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. Its 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 citys 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 onsite 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 onsite affordable. Finally t citys 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 onsite 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 commissions 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 emails 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 email 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 onsite 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 im available for my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Well next hear from the project sponsor. You have 10 minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is cyrus and im 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 weve 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 joes. Its 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, weve 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 whats helped shape the project itself. As was mentioned earlier by planning staff, weve 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 Supervisors Office began as it related to taking advantage of the opportunity that was presented to us by this transitrich 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. Ill 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 Supervisors 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 16parking space allocation which were 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, lastminute 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. Ill 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, ill 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 highquality 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 youve 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 theres an approach to doesnt 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. Theyre 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 ill 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 flowthrough planter thats at the rear of the building. As im running short on time, ill point out quickly on the elevations you can, again, see the interdigitation of the facade and pronounced entriway and court yard and ill skip quickly to the roof where we also have our open space. Thank you. Im available for questions, of course. Ok. Thank you. President , my apologies. Theres one important condition that was in response to the neighborhood feedback that id like your permission to introduce. If thats 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 42inch parapin itself. I think we have it. Thank you so much. Thank you. So, well 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 weve reviewed so we dont 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 dont 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 im 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 im talking to a lot of people who are building housing right now or trying to build housing, that theyre 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 im 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. Im richard frisbee. I live near the project. First of all, theres been a very active neighborhood effort on this and weve 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 arent 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 weve got both from the supervisor and from the developer on this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Hello, commissioners. Im a longterm resident and Property Owner just a block or two away from the project. And im 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 eightstory building matching the Storage Building and other speakers have said and the supervisor. Its wonderful that there is a collaboration where i think with your approval we can get a building built there. And add not only the 95units 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. Im 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. Doesnt 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. Im scott fong. Im a resident just one block behind on emmerson street. And i support the project. One thing i would like the request is for