as many of you pointed out, this felt like the right place for this amount of density. With respect to the transition. This is a very narrow lot. It would be extremely difficult, i think, to carve out some parts of this building without losing more units and getting into that whole discussion about the loss of units with respect to other aspects of city law and policy. I think on the whole weared on the side of saying this was the right project in the right place and poster child how homesf project should work that is the basis for our recommendation. I want to second your motion. Thank you. Commissioner fong. It is interesting that the flow in
It would be extremely difficult, i think, to carve out some parts of this building without losing more units and getting into that whole discussion about the loss of units with respect to other aspects of city law and policy. I think on the whole weared on the side of saying this was the right project in the right place and poster child how homesf project should work that is the basis for our recommendation. I want to second your motion. Thank you. Commissioner fong. It is interesting that the flow in terms of or waves, if you will, of Housing Development in our city. If you look at this area, you know, the first great wave was after the war when sun stream and those People Developers built quite a few of the homes here. They built it on a relatively small scale for the returning g is. As i indicated at a previous time, perhaps the norm of what we are seeing in San Francisco changed. We are now getting these 5, 6, 7 story pop ups, walk ups similar to the larger cities that we have had.