way in the back. you have to walk through the kitchen to get to the bathroom. then the replacement of dwelling is hardly a leverage. it says 3000 square feet, i am surprised that it is that much. they have the kitchen and dining rooms on the lower level. i would speak in favor of approving this project. >> is that a motion? >> seconded. >> i guess i am a little bit frustrated by the process because this is an rh1.

there is a sound house, a desirable area for someone to purchase a home in. not that this should influence the decision but that was owned by four years by the family that decided to live there. if someone will ask for additional density, it should be because they will be giving something back to the city or more in conformance with existing, with code or zoning or whatever it is. here it is an rh-1. you have a family who has owned this property since 1979. they want to expand or improve. it is the policy question.

they want to make some improvement to continue to stay there. there is some kind of emotional attachment to the place. the family has owned it for 30 years. >> 31 years. vice president olague: i think this is a completely different situation than the one earlier. i do not see a contradiction in my even supporting this. commissioner sugaya: i would agree with that. sometimes you have to take into consideration things like the length of time the family -- i mean, the parents came and integrated. this was their first house, was it not? they lived there, and now -- i do not know. it is just an emotional thing. i mean aside from all the

planning issues that we are going to disagree with staff on. commissioner moore: i am normally 99% of my conviction that demolition is the thing to do, but based on what happened earlier today in this room, i have to support this project. otherwise i think i am going to have to render my own resignation. i cannot do it. >> there is no way to do anything other than demolish this. commissioner moore: i really ask staff to not put us in a situation that takes us further to have these projects be looked at side-by-side. if the family has worked themselves to the point of for the cannot expand to be more reflective of their own situation, i think i support

that. vice president olague: i think it is unfortunate that in the '90s when a lot of monster homes were being created, that we were not more diligent at the planning department level of looking at the underlying zoning. maybe a lot of the transformation of some of these neighborhoods from blue-collar to something different -- i do not know. i am not convinced we did enough with the issue in the '90s when this really happened. commissioner antonini: the other thing in terms of affordability, which is often a concern, why we try to save the older home and not demolish it, but to renovate that place and make it a functional house for a family -- to add the bathrooms and square footage -- could end up costing more than the demolition and rebuild. you will end up with something that ultimately is going to be a more expensive residents because

of the fact that you did not demolish it. in this case, you would find that would be the case. technically, we went to the numbers and said you could make it livable for less than 50% of the value, but you cannot improve it to the level it would need to be to satisfy family needs at that amount. >> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review and to approve the project as proposed. on the motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. >> there is a unanimous vote for both. you are now in general public comment. president miguel: is there any general public items on items not on the agenda? none appearing, public comment is closed and this hearing is over.

chair maxwell: good afternoon, and welcome to land use. we have got quite a crowd, so the overflow room is in the chambers, and you will be able to hear when we call names, and

we usually wait, and if somebody comes, which usually allow them to get in line. we we usually allow them to get in line. i want to thank all of the people at channel 26 -- we usually allow them to get in line. i want to thank the people behind the scenes very much for their work. i also want to thank lisa so mera, who is our clerk. vice chair supervisor eric mar and supervisor david chiu. madam clerk, i believe you have some things to say. clerk somera: please turn off of your cell phones. items will appear on a later agenda. chair maxwell: i believe we have

an item that will be going to the board tomorrow, and that will be item number two. madam clerk, could you please read the first item. clerk somera: a special use district for 1800 market street. chair maxwell: welcome. >> i am here on the path of supervisor dufty. 1800 market is the lgbt center. i know that some of you have been attending meetings and have spent time at the lgbt center. the idea behind this piece of legislation is to allow the center to consider through the process applications for potentially a restaurant use on the upper level, theater use and

entertainment years. obviously, all of you remember that the board passed a loan allowing the center to give more financial flexibility, and what this piece of legislation is doing -- to have more financial flexibility. this is for another revenue stream for its long-term viability. this was brought to us by folks at the center and in the community, and, again, this is a nice modest piece of legislation that will allow the centre financial flexibility for their long-term success. i am happy to take any questions. i know that rebecca, the executive director, is here, as well as a woman from planning to help us with the situation. chair maxwell: colleagues, any comments or questions? supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: there is going to be an rfp process.

we are simply passing so that it can have a use so we can figure out exactly who will go into the center, is that correct? >> yes. there has been no deal. and entertain the use of the theater has shown some interest, but like anyone else, they would be required to go through the rfp process. i think the supervisors have been looking at creative solutions during this difficult economic times. one that he has helped to establish is if you are familiar with the tower records site. there was a pop-up store i believe on sunday, and all of the employees, a member from the transgender economic employment initiatives, so people who have been seeking jobs, another program which the city funds, they tend to work at the goodwill, so, again, another

creative approach as we look at vacancies. chair maxwell: would you explain it to the public to may not know "pop-up store" and then "rte"? >> looking for a long-term tenant, and he is to open up the store so the good will could be there. good will, everybody knows what they do, providing jobs and job training -- goodwill. teei, the transgender economic employment initiatives. some of the most underemployed, one of the most underemployed demographics, and nationally, something that the human services agency in our office has worked to focus on. chair maxwell: so pop-up stores

are more of a thing we are seeing, people using these four properties that are underused or underutilized. >> certainly the merchants of copper market and castro's support it. -- the merchants of upper market and castro. bringing more people to the lgbt center is something we would like to see. chair maxwell: thank you very much. all right, why do we not open it up for public comment at this time? why do we not hear from the director of the center? >> thank you, supervisors. my name is rebecca. i am the director of the lgbt community center, and i really appreciate your hearing this agenda item today. we really are excited about this project, which is designed to help our financial stability and to really look at ways we can have more order your note --

revenue and be less reliant on philanthropic dollars and on the city. as we all know, they tend to be very, very tight dollars as we move forward, so this is a process that was created to look for money outside of the traditional means of funding on profits. we're also looking at bringing in a potentially or ideally a tenant who would have some sort of linkage to the center's programs and services, so we have an idea of what that might look like. we have a wide variety of program areas, so we are looking at trying to great flexibility and to make sure that the centre mission and purpose is also supported in this process, as well, as much as possible. an art director of health and wellness -- an art director of health and wellness can answer any questions. . and our director -- and our director.

>> good afternoon. i am the director of health and wellness at the center. the key for the ordinance to greet the 1800 market street community center project special use district. " -- thank you for the ordinance. this is looking at offering programs and services for members in the community, it including unemployed transgendered individuals, and those who are at risk for hiv transmission. the center hosts 9000 visitors monthly and many programs. most are residents of san francisco. this is across the lgbt and allied community. through our transgendered economic empowerment program, which have conducted 150 job placements. recently, the initials of "rc,"

she was except for her gender expression. she was still unemployed without housing and money. she applied for the goodwill pop up store, wrotand she is once an receiving credits. there is another who went on to take a leadership role in the hiv prevention. also, one young man from our staff program, which is a program for newcomers in san francisco, and we will call him bill, a ride in san francisco from ohio to pursue a new life -- arrive in san francisco from ohio. we got him tested, and he tested negative, thank you. he met someone he really liked, and that person turned out to be hiv-positive. he had never encountered this before in dating, and he was not

sure what steps to take. we helped him to have safe sex with his partner. they are still together, and bill is still tested hiv negative. so, in short, the center has helped community members with a broader array of services in the bay area, with an ever-growing reform program we have there. we are sustaining our historical legacy, mourning losses and celebrating victories. we would not be able to do this if there is not an opportunity to bring in long-term commercial tenants. thank you. chair maxwell: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, then public comment is closed. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, then without objection, we will move this forward. madam clerk, would you read

items two and three together, and, item two will go out as a committee report, which we will hear tomorrow as a full board. clerk somera: item number two, the rehabilitation and maintenance of transfer lots after sale of transferable development rights, an item number three, the preservation and rehabilitation of transfer lots after sale of transferable development rights at 680 california st.. chair maxwell: supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: this deals with st. mary's, an important part in my district. this has been an important part in chinatown, and as we have discussed in prior meetings, it is an institution that is in danger of collapsing in the event of an earthquake. there is a severe need for

additional seismic work. this legislation conversation started many, many months ago as a way to figure out how to direct the proceeds from the sale of old st. mary's transferrable rights, tdr rights, to preserve this important building. i want to thank the commission for the work they did over many months to bring forth this legislation, which would strengthen the connection between the sales and the preservation of historic properties. what i would like to ask the committee to do today, colleagues, is to move item two to the full board tomorrow, the report, and and to amend item three and then continue it for a week, because -- and then to amend item. and continue it for a week because what we are doing with it is significant. -- and then to amend item 3 and continue it. we want to make sure we need all of the deadlines required to preserve that building, but item

three, which i will be amending based on conversations korea had with owners of various preservation lots to really accomplish.-- note which i will be -- which i will be amending based on conversations i have had with owners of various preservation lots. this is to make sure this is dealt with early in the process. so with that, unless there any comments with the planning staff, let me ask if there are any members of the public who wish to speak of public comment on this issue. i should have acknowledged clint from old st. mary's. clint, where are you? he is in the other room. can we asking to come in from old st. mary's? chair maxwell: this is the second time we have heard this, so this has been vetted.

supervisor chiu: that is the only speaker card i have, so if you could talk about the urgency and why it is important to move forward on item two. >> thank you, supervisor. old st. mary's and i appreciate this opportunity. you have been very flexible with respect to this whole process. the sense of urgency, we started this project 3.5 years ago, is that it is a contract to sell tdr's. the contract has been amended seven times, and we have been pulling at it like it is a piece of taffy. there is a deadline of november 15, because we now have an identified and development lot that we are selling the tdr's too, so, really, in a nutshell,

we will lose real dollars if we do not need that contractual obligation. with respect to the proposal to duplicate and to move item two forward, we fully support that and appreciate the flexibility with respect to planning staff with the board of supervisors and this committee to accommodate old st. mary's and the urgency. supervisor chiu: thank you. chair maxwell: next speaker, please. >> i am gigi platt. i support what you're doing, but i do not support the language of item two, which i know has been put over. supervisor chiu: you mean item three which is going to be put over. >> right, but i heard supervisor maxwell that it was totally vantage, but i have not had a chance. haute -- it has been totally vetedvette -- it has been

totally vetted. thanks very much. chair maxwell: all right, any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: so, again, to make the motion, it is to move item two for tomorrow's full board of supervisors and that will also adopt the amendments that i have circulated today to clarify the tdr rules to make sure these are dealt with earlier in the process. chair maxwell: item number two as amended will go out. supervisor chiu: actually, item two will not be amended but will just go out. chair maxwell: all right, item two as a community report. supervisor chiu: item 3 is to be continued for next week. [gavel]

thank you, colleagues. chair maxwell: all right, madam clerk, would you read item number four, please? clerk somera: item number four, it. plan impact fee in jobs housing program modifications. -- item number 4, the area plan impact fee. >> the action before the committee today is an amendment of the planning code. these are all related to impact fees. the majority of the legislation involves will be considered to be good government amendments with technical corrections and clarifications of code language which does not amount to substantial changes of the code. this includes in proving planning code readability and ease of application with regard to impact fees, creating

consistent definitions and applications across the area plan fees, which include rincon hill, balboa, and others. these proposed changes were developed in close collaboration between the planning department team and its implementation team to ensure that they met objectives of improve readability and ease of application. in addition to the technical corrections, the ordinance also includes several changes and impact fees. this is to make sure the we're fairly and consistently charging developers for the impact of their proposed development. as you know, the city has a practice of charging impact fees to developers to the mitigate the impact of new development with such infrastructure as affordable housing, transportation, parks, and centro brigitte quinn parks, etc.. -- cote transportation, parks,

etc. chair maxwell: excuse me. if you could keep the noise down, please? >> and more recently, fees for specific areas, such as market octavia, eastern neighborhoods, balboa, and rincon hill. there is the demand for and cost of new things. they help mitigate the effects -- and we limit these fees in this way foremost because of state law but also of a basic standard to not charge developers for something they did not create. in calculating the impact fees, there are two kinds of development. those that add to the total city develop and those of r.e. conversion of one land use to another. -- and those that are really a conversion of one land use to

another. there is not clear guidelines on how to calculate the impact. this lack of clear to lead to inconsistent application of fees, which in turn undermines the city's ability to collect these appropriately and increases the risk for certain domestic, and then there are fees that exceed the actual impact. currently, the developer feels they are being overcharged. this can be time-consuming and have uncertainty. what this ordinance does is provide clarity on how to do the impact fees in the conversion of one lane used to another. korean won land use to another -- one land use to another. the rationale is that the city policy supports such uses

whenever it can. however, just because we do not charge impact fees, it does not mean that there is not an impact. what our proposed legislation does is to deal with the inconsistency in the process to mention the their properly assessed and to make sure that the city collects the appropriateness of impact fees. these of the spouse of the changes being proposed this is a reflection of different studies conducted. -- changes being proposed. this is a reflection of different studies conducted. development will be credited for institutions on-site at over $19 per square foot. another change proposed is to

close the loophole by which uses such as wholesaling, and autorepair and others -- and automotive repair and others are considered. in rincon hill, other residential uses a of a $3 per square foot. in market octavia, they would be credited at $1.70 per square foot. in balboa park, it is 75 cents per square foot. we are promoting the adaptive re-use. as you may remember, we established fee tiers. each parcel in the eastern neighborhood was assigned to one of three tiers. these apply to any develop and

on a given parcel -- these have applied to any development on a given parcel. it creates a disincentive to use existing buildings. the policy was to support adaptive re-use, and it is obviously greener to use an existing building. for all of these reasons, we are doing this. price chicks in the lowest -- projects in the lowest fee tier would have no changes. in 3, there would be a reduction for both residential and nonresidential use. that concludes my presentation on the proposed ordinances. i am happy to answer any questions. chair maxwell: