vimarsana.com
Home
Live Updates
Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 2617 20170212 :
Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 2617 20170212 :
SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 2617 February 12, 2017
My name is mark farrell be chairing this committee and joined by
Committee Vice
chair supervisor peskin and supervisor katie tang want to thank alicia and clakz madam clerk, any announcements . Electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the february 14th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you very much with that madam clerk item one. An ordinance on the administrative code to authors the
Planning Commission
to hold noise issues in conversions of hotel and molt requiring the
Planning Department
to consider the noise issues when reviewing those projects and making appropriate findings. Thank you, madam clerk mr. Johnson thank you congratulations upon chair farrell
Conner Johnson
legislative aide to board president london breed. Brief comments one a one horticulture amendment at the request of the
Planning Commission
in 2015 the board of supervisors unanimously patsz supervisor president london breed night life preservation legislation that is protecting
San Francisco
music venues and preventing conflicts the law is threelegged stool if theyre operating within the terms of their that permit and two realtors and landlords before they move in there is a venue nearby and empowers the board of supervisors to hold a within three hundred feet of a music venue and to consider any recommendations that the
Entertainment Commission
provides how those two uses coexist that last with an is fundamentally the most important part of law to help the land uses by working often the front end rather than after the fact people are unhappy and changing things that difficult this is the first of its kind in the country supervisor president london breeds further strengthens that by the authority of
Residential Hotels
are complainl to the
Entertainment Commission
having to refund peoples room and their triple ratings rate of interest are up they have to test to make sure the venues are in compliance with the amendment and working with the hotels but foshsz to do this after the fact we could have done this on before those hotels are approved this is a preying issue of
Planning Department
staff report shows 26 hotel and hotels are pending 17 within three hundred feet of mraechlt near the two nightclubs and 3 venues within three hundred feet in fact partly our hotels are by the nature want to be near the action consider one recent example from austin, texas often the national hate for live music they built a hotel next to the hotel and suing for noise thinks we can protect the night life and make sure the hotels and molts are
Good Neighbors
they bring one billions of into the local economy and thousands of jobs but define would we are benefiting the cove of the association that interest humbling set the 2015 quote entered the legend no piece has helped more than this in decades and landmarked i like the analyzed of the legislation but hope youll join supervisor president breed in making that stronger ill point out that was support by sftravel the
Hotel Council
and been enforced by the
Entertainment Commission
and the
Planning Commission
i want to thank
Diego Sanchez
and the
Planning Commission
recommended that we exempt projects that already have entitlements as october 2016 that was my 35 birthday actually gray hair is real there are two or three such projects in entitlements supervisor president breed this i have copies of that change i believe in your packet but the gist is that sections 21611 f adds this section 116 shall not apply to those with the
Planning Commission
approval by and with that, on supervisor president london breed brave supervisors ask for your support. Thank you
Police Commission
for your eloquent comments supervisor peskin. It was scripted. laughter . Through the chair to the are under that grandfathering clause do you know at the time, we went to the
Planning Commission
it was two or three i did that a supervisors on january this was set before you the commission was very much in support of ordinance we thought as the ordinance protecting the real a balance between the hoped and the night life the
Planning Commission
unanimously recommends the with the modifications that was stated to exempt those hotel and that have security a
Planning Commission
and
Planning Department
entitlement before us 2016 that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions. Supervisor peskin anything more. No mr. As to how many projects. I apologize in the locations of those projects. One second i have those actually, 2 6th street and ellis the third one dropped off 2016. Okay. No other questions for colleagues opening number one anyone seeing none,
Public Comment
is closed. So we have a proposed an amendment to section 16. 11 f that would read as follows the section 16 be 116 shall not apply to the hotel or molt by the
Planning Commission
i move that. Seconded by supervisor tang without objection motion it amended move that. Ill move as amended with recommendations to the full board. Okay motion by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection. Thank you very much madam clerk item 2. A resolution authorizing the
Real Property
assets from the
San Francisco
Investment Infrastructure
to the
Mayors Office
of housing and
Community Development
and making appropriate finding. Owe with the
Mayors Office
of housing and
Community Development
speak good afternoon, supervisors
Deputy Director
for finance with the
Mayors Office
of housing and
Community Development
the item before you is an additional that is necessary to implement the previous actions related wanted to distribution of
Redevelopment Agency
under state dissolution the ike is required to fund and develop a number of affordable units in transbay, mission bay are the shipyard and
Alice Griffith
hope sf ocii owns the lands on the development and the housing will be managed and the how are you developers upon completion ocii is required to transfer the land to the city for the long term asset and management and the
Affordable Housing
mohcd services with the
Loan Agreement
and monitored the restrictions this resolution the board knows the assets from appendixes to the city approval of the resolution will allow the director of reality and mohcd to accept each parcels as the housing is completed any additional be parcels not identified as parts of this resolution we will come back to the board for approval to accept those parcels ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you supervisor peskin your name is on the roster that is left over. Its left over. Okay i want to say thanks for moving forward in the process i think there is a few things id like to see to having amendments here well go to the colleagues well do a case review to the board of supervisors i want to see as part of amendments to require reporting back to the board of supervisors and dont see anything in the resolution honoring the regulatory ocii previously signed up is that can you talk about that that youll be acceptable. Absolutely that is part of state law that those continue to exit under our office and enforcement. Thanks those are the two items items colleagues and apologize for the late distribution with that no other questions is there any
Public Comment
on item two. Okay seeing none,
Public Comment
is closed ill make a most to adopt both of those easements and. Send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. If i may maybe infrastructure the chair and the deputy
City Attorney
i assume the
First Amendment
even though the resolution is silent that city and state regulatory agreements are in. I dont have the language in front of me although i understand that someone many any office drafted that earlier today, i didnt get a copy giving me just a moment yes. Thats correct. Thats fine. Motion by supervisor tang and the undermining item seconded by supervisor peskin without objection. Madam clerk item 3. An ordinance amending the planning code for the arcades in the mixed use and making appropriate findings. Okay. Thank you very much i dont know who is speak on this oh, supervisor kims office. Good afternoon
Land Use Committee
and members from supervisor kims office we have introduced legislation to update our codes to the current environment of 2017 although we will include 2018 there was legislation in pro bono the katdz in the city in the city of
San Francisco
we have zoning code that prohibit arcades that things have come up in other castro and the haight previously and needed the board of supervisors cleaned up legislation to allow the arcades in the two other districts we are requesting the same for and to allow this in the south of market and the
Service Light
Industrial Area
we had that before the
Planning Commission
in the fall some neighborhoods stakeholders were concerned about this change and wanted to be looped into businesses that were planning to participate in the south of market and so we had the business operators that were proposing this to reach out to the members of the south of market
Business Associations
the south beach
Merchant Association
and they have had the conversations were before you today the
Planning Department
has requested a broader change to the code for the arcades and after conversation at the
Planning Commission
we decided to just leave to the south of market and have the processes that relate to eastern neighborhoods and chinatown be encompassed in the further update to the planning code so im going to ask for a continuance because the prepared legislation that speaks just to the south of market but there was we want to make sure that redact all references to the ooerpdz other parts of eastern neighborhoods and a reference to other entertainment uses in the chinatown mixed use district and the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district that still should be part of neighborhoods decisions e discussions is a ask for a intelligence or continuance because the project sponsor is here we want to give you a little bit of background on the legislation to have a cleaned up up versions so for your is consideration. Ill im going to turn it over to supervisor peskin but in terms of the continuance how long through the chair are be specific at this point. One week. Okay already supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell im subject to
Public Comment
will make the motion to continue the item for one week i want to say relevant to this issue on broadway these arcades were you the place where we had the most homicides and actually a reason in certain district there you are controls on them the 4 hundred block of broadway was the source of a number of homicides in the early 2000s not a onesizefitsall solution im concerned that planning once again is coming up with a we want to do the same thing everybody respect to mr. Starr didnt make sense. Okay. Any further questions open up for
Public Comment
is there any
Public Comment
on item 3 . Nope you dont have to do
Public Comment
. A housekeeping thing the
Planning Commission
heard this on september last year and recommended to approve with a modification the modification was based on supervisor kims letter she gave to the commission that can or day which asked to limit to the s l i
Industrial District
thats what the
Planning Commission
agreed to and should be before you today. Okay just to be clear are you suggesting an agreement today or handle this technique. I cant suggest an amendment but the intention of the amendment to narrow it to that. Okay supervisor peskin. So in the staff recommendation on page 5 where the recommendation is the department recommended approval with modifications and insert in the chinatown mixed use district in the south of market and eastern neighborhood although you say easter im sure eastern neighborhoods mixed use district are you saying that you want to have this definition apply to chinatown and it definition applies to chinatown at the beginning in the etc. That was to political other entertainment to the eastern neighborhoods district because shes not doing a much further extension of the amazement game market shes narrowed it quite a bit to just to that district. So you withdraw that recommendations. The commission didnt make that recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Colleagues weve had
Public Comment
. We have a potential for some discussion around that sli or one week to the meeting for february 13th. Motions . Oh, im sorry, i didnt close
Public Comment
is there any
Public Comment
on item 3 . Hi supervisors im an actual one of the folks that the
Commission Office
allowed us to put this together im on fourth and bryant in the sli district i understand the concerns about gambling and crime recommended to this although that was 35 years ago and what were putting forth is not an amazement arcade but a bar and restaurant of course, it is kind going down to the net when it comes to land use i understand the
Planning Commission
is to allow for us to remain the same to be open to mixed use i understand a gentleman came in and halt this but look at the sub on the corridor and it kind of opens up to more mixed use and for use as part sorry im nervous standing in front of you at this time soma the necessary i did is home to millennials and crime is not subject to this selma is home to the arts and youll find all within a 3 block radius of us and i think that is worth take a look at the amendment in the sli district on 3 and fourth from harrison to townsend it is mixed use and it is dlooifl and i think that puts a stop on the growth of the area. Is there any
Public Comment
on item 3. Please if there are more members please come on up you have 2 mingle. Good afternoon. My name is eric ive should at businesses and restaurants that had arcades over 5 years that brings a sense of community and it lets people meet each other and just have fun i hope that everyone feels the same way a fun environment for everyone to be at thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Hi yes thank you im ben im a resident of
San Francisco
for a couple of years now im a frequent of the area around the potential new games in the game room and it is upcoming area and the games provide a whole some sense of community a great place for people to get together i hope for the opportunity to be presented. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi there my name is carli actually, im a resident of
San Francisco
area specifically soma i just think that in the coin open it is something that the city in that
Community Needs
theres not much purview in the area besides the baseball games and such with the community we have here in the city this is something were lacking i also feel that will you know bring that north america lyrics level to the city with the pack man and games that people grew up with that is important for the bridge of those generations and brings community together. Thanks very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is james a resident of
San Francisco
i visited coin opt and found that spies space is a call to action to the low and behold residents in the soma more public space and they identify with i support everything their could go in the location it is a beautiful well thought
Space Limited
by the antiquated laws and give it change to our community so we can continue to evolve look forward to it thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is justin im a resident of
San Francisco
i grew up here and also in oakland ive been to come in opt and found it to be safe and inviting inclusive of kind of all types of groups as a
Younger Generation
ive seen older generations and my dad, i feel that their potential to grow and be this staple of
Committee Vice<\/a> chair supervisor peskin and supervisor katie tang want to thank alicia and clakz madam clerk, any announcements . Electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the february 14th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you very much with that madam clerk item one. An ordinance on the administrative code to authors the
Planning Commission<\/a> to hold noise issues in conversions of hotel and molt requiring the
Planning Department<\/a> to consider the noise issues when reviewing those projects and making appropriate findings. Thank you, madam clerk mr. Johnson thank you congratulations upon chair farrell
Conner Johnson<\/a> legislative aide to board president london breed. Brief comments one a one horticulture amendment at the request of the
Planning Commission<\/a> in 2015 the board of supervisors unanimously patsz supervisor president london breed night life preservation legislation that is protecting
San Francisco<\/a> music venues and preventing conflicts the law is threelegged stool if theyre operating within the terms of their that permit and two realtors and landlords before they move in there is a venue nearby and empowers the board of supervisors to hold a within three hundred feet of a music venue and to consider any recommendations that the
Entertainment Commission<\/a> provides how those two uses coexist that last with an is fundamentally the most important part of law to help the land uses by working often the front end rather than after the fact people are unhappy and changing things that difficult this is the first of its kind in the country supervisor president london breeds further strengthens that by the authority of
Residential Hotels<\/a> are complainl to the
Entertainment Commission<\/a> having to refund peoples room and their triple ratings rate of interest are up they have to test to make sure the venues are in compliance with the amendment and working with the hotels but foshsz to do this after the fact we could have done this on before those hotels are approved this is a preying issue of
Planning Department<\/a> staff report shows 26 hotel and hotels are pending 17 within three hundred feet of mraechlt near the two nightclubs and 3 venues within three hundred feet in fact partly our hotels are by the nature want to be near the action consider one recent example from austin, texas often the national hate for live music they built a hotel next to the hotel and suing for noise thinks we can protect the night life and make sure the hotels and molts are
Good Neighbors<\/a> they bring one billions of into the local economy and thousands of jobs but define would we are benefiting the cove of the association that interest humbling set the 2015 quote entered the legend no piece has helped more than this in decades and landmarked i like the analyzed of the legislation but hope youll join supervisor president breed in making that stronger ill point out that was support by sftravel the
Hotel Council<\/a> and been enforced by the
Entertainment Commission<\/a> and the
Planning Commission<\/a> i want to thank
Diego Sanchez<\/a> and the
Planning Commission<\/a> recommended that we exempt projects that already have entitlements as october 2016 that was my 35 birthday actually gray hair is real there are two or three such projects in entitlements supervisor president breed this i have copies of that change i believe in your packet but the gist is that sections 21611 f adds this section 116 shall not apply to those with the
Planning Commission<\/a> approval by and with that, on supervisor president london breed brave supervisors ask for your support. Thank you
Police Commission<\/a> for your eloquent comments supervisor peskin. It was scripted. laughter . Through the chair to the are under that grandfathering clause do you know at the time, we went to the
Planning Commission<\/a> it was two or three i did that a supervisors on january this was set before you the commission was very much in support of ordinance we thought as the ordinance protecting the real a balance between the hoped and the night life the
Planning Commission<\/a> unanimously recommends the with the modifications that was stated to exempt those hotel and that have security a
Planning Commission<\/a> and
Planning Department<\/a> entitlement before us 2016 that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions. Supervisor peskin anything more. No mr. As to how many projects. I apologize in the locations of those projects. One second i have those actually, 2 6th street and ellis the third one dropped off 2016. Okay. No other questions for colleagues opening number one anyone seeing none,
Public Comment<\/a> is closed. So we have a proposed an amendment to section 16. 11 f that would read as follows the section 16 be 116 shall not apply to the hotel or molt by the
Planning Commission<\/a> i move that. Seconded by supervisor tang without objection motion it amended move that. Ill move as amended with recommendations to the full board. Okay motion by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection. Thank you very much madam clerk item 2. A resolution authorizing the
Real Property<\/a> assets from the
San Francisco<\/a>
Investment Infrastructure<\/a> to the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing and
Community Development<\/a> and making appropriate finding. Owe with the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing and
Community Development<\/a> speak good afternoon, supervisors
Deputy Director<\/a> for finance with the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing and
Community Development<\/a> the item before you is an additional that is necessary to implement the previous actions related wanted to distribution of
Redevelopment Agency<\/a> under state dissolution the ike is required to fund and develop a number of affordable units in transbay, mission bay are the shipyard and
Alice Griffith<\/a> hope sf ocii owns the lands on the development and the housing will be managed and the how are you developers upon completion ocii is required to transfer the land to the city for the long term asset and management and the
Affordable Housing<\/a> mohcd services with the
Loan Agreement<\/a> and monitored the restrictions this resolution the board knows the assets from appendixes to the city approval of the resolution will allow the director of reality and mohcd to accept each parcels as the housing is completed any additional be parcels not identified as parts of this resolution we will come back to the board for approval to accept those parcels ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you supervisor peskin your name is on the roster that is left over. Its left over. Okay i want to say thanks for moving forward in the process i think there is a few things id like to see to having amendments here well go to the colleagues well do a case review to the board of supervisors i want to see as part of amendments to require reporting back to the board of supervisors and dont see anything in the resolution honoring the regulatory ocii previously signed up is that can you talk about that that youll be acceptable. Absolutely that is part of state law that those continue to exit under our office and enforcement. Thanks those are the two items items colleagues and apologize for the late distribution with that no other questions is there any
Public Comment<\/a> on item two. Okay seeing none,
Public Comment<\/a> is closed ill make a most to adopt both of those easements and. Send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. If i may maybe infrastructure the chair and the deputy
City Attorney<\/a> i assume the
First Amendment<\/a> even though the resolution is silent that city and state regulatory agreements are in. I dont have the language in front of me although i understand that someone many any office drafted that earlier today, i didnt get a copy giving me just a moment yes. Thats correct. Thats fine. Motion by supervisor tang and the undermining item seconded by supervisor peskin without objection. Madam clerk item 3. An ordinance amending the planning code for the arcades in the mixed use and making appropriate findings. Okay. Thank you very much i dont know who is speak on this oh, supervisor kims office. Good afternoon
Land Use Committee<\/a> and members from supervisor kims office we have introduced legislation to update our codes to the current environment of 2017 although we will include 2018 there was legislation in pro bono the katdz in the city in the city of
San Francisco<\/a> we have zoning code that prohibit arcades that things have come up in other castro and the haight previously and needed the board of supervisors cleaned up legislation to allow the arcades in the two other districts we are requesting the same for and to allow this in the south of market and the
Service Light<\/a>
Industrial Area<\/a> we had that before the
Planning Commission<\/a> in the fall some neighborhoods stakeholders were concerned about this change and wanted to be looped into businesses that were planning to participate in the south of market and so we had the business operators that were proposing this to reach out to the members of the south of market
Business Associations<\/a> the south beach
Merchant Association<\/a> and they have had the conversations were before you today the
Planning Department<\/a> has requested a broader change to the code for the arcades and after conversation at the
Planning Commission<\/a> we decided to just leave to the south of market and have the processes that relate to eastern neighborhoods and chinatown be encompassed in the further update to the planning code so im going to ask for a continuance because the prepared legislation that speaks just to the south of market but there was we want to make sure that redact all references to the ooerpdz other parts of eastern neighborhoods and a reference to other entertainment uses in the chinatown mixed use district and the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district that still should be part of neighborhoods decisions e discussions is a ask for a intelligence or continuance because the project sponsor is here we want to give you a little bit of background on the legislation to have a cleaned up up versions so for your is consideration. Ill im going to turn it over to supervisor peskin but in terms of the continuance how long through the chair are be specific at this point. One week. Okay already supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell im subject to
Public Comment<\/a> will make the motion to continue the item for one week i want to say relevant to this issue on broadway these arcades were you the place where we had the most homicides and actually a reason in certain district there you are controls on them the 4 hundred block of broadway was the source of a number of homicides in the early 2000s not a onesizefitsall solution im concerned that planning once again is coming up with a we want to do the same thing everybody respect to mr. Starr didnt make sense. Okay. Any further questions open up for
Public Comment<\/a> is there any
Public Comment<\/a> on item 3 . Nope you dont have to do
Public Comment<\/a>. A housekeeping thing the
Planning Commission<\/a> heard this on september last year and recommended to approve with a modification the modification was based on supervisor kims letter she gave to the commission that can or day which asked to limit to the s l i
Industrial District<\/a> thats what the
Planning Commission<\/a> agreed to and should be before you today. Okay just to be clear are you suggesting an agreement today or handle this technique. I cant suggest an amendment but the intention of the amendment to narrow it to that. Okay supervisor peskin. So in the staff recommendation on page 5 where the recommendation is the department recommended approval with modifications and insert in the chinatown mixed use district in the south of market and eastern neighborhood although you say easter im sure eastern neighborhoods mixed use district are you saying that you want to have this definition apply to chinatown and it definition applies to chinatown at the beginning in the etc. That was to political other entertainment to the eastern neighborhoods district because shes not doing a much further extension of the amazement game market shes narrowed it quite a bit to just to that district. So you withdraw that recommendations. The commission didnt make that recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Colleagues weve had
Public Comment<\/a>. We have a potential for some discussion around that sli or one week to the meeting for february 13th. Motions . Oh, im sorry, i didnt close
Public Comment<\/a> is there any
Public Comment<\/a> on item 3 . Hi supervisors im an actual one of the folks that the
Commission Office<\/a> allowed us to put this together im on fourth and bryant in the sli district i understand the concerns about gambling and crime recommended to this although that was 35 years ago and what were putting forth is not an amazement arcade but a bar and restaurant of course, it is kind going down to the net when it comes to land use i understand the
Planning Commission<\/a> is to allow for us to remain the same to be open to mixed use i understand a gentleman came in and halt this but look at the sub on the corridor and it kind of opens up to more mixed use and for use as part sorry im nervous standing in front of you at this time soma the necessary i did is home to millennials and crime is not subject to this selma is home to the arts and youll find all within a 3 block radius of us and i think that is worth take a look at the amendment in the sli district on 3 and fourth from harrison to townsend it is mixed use and it is dlooifl and i think that puts a stop on the growth of the area. Is there any
Public Comment<\/a> on item 3. Please if there are more members please come on up you have 2 mingle. Good afternoon. My name is eric ive should at businesses and restaurants that had arcades over 5 years that brings a sense of community and it lets people meet each other and just have fun i hope that everyone feels the same way a fun environment for everyone to be at thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Hi yes thank you im ben im a resident of
San Francisco<\/a> for a couple of years now im a frequent of the area around the potential new games in the game room and it is upcoming area and the games provide a whole some sense of community a great place for people to get together i hope for the opportunity to be presented. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi there my name is carli actually, im a resident of
San Francisco<\/a> area specifically soma i just think that in the coin open it is something that the city in that
Community Needs<\/a> theres not much purview in the area besides the baseball games and such with the community we have here in the city this is something were lacking i also feel that will you know bring that north america lyrics level to the city with the pack man and games that people grew up with that is important for the bridge of those generations and brings community together. Thanks very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is james a resident of
San Francisco<\/a> i visited coin opt and found that spies space is a call to action to the low and behold residents in the soma more public space and they identify with i support everything their could go in the location it is a beautiful well thought
Space Limited<\/a> by the antiquated laws and give it change to our community so we can continue to evolve look forward to it thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is justin im a resident of
San Francisco<\/a> i grew up here and also in oakland ive been to come in opt and found it to be safe and inviting inclusive of kind of all types of groups as a
Younger Generation<\/a> ive seen older generations and my dad, i feel that their potential to grow and be this staple of
San Francisco<\/a> is limited they can definitely more games and bring in more people oh, i remember playing that game when i was 16. Thank you very much next item, please. Hi, im paul lien a resident i said to tell you about my experience in coin opt my wife is a
Traffic Controller<\/a> we go into coin opt they have the basketball games and shoot hoops we compete and for me and my wife who works in a difficult job it has been a great addition to our lives and see people if everywhere in the
Community Everyone<\/a> is really, really kind and supportive and it is an inclusive plays i hope more games. Thank you. 3 seeing none,
Public Comment<\/a> is closed. Commissioner tang thank you thanks everyone that came out and speaking of antiquated codes it was a recent discovery according to the police code we cant conduct games unless theyre a
Profitable Organization<\/a> ill be wroing something to allow us to play bingo in this establishment but in this case ill horn supervisor jane kims office to continue that for one week. Motion by supervisor tang and honor the supervisors request and i grew up placing arcades games and for profit bingo games hope they come to the city of
San Francisco<\/a> and supervisor peskin a second. Motion by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection all right. Madam clerk items 450e6 together. Theyre an ordinance and resolution to exempt the projects on
Market Street<\/a> with at dedication of jones street for the construction of
Affordable Housing<\/a> and with the addition adam one 80 jones street more
Affordable Housing<\/a> fund and accepting 2 million gift approving an agreement for the property and making appropriate understanding. Okay thank you very much so this item these items responded by supervisor kim and let her kickoff the conversation. Thank you chair farrell and thank you to the members of the
Land Use Committee<\/a> and supervisor peskin and supervisor tang im excited to be here in the legislation i introduced this gives the land which is currently a parking lot and one of the last developments to create 60 units of step up for singleroom occupancy tenants in the neighborhood the project sponsor for
Market Street<\/a> group i is here in attendance working closely with the community and our office on coming up with an negotiated
Affordable Housing<\/a> proposal that works for the residents awhile i generally always prefer onsite
Affordable Housing<\/a> in my marketrate many of the resident in the tenderloin have concerned theyll not afford the homeownership in the 950
Market Street<\/a> project so the developer working closely with the
Community Listening<\/a> to them and went out and sought the acquisition of one 80 jones a parcel that many of the tenderloin retained looked at hoping
Affordable Housing<\/a> will be there the project on jones and market is important for the revitalization of the tenderloin area the value of a land purpose for that we are proposing today in the ordinance is approximately 25 percent of the onsite
Affordable Housing<\/a> obligation on top of this legislation often seeks 300,000 for the creation after a compton district t lgbt recognizing the history the transgenders and the
Lgbt Community<\/a> in the history and presentday of the tenderloin neighborhood one hundred thousand is a t lgbt
Culture Heritage<\/a> and other one thousand dollars for the
Transgender Community<\/a> not tenderloin and finally another one hundred thousand dollars for the trained focus on nonprofit storefront in the compton neighborhood ill be making a series of amendments and apologize you just saw the amendments our land use legislative staffer quickly working to get it to the community but before we go into
Public Comment<\/a> i wanted to thank our 950
Market Coalition<\/a> with the sro collaborative many i see in the audience and recognize market value for the mass the com
Ton Coalition<\/a> with the staff the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing kate hartley and olsen lee and
Jeff Department<\/a> of reality and planning and oewd and the
City Attorney<\/a> and, of course, the project sponsor and just in listing all the people and departments if we can get a sense of how big this project was and how many parties came together i want to congratulate the developer who is here today, this project what many years in the coming we talked about this in 2012 and introduced a green help for the 900 block of
Market Street<\/a> and exciting well be able to approve this deal today that have authorized unit bring the hotel and marketrate
Housing Housing<\/a> to the neighborhood but a dedicated site for 100 percent
Affordable Housing<\/a> in the tenderloin neighborhood that will particularly be dedicated to a singleroom occupancy tenants that are moving forward on the ladder so again, i will be making amendments but while we get the amendments ready if there are questions from the members ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. And looking forward to hearing from the members of the public. Thank you, supervisor kim and supervisor tang thank you you thank you. Im sure well get for clarity but through the chair supervisor kim if you could state kind of exactly what the deal has been. Sure. Thank you for asking we have to make amendments here today but there obligations that the developer would owe the city and building offsite
Affordable Housing<\/a> without this proposal today would have been 15. 4 million now we knew that was not enough funding to cover the
Actual Development<\/a> at the one 80 jones so the
Community Working<\/a> closely with the developer and we were able to negotiate a 2 housing unit 7 million gift on top of the 15. 4 million obligation from the developer that will help us close the gap in meeting this
Development Goal<\/a> so based on did numbers that planning that our office in december the gap was less than a
Million Dollars<\/a> today, this is again according to a planning memo if the accountant over a month ago on top of the 18. 1 million contribution minus the purchase of land cost the developer has gone out and occurred there is an additional 300,000 that is being dedicated to the creation of a compton lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenders tisk district and the tenderloin midmarket those two components are the major components of the deal. Thank you and you mentioned the gap is less than a
Million Dollars<\/a> and in terms of the one 80 jones project so i guess im hearing definitely im wondering if you or
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing can speak to what exactly that gap is and how we actually plan to aid it. Why not kate hartley. Good afternoon kate hartley supervisor kim is correct when we began work on this negotiation were brought into the contribution transition we ran the performa to price the building of 68 units of
Affordable Housing<\/a> on jones we used what we leveraged in tax credits and assuming that we can get an allocation of vouchers that helps the
Homeless Veterans<\/a> and came up with a number that was with the section 416 and 413 and lefthand funds will cover the costs of program substantially a correction in the housing fee that left us a small gap and then subsequent to that an additional 1,200,000 in gift funds from the developer that make up a portion of gap in the neighborhood of 800,000 the problem and the reason why youre hearing that the gap was larger in the in the meantime awhile new york city were going on and donald trump was elected with the promise of tax reform we we rely on heavily for every single one of the housing deals has dropped down significantly so in addition to the approximately 800,000 gap we have often seen equal at the state of original discussion we have to prices the tax credits lower were looking at an overall gap of other than 2004 million this takes into consideration credit has nothing to do with with that project there is an industrywide issue were trying to address it thats why our hearing different numbers in the gap. There was a difference before i thought of 1. 4 million that you are only before our tax credit issue. Yeah. That was mitigated by the additional gift funds. Right so through the chair. No, no. Given what you stated again, the change at the federal level beyond our control here the gap is slightly learn the 860,000 whats the plan to address the shortfall. Were looking at the issue across the pipeline in this case some cases we have creating larger problems of 2 no idea and a half
Million Dollars<\/a> the value is relating low given the total
Development Costs<\/a> and the amount of funds from the developer and the fact that the land is part of a contributions i believe given our history of financing we should be able to bridge that gap with other source of fund inclusion linkages what the housing trusting at that level when the gaps are 3 million were able to provide the financing to make the project happen. And then one last question here im looking at the timing for when the various funds will be distributed by the developer and a large bulk is 12 million would go towards the one and 80 jones
Affordable Housing<\/a> fund at temporary certificate of occupancy im wondering given the shortfall of 2 million or so whether moving the 12 million i dont know but moving the 12 million up earlier will help. I think i believe that the ordinance requires in addition to the acquisition of land and initial 1. 5 million for the
Development Expenses<\/a> that will allow us to get going on the transition and then reentitle this project i actually dont think that having all the money in hand right away is something that we would make a difference. Okay. Thank you. Supervisor peskin. So to put that in real time numbers so far as the 1. 5 million for the re
Development Costs<\/a> at
First Construction<\/a> presuming i assume when they pull theyre first permit what is the duration of the construction until temporary certificate of occupancy. I believe that is approximately 18 to 24 months. So okay. So i guess i have a few questions first of all, the table two and perhaps updated numbers but on our letter if december 9th there was a few things first of all, that there is a nonportable exemption on this project to the tune of a benefit of one . 75 million can you talk about that initiation to this project and some of the marketrate not part of this project why after passing that law are we are doing this. Id like to defer to my planning colleagues if i could open that issue. Okay. To our
Planning Department<\/a>. Enact emery rogers this is due to the project not addressed for the
Planning Commission<\/a> but part of exemption questions of the overall to the benefits that are delivered to the city in the form of unique
Affordable Housing<\/a> project and unlike many times when we see a project they clearly meet the section 416 affordable units that was the unique
Affordable Housing<\/a> and dpa match up in the unit size and the way we compare so the commission requested more information and worked with the project sponsor to get the cost of how much the water requirement would have cost and compared to the benefit of that is provide to the city to the
Affordable Housing<\/a> project so all this was permitted to you because the commission didnt have the benefit of thoroughly vetted development to the oewd felt comfortable with the project and recommended approval asked the staff work with the mohcd to provide the board with
Additional Information<\/a> to understand. I mean let me say im excited by the new prolong and the units and the
Affordable Housing<\/a> project i guess im confused about why we passed on ordinance and on exemption there after in terms of project im glad we got the information and the
Planning Commission<\/a> perhaps didnt look at it super alcohol but ill ask staff again, the second part the main thrust in table 2 perhaps a number from supervisor kims office but this table two the surplus as designed was 17 excuse me 14. 7 million without the proposed ordinance and now the developer thinks that 17 point one
Million Dollars<\/a> so we have looked like. 18 point one. Sorry 18. Oh. So the developers is making x
Million Dollars<\/a> more bans this project and enthusiastic about this project but we have a funding shortfall in the project itself in the opportunity to pay for that to dip into he 9 fund in terms of delores that wouldnt be otherwise used why are we allowing the project knowing there is a funding gap and knowing the developer based on this ordinance a making millions of dollars more compared to the status quo look in my district as well we have land use projects if were going to have alternative projects based on the
Community Needs<\/a> addresses desires great to turn around and say to developer authoritative that is all get millions of dollars off the project is difficult to stomach so to me as long as it is newly costs to the developer we should explore the options we shouldnt be doing that. I agree with the premise as and the goals i will say that we and the
Planning Department<\/a> myself and my department worked worked to put that december 9th together in answer to the
Planning Commission<\/a> questions but for your benefits of analyzing the project and see what makes sense how the transition should move forward the developer had a response to this and the projected marketrate unit revenue we are users based on a third party table was overly aggressive they said you are assuming an inflation rate to the
Sales Revenue<\/a> that will be available in 2019 but unrealistic they made a good point we know that
Interest Rates<\/a> are rising and the market is adopting to this kind of housing, however, we do know on the other hand, tax reform and possible that high income will have people will have more money to spend it is an unknown that was their
Counter Point<\/a> to what we assumed and other localities to the
Financial Analysis<\/a> the costs of funds for example, we have an
Interest Rate<\/a> on the construction and the construction loan money they contact and said exact their money was more expensive than what we projected we dont have access to all the underwriting assumptions but this is, you know, certainly can be a very legitimate correction we landed we have estimated there was a benefit conferred on the developer of 2. 4 million for this ordinance they said, in fact, theyre doing worse and their preference will be doing the onsite inclusionary but because of the
Community Requests<\/a> they have moved with the acquisition of one 80 jones i hate to not have a good answer but have to say we dont know what their surplus or shortfall will be in 2019 so know exactly where sales prices will in 2019 from mohcd perspective we had to honor the community with 68 units of
Affordable Housing<\/a> and so this is where the transaction landed. I understand that i guess from our point of view now this is my first
Land Use Committee<\/a> meeting but when the we had our budget analyst provide us with the data at the board of supervisors as a city so you know third partys whether the developers or others will dispute it were here to rely on the data from the city departments this from our
Planning Department<\/a> so it is difficult to say that that is a great idea we are doing
Going Forward<\/a> with the data that the city provided. Supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell is there somebody here who can tell us how you came up with the t dr in the amount of one and 75,000 thats how many units of t dr. Planning
Department Staff<\/a> that. That was based on the marketrate of t dr and the developer will pay the difference up to 9 bus there is an amount that is over 26,000 plus approximately that because the original project would have had that for it and exempted for the bmr we calculated out how much that amount is based on the master for t dr. What and how many t dr. I believe we used calculation of about 25 per gross square feet and what
Zoning District<\/a> are we in. C3 g and how many t dr in the c2 g. Ill have to get back with you. I thought the going rate was 35 bucks not 25 bucks. Ill have to get back with you. The documents indicate to the nonportable water cost credit that was based on the written estimate provided to the the project sponsor have you verified that. The
Planning Department<\/a> has not. Yeah. Emery rogers. No the department of health are involved in the ordinance theyre not developers and have no familiarity with the costs they can confirm the estimates. Weve not gotten the
Third Party Consultant<\/a> i consulted to look at that. No, sir thats the developments agreement the city has not had time we were rushing to bring to the
Planning Commission<\/a>. Thank you. So can i ask you a followup to supervisor peskin question have we dispute this with our
Financial Analysis<\/a> have you seen the
Developers Analysis<\/a> as the city. No, i havent seen this ive seen a summary theyve response theyre our summary and the
Third Party Analysis<\/a> which we relied on but then the developers said well, you relied on the most aggressive assumption
San Francisco<\/a> analyst came up with we used what we had. Okay supervisor kim. Yeah. I the president to talk about certain components of the deal that with the
Land Use Committee<\/a> we have those in the mid market this was the shoring seen on the parking lot youre aware of that faces golden gate and a frontage on
Market Street<\/a> and it was also on offsite
Land Acquisition<\/a> deal the former possessive and shorenstein committed to the majority of financing to fund 100 percent
Affordable Housing<\/a> that site would actually be entitled to the marketrate housing but shorenstein purchased it from the prior you own and shorenstein
San Francisco<\/a> would ever 100 percent we wanted to be consist or consistent and belowmarketrate housing acknowledging that most tenderloin folks dont meet the income bracket with the bmr units will go to norman i prefer onsite but recognition those projects were in the neighborhood the ami is far lower than what the city requires for bmr unit to we divided this but have been consistent in the deals a third o mment so a history to how this offsite would arc and wouldnt have been possible without the the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing to work with us and their ability to include this in the project pipeline but i the president to give the developer an opportunity to speak to the the planning and the request for the green water exemption their project began early in 2014 and had taken you know over 3 years to come to an approval process due to the complexity and the and the size thats why we honored their requests but recaptured that value in the
Affordable Housing<\/a> gift to the city so im not sure it is the gentleman would like to respond to some of the concerns chair farrell has brought forward thank you supervisor farrell a couple of things i do want to calling your attention to the december 15th letter to the clerk the board and to the response of december 8th memo and that does include our projections for the purchases and
Interest Rates<\/a> and
Construction Costs<\/a> going into 2019 i mean the bottom line here is that. I dont have that front of the me so ill take our word that is there. I have a copy. Great. You the bottom line is that we started proposing 31 offsite unit with the
Affordable Housing<\/a> ordinance we when supervisor kim
Community Came<\/a> to us and said well put that on as an alternative as a point when an alternative gets two costly thats where the balancing act is we think were there and in fact, the balance includes the 2. 7 million gift from the developer to the city. I get it as im sitting here in the
Land Use Committee<\/a> the only document i should be relying on from our department the developer yourself is making
Million Dollars<\/a> dollars more and by the way, an identified funding gap that is getting worse so thats a challenge to sit here and say yes. That is a great project to move forward but some way to verify the urban
Design Guidelines<\/a> numbers and get everyone on board it is a different scenario i get it, i cant rely on that. One other response to supervisor peskin request about the t dr an incredible wash if you dont onsite
Affordable Housing<\/a> you create the far with the affordable units so we have 23 square feet of inclusionary unit and not buy the t dr so youll not have to buy t dr so no matter what the value of t dr is whether we got them free from inclusionary or whatever. What about the portable water number. Nonportable i should say. Part of the calculation as what it takes to make that worthwhile with the community testifies an extremely expense not in our portfolio but a negative declaration that was withdrawn when the city decided not to pursue the mid market so there was a subsequent negative declaration that was issued in july and prior to that the staff didnt like the design and debate it to the commission for three or four months and the
Commission Approved<\/a> the design there was a year of delay with the developer when was decisions of the city so partly trying to get to a point that offsite deal. Okay again, i wish i could is there is the first time i heard there was delays with the developer in terms of the policy. Either through planning or the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing or supervisor kim i appreciate the comments around the onsite versus the offsite and outlet projects that have moved either is my fault for not looking at closer but were amending ordinances and budget shortfalls and to the analysis we have in front of us that amended ordinance grant a windfall with the developer that will cover the costs if there was a windfall of building new
Affordable Housing<\/a> so this is a conundrum i have in terms of the analysis i will take a look at your letter supervisor kim are you on open mike still. All right. Colleagues no other questions or comments from staff supervisor kim are you actually, i have amendments ready to read but can read that after
Public Comment<\/a> based on our preference chair farrell. Why not read them now. Great we have a series of amendments to make to the ordinance that will one delete the offsite options, two changes to the
Affordable Housing<\/a> commitment if 18. 8 to 18. 1 million and create a district t lgbt
Stabilization Fund<\/a> at 18 million and for the prevention were making an amendment that the conveyance of one 80 jones to the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing and
Community Development<\/a> is for a total of 10 and changes the number for the commitment of 18. 1 million we also want to we have an amendment to reserves 13 percent at the one to 40 percent of area medium income and current residence of sro tenants to after the amendments ready for
Community Members<\/a> but the amendments largely state the numbers ive stated on the record. Thank you supervisor tang. I think there was a couple of other amendments recommend by the
Planning Department<\/a> staff has to do with with the timeline with the delivery on ton 80 jones and the second one was the im level
Commission Planning<\/a> was incorporated already or. Through the chair emery rogers supervisor kim has made those theyre concerned about the ami should the developer be building an ought and the city will be. At the lastly supervisor kim thank you for tightening up the lunge to make sure the contains didnt go through the pie there is a linkage back. Ms. Rogers given the discrepancies and their exterminates were using as our estimates for the total
Water Systems<\/a> and why is we pushing this forward without the analysis and everybody on the same page here it feels to me rushed. It is certain the decision when is it fair to say before the
Planning Department<\/a> they appreciated the information on one 80 jones and understood the mohcd to come up with the funding but that same question is before you plus ailed information and also additional physique uncertainly it is in our hands commissioners. Okay. Thanks. Move on to
Public Comment<\/a> please feel free to line up against the far wall well get going. Im here representing the coalition that is made up of transgender serving organization in the t l and a resident of the tenderloin we support this project and the legislation that will not only allow for the creation of units of
Affordable Housing<\/a> but creates the first transgender district in the world
San Francisco<\/a> but in particular, the tenderloin has been a safe haven for transgender of people of color and lgbt people that are often overlooked and abused by people of the community we want to thank everyone that is involved in the building and out in the city that as has been working on the project and make that a historic integrity a reality we look forward to working with everyone in the this room to make that thriving historic and save neighborhood for the
Transgender Community<\/a> thank you. Thank you very much next speaker, please. Ken stall with the central collaborative and helped to negotiate in communities benefit the first one for the record there was another member of the market collision that supervisor kim forgot was tndc was part of the group
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development<\/a>
Corporation Want<\/a> to make sure that is on the record and part of
Market Coalition<\/a> we worked over a year and a half to make sure we got the affordable units out of that major project that effects the neighborhood hopefully for the better and we wanted to thank joel for really working with the community to make sure that we had a good benefit agreement to that make sure those unite are affordable for the residents off tenderloin which are not
Abraham Lincoln<\/a> able to food a higher price in the city hopefully, this will go forward and the unit will make sure theyll make peoples lives a lot better thank you very much. Good afternoon
Committee Members<\/a> thank you. Im with the central city sro collaborative before you the result of many years of negotiating process one the most communities informed
Community Benefits<\/a> agreement processes that any of the
United States<\/a> are our of in negotiation a compromise 3 of those stressed to weigh many values of different parts of the community were celebrating the fact weve arrived to benefit many parts of the community and formally homeless and lgbt as well and the developers are iron to a lot of our needs more importantly those needs more
Affordable Housing<\/a> generally tenderloin housing clinic where i work is open to supporting projects simply with their
Affordable Housing<\/a> that follows the city law but the tenderloin is a low
Income Neighborhood<\/a> in the community we felt it necessary to allow for much more deeply
Affordable Housing<\/a> in the tenderloin and so rather than having 80 percent ami well have twice as many unit constructed as much deeper affordable we feel there is concern the gray water exemption but necessary unlike to figure out a compromise that allows for
Affordable Housing<\/a> that was meaningful and this gray water exemption is a useful compromise that will allow
Affordable Housing<\/a> to be built and we feel the overall benefit worthwhile we reviewed the data for months and i feel comfortable that is a major commitment and didnt feel consistent were not here to support this so, please help us wrap up this processed and get going and shovels in the ground to build the 60 plus united in the tenderloin it is much needed thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Any other is there any
Public Comment<\/a>. David member the central city and part of negotiated in process for the last two years i remember a member of the
Market Street<\/a> coalition this development on 950 market and jones this is the first ive advocated for norm im against this this is 5 hundred unit coming up on
Market Street<\/a> half a hotels and half condos in the tenderloin and i would have seen it as an affront to the tenderloin but when i looked at look out would the developer have finally delivered in terms of step up housing with a
Workforce Development<\/a> and magic theatre an opportunity for children to learn the theatre skills and the t lgbt 300,000 benefit when i look at the collection of the benefits i believe they justify the project im here to advocate so for and hope youll pass is this supervisor jane kims amendment unanimously i understand there is uncertainty about the value of gray water exemption weve struthd with that and it is true we dont actually know how much profit the developer will make i dont think anyone can but given i hope you dont let the uncertainties keep you from voting i want to thank supervisor jane kim and wouldnt have been possible without the her and thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Laura clark formally grow
San Francisco<\/a> but now action you know im coming out to support this project but i think there are a lot of problems with that the developer has maxed out their contribution to certain politicians jane kim putting forward this i appreciate that supervisor aaron peskin that trying to get the developers out of politics and trying to say that developers shouldnt be donating to the campaigns we need a take the politics out of development and not case by case decisions a lot of people spoke about the multiple years that took to hammer out this negotiation that is 7, 8, 9 wasted that is time lost were in a housing crisis the rules needs to be the rules if you follow the rules we get your permit awhile i think this housing desperately needs to be built and dont have time to draft this and renegotiate we need to make that process faster and fairer and not have cast a shadow on projects like this they have to make dpoopgsz to get the projects introduce the process if we have a fair and equitable system housing that is so desperately needed get built we need to follow our own rules thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im sonya i support this project and look forward to it pga im here i did one of the original versions dont see why we didnt do that more profit and surplus to argue about and more
Community Benefit<\/a> with really no down side no down side to having increased height but nevertheless, here we are i support the project thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional
Public Comment<\/a> on items four or five. Seeing none,
Public Comment<\/a> is closed. Supervisor peskin. Mc id like to move the amendments to 4 and 5 as presented by the sponsor supervisor kim. So a motion on the amendment and happy to support that by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection so again, im excited about this project as well i have outlying problems with that to be blunt certainly i think we should be relying on the citys projections and come up with a convenience what was right right now ill nobody the supporting this in its current form were pga an ordinance according to the citys benefits giving multi
Million Dollars<\/a> benefits to the developer and with the shortfall to build the
Affordable Housing<\/a> that we need ill be in favor of a continuance to support the numbers and colleagues up to our discretion for further comments. Supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell first of all, let me express exemption to one the commenter relative to the comments made that are unfair now that ive gotten that off any chest ill concur with chair farrell i think that is some unexplained issues relative to the gap and relative to how certain numbers particularly the non portable water not been independently verified and arrived at i will respectfully join with supervisor farrell in having a short continuance and may be the parties can help us recess if not eliminate the gap and clearing in hearing testimony from the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing and planning there is a dynamic attention that needs to be resolved by what was said and not said so with that, i would be supportive of i dont know two weeks a reasonable amount of time to get to the table. Ill put it back to the
Planning Department<\/a> and the
Mayors Office<\/a> if you continue this to the ill defer if there is an opinion from the staff when the timing here and dont want to delay the
Affordable Housing<\/a> any more than it needs. Chair farrell. Id like to point out two weeks from now is a holiday. One week be enough. Well, well have to sit down with the developer and review our numbers like i said, we received a summary that you have now of december 15th that was sent to the board but you know we had questions about that so we have to have the opportunity to sit down with them and really kind of dig in and also in terms of pricing the non portable water i can check with my colleagues to see if we have come a long ways but evidence of the pricing theyve assumed that would help so so only action more specifically. Is one week enough if not three weeks im fine i want to do expeditiously but were investigating questions the analysis was not done and needs to be done to go forward. One week well have to just im not sure. Because were relying on the developer to provide their. Id like tell you what ill suggest that for one week and if next monday it is not done we do it again. Commissioner tang i understand a lot of time has gone into this i appreciate supervisor kims office paerngsz to what the
Community Needs<\/a> and that delivers that i think in our financial hawk situation here i would support a continuance just because it is not the
Details Behind<\/a> the agreement are not transparent with the accountable agreement through the oewd so i want to explore to you to address the funding gap. To that end
Going Forward<\/a> search warrant the land use ill ask the planning staff to have an agreement but situations like this unfortunate but working with the staff i want to put us in at position to succeed and build it housing as quickly as possible and again my main concern ask the funding gallop how well get this knocked out on jones with that, do i have a motion to continue this for one week. Can i make a comment. Certainly and supervisor kim thank you obviously i think this is the last detail supervisor kim. I won wanted to have the clarity on terms of the impacts within the time for the one week continuance youve office has been working on this ordinance for several months and want to be sure that the
Land Use Committee<\/a> take into account our other
Development Agreement<\/a> particularly with the
Martin Luther<\/a> king and sorensen it is next door to make sure we are maxing the contribution in the marketrate developers ive been an advocate and the biggest fighter for housing in our district and you want to make sure that we are getting the maximum from the developers but want to be fair and consistent and not ask certain developers for more than others but despite the fact that the deal was similar in terms of what is being brought forward to the board of supervisors but if we can have a clear understanding of what answers are expected by next week ill ask not not to continue it for more than one week because of details and specific about the clarifications like to have between the planning and see
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing and the developer by next monday well work expeditiously with the partners to make sure the answers are provided. I can only speak for myself what id like is a convenience understanding of table number 2 from december 9th and what that looks like today and verification of any of experts but not the developer saying those are our estimates and not the city putting forth numbers and seeing those numbers are wrong were looking for quite frankly for the city to know what those numbers and if this is from the staff and the third partys developers coming forth with the maichd and the department can stand behind thats what i want to see. Is that if all the
Committee Members<\/a>. Supervisor tang. I mean weve heard about from from mohcd but a clear process how well be addressing whatever that money gap will be i dont know if there will be impacts on the issues in the pipeline. Sorry let me add to supervisor kims point on top of that analysis that is literally a approach to say why are we supporting a project like this from the numbers look net positive to millions of dollars and knowing this as a result will be a multi dollars funding gap hopefully were not doing that anymore but if thats the case i want to understand why. Ill add to that that i acknowledge the great work that the community and particularly supervisor kims office the problem i have is when the city experts that we engage that are sponsored well the developer responded with a different
Interest Rate<\/a> estimate we didnt individually verify the non portable discount in one
Million Dollars<\/a> before us plus or minus but buy the argument about the t dr i small, medium, and large it seems to me when we do a cuttingedge deal i support and one 80 jones is better than the alternative that produces 60 unit and probably more than the
Planning Department<\/a>, staff and the
Mayors Office<\/a> of housing staff rather than saying we dont know were not sure their numbers versus not our numbers but not sure that seems like they need to do a better job before we make a decision if they can sharpen their pencils in a week my inclination well see admonish affordable units to a community that absolutely needs them buttized saw a little bit better work out of our city staff. Supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection. Okay madam clerk, is there any further business before this commission . No, that concludes our business for today. Thank you, everybody were adjourned i want to thank all of you for joining us on this web
San Francisco<\/a> date. We are thrilled to be here and howevereven though its wet outside the sun is definitely shining in this room. Our announcement today will lead to brighter futures for our students at city college. Todays announcement is the first in the nation and led by our great city. And most of the cases [inaudible] commitments to support tuition for students across their state we hope one day our entire state will do what we are doing here in
San Francisco<\/a> and the commitments were about to make today. As
Vice President<\/a> of the board of education i know the important value of city college attentively for the thousands of students that you want from our
San Francisco<\/a>
Unified School District<\/a> into city college and graduate and has the mayor
Senior Advisor<\/a> i know firsthand how passionate the mayor is about providing access and opportunities for all our youth. Particularly, as it relates to educational outcomes that will lead to a degree or a certificate and improve their future earning potential. I see daily his dedication to develop a strong workforce in my city coach is so important to him and to our city. So this time fees, join me in welcoming our mayor, mayor ed lee. The clapping [applause] thank you thank you hydra and i want to welcome each and every one of our supervisors that are here today are board of supervisors. I know the join me in the trustees of our
Community College<\/a> in this, i think lifechanging milestone for our city called but particularly, for california residents who live in
San Francisco<\/a> need [inaudible] these days. Let me first and foremost thanks supervisor jane kim. I know that [applause] she has been championing a way","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia804709.us.archive.org\/8\/items\/SFGTV_20170212_080000_BOS_Land_Use_Committee_2617\/SFGTV_20170212_080000_BOS_Land_Use_Committee_2617.thumbs\/SFGTV_20170212_080000_BOS_Land_Use_Committee_2617_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240627T12:35:10+00:00"}