the goals and objectives of providing more bmr units in the neighborhood. but if we really want to produce these units, we have to take a good, hard look at the current program. many of its peña to policies. affordable housing is only affordable to the end user. it is very expensive to build. some of those policies include a $20,000 fine or fee, the lower the price down to $20,000 if we do not provide parking. it is painful enough that we have to provide the unit and then they had as of for another test dollars and $20,000. it is not good enough that you are providing us to better minutes, we want to bedroom, 2 bath. the size of the units are different from the size the nonprofits get to build. the location of the units of the building. it is not good enough that you are providing two units are three but that to be on each floor. if your building a 40-foot building, you have a top,

bottom, and middle floor. the top is always the best read the lower is? and things. it becomes punitive. the finishes are sometimes confusing. somebody mentioned there is for programs. the on site, the in lieu, the offside, and the land dedication. the land dedication is good if you have 25,000 square feet or larger. no good for the small developer. the offsite does not stick. where are you going to find at 2-43 annett site? there is no offsite option for small builder. the offside is punitive and the in the system provides a tremendous cash management barrier. and at the end of the day, i think we need to step back, work together, and refined some of these programs so we can contribute and we can participate and we can act in the city's inventory on -- of on-site bmr units. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> dan murphy, a local

developer. member of the eastern neighborhoods cac. i want to look at this from a different perspective. we're hearing more about the need for us as an industry in working in partnership with the city that approves -- produced more housing. across all branches there is need. if you would have asked us before this fee deferral program was put on the books to identify impediments' at that time for housing production, across all regions of income, the city structure for paying and the fees would have been toppled the list, frankly. also i want to look at it from the point of view of the state's impact the law. the enabling state legislation which gives rise to these impact fees. technically speaking, the impact is not created until the

principal project is built. and if you are building units on site, you are delivering those units are the time to get certificate of occupancy. with this be program, it is much more similar to what we ought to have on the books in any event. i'm a big proponent of seeing that feed deferral program -- become permanent. -- fee due for a program become permanent. >> i have been dealing with these like this locker than anyone. i have dealing -- been dealing with it since 1979. it has been a long haul and a serious discussion about when and how to propose fees and what they're -- they are needed for. in the eastern neighborhoods, they're acutely needed to create residential context for we have had industrial uses. we learned from the explosion of live-work in the 1990's that by

building housing does not make an neighborhood. we struggled with that in eastern neighborhoods and need to build out that transit and the open space and the pedestrian improvements ala. those kinds of deferrals are hurting the housing that is being constructed. second thing is, do we have a rationale for doing anything to extend the fee for the large developers and commercial developers? i do not think so. i think there needs to be a serious discussion and it should be a discussion seriously of the board. what are the segments that need this? i would be absolutely against any commercial project getting that the deferral. if they're going now, they're going now because they're serving a certain section of that community that is less lucrative. i read the congressional -- commercial paper and that is what is being funded.

maybe the small developers have a rationale. i do not think for the big guys that you can justify raising the money that we need for community improvements for transit, housing, for all the things that we build into our planning process on the eastern neighborhoods and on market octavia. never heard used to cover some of those things, now it is us. -- neighborhood used to cover some of these things, now is desperate every time you defer a fee and land values go up, the project becomes more affordable for the affordable housing developer. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you, ms. tester. -- hester. >> i would like to take you back to two years ago when the stimulus was introduced. there was a construction site, 42% unemployment in the

construction industry. we needed help. right now today, and has helped some products move forward. not a lot of projects have taken the fee deferral. there is -- [unintelligible] to produce a unit which is a tremendous fee. if you were to take the fees deferred and you would pay much more interested -- much more interest on the fees deferred. the city is not losing money on deferral. it stimulates the economy. get back to work on producing housing. the stance today has become punitive. when you go to provide include generic on-site units, you have to provide them in different floors and you have to provide

equal size to the other units, there is a debate about parking. if you have units that you are selling without parking, you have to in some cases deducted is on the ground $20,000 of -- of the sales price for parking. the net loss is huge. i think the fee deferral is helping some projects move forward and should be continued for much longer time. the bill -- problem is access to capital. we do not have access to capital. as a result there are few banks lending out there today. i would ask you to extend this be different process. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. ms. bartley -- barkley: >> that afternoon. this is the third time in my

career that ms. hester and i agree . that is significant. you have to look at the size of the project, the capability, the financial capability of the builder. the small builders who are work with a lot, if you take a 20- unit building, that is not a large project. when you're looking at the end of the at 15%, to better minutes as with the city wants, mostly -- or three-bedroom units. you're looking at an impact fee that is 20 280,000 -- 20,00you e getting out to 88 to $1 million. when they go to the bank, they're looking at the total project cost. they have to come up with equity

for the total amount. if you have to add another close to $1 million to the base call, it really impacts how the projects pencil out or does not. not only do they have to borrow half of it, they also have to somehow put that money in. most of these builders make the money, they plow back into the next project, taking money aside from the family or sometime they're going to rebuild it. this differ kofi is the blood line in this economic time. i.s. -- birds you in your debate the you will look at the difference between buildings that sell for 1000 square feet

institution money against these guys who have to go and they should be on their own credit. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak? please come forward. >> i am here on behalf of the presidential [unintelligible] -- residential [unintelligible] association. it adds jobs to this -- the city, and it helps the city. supervisor mar: are there any other comments? from the speakers, everyone, thank you. it gives us an eye opening understanding of the feed for a program and how it has impacted different neighborhoods of but mostly small developers and large developers at -- as well. thank you, everyone, for coming out. one thing that would be helpful is some data that breaks down the small projects vs. the medium and larger size project.

maybe over six months we could have better data and look at more of a time for projects as well to assess it better. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you. i want to thank everyone with all perspectives for coming out today. it is an important issue. i think it is important for us to keep our eye on the bigger picture. that is making sure that we're producing enough housing of all different types. we are on an unstable course in san francisco in terms of the population we have anticipated growth and a fairly stagnant housing supply. we do have quite a few entitled units. in the markets -- that has gotten in the way and we will see what happens in the future. i hope we're going to see that

pipeline start clearing out. we have to take a very broad approach to how we impose fees. because even though these fees, many of us embrace them and in terms of contributing to the public good, whether it is affordable housing or pedestrian safety improvements are transit or whatever. we have to recognize the reality of our housing is created. when you look at the feet deferral program where we're getting all the money, we're getting it with some sort of interest to the city. we're doing it in a way that actually encourages the production of housing and makes it a bit easier for developers to create that housing. that is something to be encouraged. it is a win-win. we're getting the money and helping this production occur. i want to encourage all of us to keep our eye on the big picture

of making sure we're getting housing created including affordable housing and not being penalized and pound foolish. supervisor mar: if you have any including remarks, a supervisor -- remarks, supervisor? there is how much they're being used. i'm interested in incentive especially for on-site below market rates but that question of whether the deferral program is having that negative impact, some have said it might to be affordable housing groups that have spoken today, it is important to look at the impacts on a smaller construction industry and the builders but also as we look for

infrastructure improvements, that are not delayed, i am not sure how we work together on those projects to make sure that we have the streets and parks and other infrastructure to move forward. that is the mayor's office and housing discussion. can we continue this to the call of the chair and hopefully in six months to have more data. and to bring this back at the hearing? without objection, thank you. could you please call item 2? >> ordinance amending the planning code to permit a 5 feet ground floor height increase on geary boulevard. supervisor mar: this is an ordinance are brought forward and it has been at the urging of the small business community within the richmond but throughout the city. many different small-business owners on the richmond have struggled as a result of many factors that include the threat posed by that growth of large

industries. i was successful in passing an ordinance that supported small businesses by limiting a formula retail pet stores on the geary corner. it was intended to include more active storefronts. for technical reasons, that aspect was moved from the original legislation. this is trilling legislation from that. in november of 2011 i introduced the proposed ordinance that would amend section 26 3.20 of the planning code to provide for a special height exception of 5 feet -- parcels along geary boulevard.

the planning department has recommended expanding the legislation to provide the 5 ft. exception for clement street from [unintelligible] to funston avenue, one block west of 12th ave. the commercial district, clementon street anto 18th avenue. and balboa between second and eighth avenue and over by the balboa theater. after the introduction of this legislation in november, i heard from residents of the jordan park area of district 2 and my district as well. who are concerned that there are high allowances in that section of the neighborhood. i agreed and in response i've

removed the nc3 parcels. between where russell middle school is to the post office on parker. the planning commission recommended the ordinance -- support for the ordinance but they urged modification to apply to commercial corridors within the inner clement neighborhood and district. and the outer clement neighborhood and the nc2. i agreed with their recommendations in amending the ordinance accordingly. the planning commission expressed concern about zero loss of commercial spaces or smaller commercial spaces where future developments may pursue what mergers for bigger spaces.

resulting in larger lots and larger ground floor commercial spaces with fewer opportunities for small business owners. as a result, i am introducing an amendment that prohibits lot mergers resulting in lots with bridges > 50 feet in the inner and outer clement and the nc2 districts between second and eighth avenue on clement. i'm handing out the amendments. i believe these measures are concrete way of protecting the existing character of our commercial district while promoting flexibility in this out -- the design of our commercial places. it is my hope this will help stimulate active and attractive street and storefronts and contribute to an improved experience for pedestrians and patrons of our unique businesses. it is a successful way to help our merchant community and i urge your support. we have presentations from our planning staff.

emery rogers is here is well. >> that afternoon, supervisors. i am [unintelligible] the ordinance before you would amend the planning code to provide a height extension of up to but no more than 5 feet. and this incentive would be available for certain neighborhood commercial districts along geary. supervisor mar describe the ordinance and modifications. i am showing where this ordinance would apply to. this is geary and clement. the ordinance is consistent with the planning commission's february 6 unanimous recommendation of approval. i am going to talk about some

background that led to this ordinance and a couple of precedents to the ordinance. in terms of the design issues that led to this ordinance, the design and use of the building ground floor has a direct influence on the pedestrian experience. active uses provide an interesting image to the street. that is important for commercial streets. it would contribute to the public life on the sidewalks. by providing spaces that have direct access and they have a ground-floor ceiling of 20 feet of height. -- a minimum of 20 feet high. this is an older building and

the ground floor has high ceilings. inviting the pedestrian into the stores. supervisor mar: what street is that on? >> this is geary. however, some new buildings have moved away from adding visual interest to the street. especially for base can hide districts like 40x and 50x. they tend to maximize the number of floors. that results in four flore buildings and eight or 9 foot ceilings. for the ground floor that is low and that would be uninviting -- that would be [unintelligible] for pedestrians.

this legislation would accomplish two goals. first it will activate the ground floor with uses that will bring life to the shopping clusters. it will provide an incentive for color and gracious ground-floor space is without changing the number of floors allowed. this would have buildings match the ground floor of historic context. faugit would not increase the nr of floors. you can see on the left, this is the way [unintelligible] this is the way it is now. for clarification, i will explain what we made by active use.

[unintelligible] it is usually for commercial uses but it can also be defined for residential uses. [unintelligible] there has been a couple of precedents to this ordinance and similar ordinances. the last committee approved in the last few years that provided the same five-foot height bonus to nc2 and nc3 zoned parcels and in the ingleside neighborhood. >> that was a key issue brought up by the residents of glen park as well. >> to conclude, the proposed modifications that supervisor mar described, they're focusing on a continuous [unintelligible]

in the richmond district. this will improve public life in the street. supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone who would like to speak? if you could please state your name. thank you for being here. >> good afternoon. i am an independent small- business owner. san francisco is noted for its various distinct neighborhoods and it is imperative we maintain the quality of life of these neighborhoods and i think you for listening. supervisor mar: thank you. ms. landry.

>> i am representing the san francisco pet store coalition and we're here to support eric mar's ordinance and the amendment. we thank you for all your hard work. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. because this is a substantive amendment i have had it out, i am asking if we could continue this until the april 30 meeting. can we accept the amendments without objection, colleagues? thank you. without objection. can we continue this until april 30, without objection? thank you. thank you, everyone. please call item three. -- it is item three and four together. >> accepting the offer of public and for structure improvements

with mission bay sanitary sewer pump station. accepting the offer of infrastructure improvements associated with mystique -- mission bay store forssmann relocation. >> before you you have two items that requests the public accept public infrastructure. the first is the sanitary sewer pump station which is located in and under a public park. as noted in the orange box. this is the image of the pump station. the second item was the acceptance of these 66-inch silver force main project which is a lot -- relocation of a formerly existing

[unintelligible] i will show you this one first. which was previously the green line that is being relocated to the red area. getting it out of the way at the ucsf medical center. this is about as tall as i am. a pretty big one. both these projects, the sewer and the 66-seubert force relocation project -- sewer force relocation project were constructed in accordance with plotting specifications. they are prepared for and ready for its intended use. the planning department determined the construction was consistent with the city's general plan. and it does not -- neither projects tricare ceqa or

environmental review. -- trigger ceqa or environmental review. improvements are consistent with a redevelopment plan and the public utility's commission which will maintain and operate these facilities. they're ready for their intended use. we request that you accept both projects and move them forward to the full board for acceptance. supervisor mar: if there are no questions, let's move this up to public comment. is there anyone? public comment is closed, saying -- seeing none. can we do this without objection? thank you. please call our last item. >> resolution redirecting a congestion management agency

block grant from the second street streetscape is that right? >> [inaudible] superisor mar: thank you. let me quickly look at the item. i do not think we need a presentation. thank you for sitting through the fee