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 deferral discussion. >> i am so sorry to be late. the item before you is an extension of an item we brought before. i am discounting my breath. -- i am just catching my breath.

at that time, we came to the board of commissioners with a request to transfer the federal congest and agency blocked a grant. at the time, we were unable to meet the deadlines on the project. in order to preserve the $4.8 million for the city, we needed to transfer the funds a project that could meet applicable deadlines. the cesar chavez project was able to absorb the $3.4 million of the $4.8 million. the fund also went to two other mta projects. we have gone to the transportation authority board to approve the reprogramming. we have also met the deadline to request the construction authorization of the cesar chavez project.

this resolution is the last up in finalizing the transfer of funds. it is required for all projects that received the block grant. i can answer any questions about the resolution that he might have. supervisor mar: are there any questions, colleagues? supervisor cohen? no questions. thank you for the great work on this. let's open this up for public comment. there is no one from the public here. i will close public comment. colleagues, can we move this forward without objection? without objection, thank you. is there any other business before us? thank you, everyone. meeting adjourned.