be built in the project area. it does not give the flexibility outside the project area. if the law were changed, it would be a different situation, but that is not what the law says. it says it has to be in the project area. if we give people the option of building off site for paying a fee, they would not be building in the project area to meet that requirement. we did not have much choice to put an on-site affordable housing requirement because there just is not land anywhere else in the project area to meet the 35% affordable housing. and it does not go all the way. it is only one to be 15%. there's a balance that we have worked very hard to create while still achieving the 35%. but the other point i want to make about the on-site of four-

ball house in inclusion -- affordable housing inclusion is that the city feels there is an advantage to integrating them with market rate housing. a few blocks is sometimes a long way. it can change the neighbor -- the neighborhood. we want mixed use in these communities. that was also part of the decision to include on-site community housing. if there were sites in the project area, and it is possible there may be eyesight or two available in the future -- a site for two available in the future and if a project this is not -- and a builder decided to build across the street, we would have to look at that as a community. it achieves what the law requires. we do not feel that is a

realistic possibility right now, but we know that could change the requirement is on site now, but we would be open to housing right next door, for example, if that is somehow possible. commissioner antonini: to more questions while you're at the podium. everyone keeps pointing a figure at sacramento. is that going to happen? as to anything that affects this project. but not with this project specifically. there is talk of of -- talk of cleanup legislation, but it has not happened yet. commissioner antonini: one of the things that keeps coming up with on site projects, such as what we are talking about here,

are hoa fees. highrises can be considerable. $750 a month, and i'm being a bit modest at times. they're not graduated, to make a point. and i keep hearing, although i do not have any statistical information, that these can be crushing two individuals who have qualified for these units. -- to individuals who have qualified for these units. any comment? >> i do not has visited information about what is being done with that because i'm not directly working on that issue. i know it is being addressed as best it can be, but i would have to come back to you with an

update on that. >> eirik appreciate it. i keep hearing more and more about it and -- i really appreciate it. i keep hearing more and more about it and i think it is quite serious. i would be very interested in that. >> i would be happy to for that request to the mayor's office. >> aside from that, i think this has moved as quickly as we can expect things in san francisco to move. 2017 will probably be with us sooner than we expect. in the comments so far by both the public and the commissioners, there are still some troubling factors that need to be cleaned up. i am perfectly satisfied with

the base at we have it now. >> commissioners, if you do not mind, i will chime in. i will try to make some broad comments and observations. the discussion thus far has been very interesting, and hopefully, leading to smart, intelligent planning. is a living, breathing plan. one comment by a public speakers said that it needs to have a committee of its own, a grocery stores, entertainment, food. not just housing or just office. it is important that we keep up with the growth of san francisco. this is the place for height, and not necessarily a fan of it, but if you're going to, you need to pick a place. and who are going to be the tenants in 2017, 2020, 2025?

are they going to be the next version of twitter? how fast are they growing? we are sort of building a living for them, the unknown. the other question i had is that because it is evolving since the inception of the transbay tower, is $400 million the right never to try to shoot for, using the melarus as the collection vehicle? it is something to think about. should it be higher or lower? and once you start adding a melarus and you start putting a committee districts in it in a couple of years and then you put homeowners' association fees on top of that and it can get

rich pretty quickly. the reaction is to put another layer on, but when you start to multilayer assessments or taxes orleans, it adds up. -- taxes or liens, it adds up. how does the city executes its infrastructure improvement plans when there are different start dates for different projects? i'm curious if there's a lull in the economy or in the market and then things cool off and then they fire up at the same time how that affects the execution of the infrastructure. i can get that answer later. i'm curious how that time line works. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i share many of the sentiments shared by other commissioners, especially commissioner fong and miguel.

it is concerning because it is the evidence for the overall plan. i think it is actually quite a very good plan. i actually work in fremont, so i am a block away and it is wonderful to be able to walk a fremont and -- of fremont and not be scared. i know there was a question of new construction and they would be saddled with a lot of their fees, would they have to pay into any of these fees? would they be impacted?

>> regarding the impact fees, yes, they would be subject to convergence and rehabilitation is, provided that the convergence or rehabilitation would enter them into a use that had a higher per square foot fee, essentially. if they were converting from office to residential, that would not necessarily trigger fees. regarding the melarus, as drafted, it would not have those requirements. net new development is what triggers it. commissioner borden: there's a point about spreading the fees. we all want it to work, but we have to make sure it does not saddle other projects as we move forward. >> we do not have a perfect

crystal ball, but we generally know where there are sites able to be developed. we have no way to predict when conversions or anything might happen or whether we would ever raised any money in that regard. commissioner borden: that is very fair. the other thing -- an interesting point was raised about f.a.r. and there was a point about affordable housing be included in that. i did not realize that we did not include that in the f.a.r. calculations. it does seem like a double fee situation. using f.a.r. for affordable housing makes a lot of sense.

i do not know the difference between the c-3 or the park request is in the district. maybe we can talk about that next time to see how -- what the requirements are to see how they relate. another issue on affordable housing, i know there are state constraints. i would love to figure out ways around that, because my biggest concern in talking about the hoa fees is that i think we have a greater need for affordable housing, but you can't have a home ownership building because it is not a model that works. it is one of the advantages of offsite housing. >> i did not get into the details about how the transbay project area is able to survive.

one of the only projects that are allowed to continue after the dissolution of projects for which there are enforceable obligations, as designed under the law of the redevelopment agency. in transbay, one of the affordable -- enforceable laws that we this it was the affordable housing law. the reason we put that as an enforceable obligation is that it entitles us to continue to receive tax increment to build affordable housing. i would raise that as a reason not to tinker with the 35% level. commissioner borden: i'm not talking about that. >> just so we're clear, i'm not saying you were suggesting that. bobby's the, there might be a way to put flexibility in the 35% affordable housing. but the level is a very -- is very important to continue to

receive that variable tax base. commissioner borden: i'm not suggesting a reduction in the number, but more creativity around how to get to that number. i do think the issue around rental -- it does sound like the projects in its -- it does sound like not all the projects in this project area right to be home all0 are opportunities. -- home owner opportunities. >> they would have the requirement of the 50% a and night. cracks -- 50% ami. commissioner borden: i think there is a distinction with

rental vs. homeownership. in looking at how we might address this in the future, we may look at how we look at rental projects verses homeownership projects. that is just something to think about. but overall, a great presentation and a lot of detailed work. i appreciate the staff. you really address a lot of the issues we have expressed in past hearings. it and look forward to this evolving further, especially the transit center. commissioner wu: i want to thank staff for the presentation today. it answered a lot of my questions around office development near transit and the demand for office development, how that might get filled. i have concerns around accessibility of the public to

the public spaces, but also to the entire plan area. i appreciate those changes in objective three that also may be seeking something more. this question of accessibility is also about affordable housing and also about what kind of businesses are quite to locate in these offices. i want to make sure that we are creating the right incentives to create a transit center that is for all of san francisco. specifically on the issue of shadows, i've heard a lot about this notion of diffused shadows. i wonder if anyone has photos or any other kind of more visual representation of what that means. what is a reduced shadow, a hard shatter? it is hard to see what the quality of the park will be without that.

also in regard to reduced shadows, it is important to talk about use and not just percentages. a.m. to 9:00 a.m. is an important time for the park. it is where seniors do tai chi. it is important to understand how the park functions. in other projects where we have accepted the shadows, there has been over riding public benefit. there was a senior housing project on portsmouth. i want to mark that. there is a great transit center plan. but it does have this impact on the neighborhood park. what is the right sort of public

benefit to offset that? i had some questions around the 35%. i wanted to clarify the 35% is for the affordable housing requirement in the entire transit center district plan, and not only transbay zone 1. >> actually, it is neither. it is for the project area, which is within the transit center district plan. but there is also parts of the district plan outside of the redevelopment district. vice president wu: thank you. commissioner miguel: i know there is probably a little additional comment, but i would like to move a resolution of intent on 11a to initiate amendments to the general plan, on 11b to initiate amendments to

the planning code, and on 11c to initiate amendments to the zoning maps, as purvey materials presented to us. commissioner antonini: i had some other comments. i thought this was a very good hearing. this is hearing to reestablish san francisco as the business center of the western united states. what you have is a combination of dense housing at all income levels, some of it very marketable, many forms of transportation, and close access to recreation, institutions, civic, and medical, which is what we envisioned when we started this concept in the downtown area of san francisco. if this is done correctly, i think it is going to be wonderful.

just as we are seeing a movement in the last few years where people choose to live in smaller spaces and want to live in urban areas, because they have decided that living most of their lives on freeways commuting from suburban areas does not make a lot of sense. i think businesses are going to come to the realization they will want to locate in attractive areas. i think those powers that are built for businesses will be inhabited by many businesses that may now be in suburban areas. maybe their entire operation will be located there. as far as the law -- the question of what we are giving back, obviously, the 35% affordable, the inclusion of parks, the transportation -- this project gives a lot back to the city. i think if there were to be a shadow some place, i think there are plenty of things we are giving back to the common good

that will be an offset for any shadows that might exist. but we will have to look at that situation when it comes before us. commissioner moore: when you described the site intensification, you talked about soft site analysis, together with the issue of land use mix and downtown capacity. you specifically addressed the capacity for zoning and rezoning. i am curious as to whether or not, by creating the areas, you look at infrastructure capacity and civic infrastructure capacity. infrastructure capacity is below ground, and civic structure -- when you have been suffocation -- have densification, you have additional needs for schools and

community centers. i wanted to hear whether that was part of your plans are not. -- or not. >> two aspects to the response. our general capacity analysis was not an analysis as to whether 20 million additional square feet could be sustained with existing infrastructure. it was purely a matter of whether there was space for the capacity under existing zoning. this plan is an example, as with other plans we do, of taking a look at a section of that area and doing a comprehensive plan so we create the necessary infrastructure to support the growth, at least for that area. this plan, like other plans -- market octavia, the central corridor plan -- we are doing that comprehensive planning for those areas. that is in the context of these upswings.

we do them to increase capacity and address those other issues. regarding things like the sewers, police, and fire, some of those are engaged through the environmental review process. the sfpc and other agencies review. if there are other issues, but our flag. we have engaged various departments such as the sf puc, talking about the future of the plan area and trying to address their institutional goals. through this plan and the growth anticipated, we have addressed all of those issues. >> the reason i am saying that -- if i would be a land owner and i already anticipate large contributions in other areas described in your plan, these hidden costs will make it difficult, because you can only put so many additional fees on something before it starts to be

a sinkhole. with some anticipation, i say there will be hidden costs that have not been brought forward at the moment. -- commissioner moore: president fong: are there additional comments? >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval of initiation of all components, the general plan amendments, the planning code, and the zoning maps -- the initiation. actually, you are initiating. on that motion, including the amendments that were put for you today. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye.

>> that passes unanimously. president fong: we are going to take a short break, 20 minutes. >> the commission iss >> president fong needs to be recused, so we will call them separately. 12a is about the use of signs, building features, floor area ratio, parking, and compliance unspecified use districts. >> i will be presenting phase two of the chiu legislation that was continued from a couple of weeks ago. this features accessory uses,

non-conforming uses, and the washington and broadway sud's. phase 3 will be continued on may 17. step has removed amendments from phase 2 to phase 3 to allow more time to analyze it, so it will not be included in this portion. we thought for my presentation today i would go through it section by section. after i am done with the section, i will allow you an opportunity to ask questions and with that focus. then, you can have follow-up questions at the end. the first topic is automotive uses. the department agrees with many of the proposed changes. however, we have asked for modifications to proposed changes that are not consistent with the zoning category, or

would impact report's ability to fulfill its obligations. the first item would prohibit the surface parking lots in some districts. the department is recommending this provision be modified so that supervising critics of the sue for it -- so the surface parking lots are allowed to continue to operate. it would require new parking lots to be reviewed on a case- by-case basis. item 2 below would require conditional use authorization in some districts for inclosed parcel delivery service. the department requests approval, because it is consistent with the district. item three would prevent broad storage uses in some districts and require a conditional use authorization in others. the department recommends approval because the change is consistent with the intent of

the respective zoning districts. item four would prohibit storage areas for commercial vehicles in some districts. however, the department recommends this use be allowed to be granted a conditional use the authorization, because the use is consistent with the intent of the district. >> item 5 deals with the automobile service stations, also known as gas stations. it would exempt those on primary transit seats from the requirements outlined in section 228, which limits their conversion. that is the first section. i am happy to take questions, if you have them, or i can move on to the next one. all right. the next section is limited corner commercial uses. there are two changes proposed under this ordinance.

the first would increase the distance these uses could be located from the corner. currently it is 50 feet. the legislation would increase that to 100. it would also increase from 1200 square feet to 2500 square feet. this was developed as part of a multi-year planning effort, and we made a commitment to the community cannot amend without thorough examination. in response to department concerns, the supervisor has agreed to modify this provision for the district of side of the market and octavia plan, which is where the department had a concern. you can consider that in your vote. the second change would require conditional use authorization to convert a dwelling unit into an lccu. these are already reviewed under section 317. the department finds this provision duplicated and unnecessary and recommend a change.

those are the changes under lccu's. any questions? president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: staff is recommending against the changes or against the provision entirely? it was a change that was going to allow it to be 100 feet from the corner and increase the square footage. >> we are recommending against the change to the legislation as it is currently drafted, because we made the commitment to the community that we would not change it for five years, and would go through a review process. in response to that, the supervisor has agreed to leave the market octavia parcel alone, but changed it in other districts, which i think our -- are rm-3,