Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 915 Cayuga Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards 915 Cayuga package after presentations on 50% below-market-rate offer
Summary
Supervisors advanced three items for 915 Cayuga Avenue — a rezoning/map amendment, a Cayuga Special Use District, and a focused development agreement — after the sponsor and city staff outlined a privately financed proposal delivering 50% below‑market‑rate units (58 BMRs), neighborhood preference and on‑demand parking expansion; public commenters urged more parking and highlighted foster‑youth needs.
The Land Use & Transportation Committee reviewed a three‑item package for 915 Cayuga Avenue: a development agreement between the city and SYTS Investments LLC, planning‑code amendments establishing a Cayuga Special Use District (SUD), and a zoning‑map amendment to create uniform zoning for the project site.
Supervisor Asha Safaee said the package corrects a technical lot reference and highlighted the project as one of the city’s most aggressive private‑financed below‑market‑rate offerings. Planning Department staffer Veronica Flores explained the SUD would allow greater density and an additional story, and the focused development agreement reflects the project’s high affordability level. Krizia Tano Lee of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) detailed the affordability schedule and performance requirements in the agreement.
OEWD materials presented at the hearing specify the affordable mix in the development agreement exhibits: 11 units at 55% Area Median Income (AMI), 12 units at 80% AMI, and 35 units at 100% AMI, for a total of 58 below‑market‑rate (BMR) units. Krizia Tano Lee said this project would increase the neighborhood’s BMR inventory from 34 to 92 units. The project sponsor, Sufi Tapasov Hariri, representing the family ownership group, described the 50% affordability offer as a voluntary gift to the city, not an off‑site mitigation for another development, and noted at least five market‑rate units would be dedicated to transitional‑age foster youth.
Design consultant Reza Koshniwissan described massing and neighborhood transition strategies (terracing the south façade, 25‑foot setbacks from rear yards, and a center court to reduce privacy and noise impacts). Public commenters supported the project’s foster‑youth units and supportive‑services model but raised concerns about parking: one resident said the proposal showed 66 spaces while GreenTRIP guidance suggested 114, and asked the committee to consider neighborhood impacts. Supervisor Safaee and staff noted the development agreement includes an on‑demand expansion mechanism that can increase parking (the sponsor may expand parking lifts) and that the agreement allows up to roughly 118 spaces if demand warrants.
Committee members accepted a technical amendment deleting an extraneous parcel reference and, after discussion on scheduling, Supervisor Safaee moved to forward all three items to the full Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation; the committee took the motion without objection. Planning staff indicated the full board hearing was scheduled for May 14 to accommodate staff presenters’ availability.
