Clouded and clarified and zoned correctly. I believe that it should be clarified and zoned correctly especially in consideration potential for it to be redevelop ed with the residential as the Property Owner intends. I would like to push it in that direction rather than trying to stick a bandaid on it. I dont know if i am confusing the issue or not, but that is the vision that i would like to see how if my fellow commissioners agree, and then figure out a way with the appropriate action to take with recommendation to the Property Owner. I am in sort of agreement with that. I approach the motion previously and the other issue because this is l. O. D. And it is not a full entitlement. And acting upon what were doing would only reverse what the Zoning Administrator said. It doesnt necessarily relate to all the other entitlements that would be coming in place. Or would have to come in place. Sorry. And further more, listening to the Zoning Administrator, it doesnt seem like the fix is major surgery. It seems like its a reasonable adjustment, and an amendment as opposed to a whole change of zoning ploy that would take years and a lot of heart ache. That is why i know its probably a little painful to hear from as a quick in lieu of a quicker fix, maybe, but i think this is the best fix. And it wont be that painful. I guess all i would add is i want to stay within our purview and i think what is in front of us is a letter of determination and that is what we have to opine on and i believe there are a few options that have been laid out tonight for the appella appellant. Is there a motion . I would if i knew how to make it. Go ahead. Go ahead, mr. President , if you want to. Well, to be fairly straightforward, move to deny the appeal on the basis that the Zoning Administrator neither erred nor abused his authority in issues the letter of determination. On that motion, then, from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal, and uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the Zoning Administrator did not err or abuse his authority. President fung. No. Commissioner honda. No. Commissioner wilson. The question again . To deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination on the basis the sdchza did not ab or err his december krigs. How many distropical depression. Three votes are need edthred. Vice president swig. Two votes in favor and three opposed. That motion fails. Lacking any other motion, the letter of determination would be upheld by operation of law. President fung, should we move on, or is there another motion . Well need to move on. Okay. The letter of determination is upheld by default. That is the outcome. Thank you. So item six is a closed session for Public Employee appointment and discussion. And number 7, im sorry. Thank you. Youre so on it. The first part of that is to take Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session including Public Comment on whether to hold the item in closed session. So is there any Public Comment on item number 7 . Okay. Seeing none, then commissioners, do you need to entertain a vote on whether to hold a closed session pursuant to california government code 54957 and San Francisco administrative code 67. 10b. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to hold a closed session. On that motion, president fung. Aye. Commissioner honda. Aye. Commissioner wilson. Aye. Vice president swig. Aye. Okay. So we are going to go into closed session. We do need to clear the room except for those people who are intended to be here, and then the audience is Heather Johnson from the department of Human Resources who we have invited to attend. And we are reconvening in open session for the board of appeals january 31, 2018, and we need to disclose any or all sessions held in closed session pursuant to code. Move not to disclose. Motion from commissioner lazarus to not disclose. On that motion, president fung. Aye. A commissioner honda. Aye. A commissioner wilson. Aye. Vice president swig. Aye. Thank you. That motion passes. Nothing to report on any action taken, so we are done with the closed session, item 7. President fung, there is no other business before the board tonight. This meeting is adjourned. [gavel] they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victims vehicle, i would say from 1015 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and theyre gone. Yeah, we get a lot of breakins in the area. We try to i just want to say goodbye. Thank you. Sometimes thats all it takes. I never leave anything in my car. We let them know theres been a lot of vehicle breakins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. This is just warning about vehicle breakins. Take a look at it. If we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. All right. Everyone, welcome to our Land Use Committee meeting of monday, january 29, 2018. Our clerk is victor young and from sfgov tv, thank you to jim smith and maya hernandez. I guess as everyone was ploting to become the next mayor of San Francisco, i was secretly plotting to become our next chair of the Land Use Committee. So, im supervisor katie tang, your new Land Use Committee chair. Vice chair for life. [laughter] all right. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements . Yes. Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Complete speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items asked upon today will appear on the february 18 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. All right. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Can you please call the first item . Item number one, establishing the gary masonic special use district in the area generally bounded by gary boulevard to the south, masonic avenue to the east and [inaudible] number 1071 lots numbers 1 and 4 to north and west. Respectively. Thank you. And i believe that you have assumed sponsorship of this item. Thank you. Im going to ask kaniska from mark ferrells office sorry to say a few words and talk about continuing this item. On behalf of former supervisor mark ferrell. Thank you for hearing this item today. We have been working with the neighbourhood and the sponsors of this project for over two years and were looking forward to having it heard today. But we need to have amendments drafted to accept the Planning Commissions recommendations. Unfortunately those arent ready today so respectfully ask for a continue wants to next weeks land use hearing. Ok. Thank you. And deputy city attorney, should we send you the language or would you like us to read into the record what were asking for today . Deputy city attorney, john gibner. Its really up to you. Were working with your office and the Mayors Office on these amendments for next week. You can discuss them today. You dont have to and we will have something prepared for you next week to discuss and vote on. Ok. Let me just look at one quick thing. Would you like me to go to Public Comment first . Yes. Why dont with do that. Lets go to Public Comment on item one. Seeing none, Public Comments closed. Great. Thank you. So, im just going to read what we like and then we can send it over to you. So we would essentially ask for increase of the required inclusionary housing requirement from 18 to 23 and broken down as follows. 10 pktz at 55 a. M. I. , 4 at 40 a. M. I. , 4 at 110 a. M. I. And 5 at 120 a. M. I. And then theres one last thing that i think we can talk about or that can be sent over regarding Parking Spaces. I think we were talking about four of the 16 offstreet Parking Spaces be reserved for car share as long as Car Share Service providers are able to provide services in those spaces. So well send you over the exact language. But the a. M. I. S, this is something that has been negotiated over the last number of months with the community and organized labour groups and the Supervisors Office and staff and so this is the consensus agreement. So, well have that language for next week. So, when we do National Convention amendment next week, it will be made for the first time and then we have to vote on it again or will we be introducing it for the first time in that form so we get an idea of the timing . You can vote on those amendments next week. The amendments will trigger a oneweek continuance. So this item would be at land use next week and then the following week as well. Ok. Thank you. So i have nothing else. Chair . All right. So i think there is a motion to continue, then, this item . Yes. Motion to continue this item. All right. Well do that without objection. Item two, please. That matter will be continued one week to february 5 is my understanding. Yeah. Next monday. February 5. Thank you. Item two, please. Next on the agenda, item number two. Removing the requirement that onsite is and offsite inclusionary units within a new development be ownership units rather than rental unit0ser alternately that the sponsor project [inaudible] proposed offsite or onsite units are except from the costa hawkings rental housing act. Thank you. Supervisor peskin . Thank you, chair tang. Last year, the board passed a historic update to our inclusionary Affordable Housing programme as we all know and we worked on that and that set the highest Affordable Housing requirements in the country, including new levels for middle income housing. That local victory was followed in the last legislative session in sacramento by the passage of Assembly Bill 1505, also known as the palmer fix. Which restores the citys ability to require onsite and offsite inclusionary Affordable Housing in rental housing projects without the need for the development to fit into an exception to costa hawkins in requiring a costa hawkins agreement. Ab1505 has been a long time in the making. I actually want to thank our assembly and Senate Delegation for supporting Assembly Member blooms not only in this instance, but also in another critical housing measure. Ab1506. But ab1505 rectified the loophole that has bound San Francisco to a fee first requirement which has made the creation of onsite inclusionary, or for that matter offsite inclusionary housing a secondary option hindering what i think is all our policy goal, which is to encourage and incent as much onsite Affordable Housing in new developments as possible. With the passage of that bill, we now have the ability to condition Development Approval on the amount of affordable rental housing being built on site as long as developers are provided with additional options for complying with these Affordable Housing requirements make playing an in lieu fee or building the Affordable Housing offsite. Given that ab1505 went into effect 29 days ago on the first of this year, i introduced this legislation before you today which merely conforms our local inclusion nicer programme with these new palmer fix provisions. This went before the Planning Commission and mr. Starrs memorandum which indicates that it was unanimously approved, albeit i did catch one typo where you referred to it as 1515 instead of 1505, i just want to let you know i read your memo, aaron. And we asked the Commission Also to consider minor technical amendments specifically to conform section 124. I would also like to make a motion to replace reference to the Redevelopment Agency in section 406. To ocii and departments of homelessness in support of housing which will be subsidizing 100 Affordable Housing in the future. The Planning Commission recommended approval and id like to make the following amendment as a result on page 13, section 124 sub 1, strike if any designated unit will be rental units, the project sponsor must follow the procedures in section 415. 5 subg, sub2 as provided in that subsection, the planning director or director of mhocd may execute such an agreement under the terms specified in section 415g2 on line 16 is through 19. And then in section 406, 1b, and i have just put the language before you, is where is where the department of homelessness in support of housing and the office of Community Investment and infrastructure commonly referred to as ocii or any future Successor Agency to those listed herein. So subject to Public Comment, i would like to make those motions and help move our onsite, offsite Affordable Housing and rental property policy forward. Any other comments . Ill ask my question. Ill ask my questions after. All right. Lets open up item two to Public Comment. Unless Planning Department staff would like the speak first . Good afternoon, supervisors. Carly grove, departments staff. Nothing really to add, but to make myself available for questions. Supervisor peskin gave a great overview. Just want to reiterate that the commissioners unanimously approved the modifications to the inclusionary Housing Programme on january 11. So, im available for any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. So at this time, well open up item two to Public Comment. All right. Seeing no members of the public, then Public Comment is closed. Supervisor . I just read through it further. Im fine. Thank you. All right. Supervisor peskin . I would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation. All right. And well do that without objection. Item three, please. Next on the agenda, item number three. Ordinance including underground district 361 on Second Street from brian street to townsend street. Thank you. Thank you. And i dont see anyone from supervisor kims office. But please proceed. All right. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is mike krieger, project manager, San Francisco public works. Im the project manager for the Second StreetImprovement Project, which is in San Francisco soma and Financial School districts for markets to king street. Im going to give a presentation about the project overall and then discussion about the reasons behind this undergrounding ordinance that were proposing. Second street Improvement Project has been a project since 2006 when it was identified as a priority in the San Francisco bicycle plan. Since then, San Francisco public works and m. T. A. P. U. C. , s. F. Planning, caltransand sfhwa have been working in partnership to get this project to move forward. We are currently in construction for the Second Street construction project. The major goals for the project are to improve safety along the corridor, provide a more attractive, pedestrian environment, provide a dedicated bicycle facility as identified in the San Francisco bicycle plan and sa f. A. A. Sill tate muni operations. Facilitate muni operations. Key elements include repaving Second Street from market to king street. Curb ramp upgrades. Pedestrian improvements, including widened sidewalks, traffic signal upgrade, raised crosswalks at all alleys, new bicycle facility, landscaping, streetscape amenities, including pedestrian lighting, trash ceptacles and utility undergrounding. The existing conditions of Second Street, this section that were showing here shows the Cross Section from harrison to townsend streets where the undergrounding district is being proposed. The right of way 128 1 2feet wide. So, part of the reason that were proposing the undergrounding of the utilities on second sfraoet is due to the fact that in this segment, the sidewalks are 10 feet wide on both sides of the street. And we are going to be widening the sidewalks from harrison to townsend to 15 feet in order to match the existing Cross Section north of harrison. Because we will be tearing up all of the existing sidewalks and much of the roadway im sorry. [inaudible]. Sure. Yeah. Sure. Sorry about that. Because we are expanding the sidewalks to 15 feet on both sides from harrison to townsend street, we will be tearing up the rightofway and part of the street to regrade the sleep slopes and the existing utilities from bryant to townsend, we found this would be a key opportunity to underground those utilities. And currently on <