if you want to accomplish anything in your name in this city and if you have any love for san francisco, you will do that. but i do not see any movement. you say one thing and then you vote for luxury housing. these people that have luxury housing are not here enough to spend money [bell rings] they're here for a week or two during the year. they do not contribute anything to the economy here. as far as jobs are concerned, we have big projects going on in the city. please understand what the people want. you're here to serve the people, not politics. thank you. supervisor cohen: are you for the definition or against the definition? >> i am for anything that supplies housing, although i do not think 150 feet is adequate. it sounds like living in a closet to me. really, i mean, i think you can do better than that. however, any housing is better

than in the housing at all. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor wiener: ok, any further public comment? supervisor mar: now we will close public comment. i would like to jump in quickly to say that i think this is good legislation. i think you have done your homework to reach out to different groups. i do feel like there needs to be more discussion on its potential impact, especially in different geographical locations. i think something was brought up from a planter's perspective in community, what makes the common areas and open spaces. i would like to have a discussion about additional communications and discussions with the planning commissioners, like cindy wu and others. i feel this is ok to move forward today, but i do feel like there are a number of unanswered questions. we did get communications on the impact on san francisco state housing and some other issues,

but my hope is that there is still a dialogue as this moves forward on where it will be affecting different neighborhoods. i am curious if you can respond to that. supervisor wiener: sure, and i appreciate the sentiment of their two things to consider. one is -- and a couple of speakers linked this to student housing legislation. they really are not linked. many different kinds of housing that this building could change could apply to. student housing is just one aspect of it. in terms of the student housing issue that some people have raised by e-mail and otherwise, the student has the legislation that i am sponsoring, which is back in the planning commission again and will be coming back to the board, that is a planning code issue. and that really is the place to be having the discussion about, whether it is sf state or any other in diversity's, on how we

are -- any other universities, and how we're housing are students. some of the public comment makes me think i have to say this again. it was said. whatever the density controls are coming in my love the density controls in the eastern neighborhoods or market octavia. you might hate it. there is eligible and discussion -- that is a legitimate discussion about opprobrious density. that has nothing to do with this legislation. the density controls are what they are. they only allow two units are two units or whatever it is, it is what it is. it has to go to the conditional use process. of the neighborhood comes for it and says these units are too small, we absolutely do not want that, the planning commission will take that into account. all this does is allow more flexibility in the building code, and this is one of many hurdles that any project is to overcome to get to approval. i think this has gone through

the appropriate process, and i think it is ready for consideration. so i make a motion to move it forward with recommendations. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: thank you pyeatt want to share a story with you all. once upon a time, i was a humble -- more humble than i am now, but a humble city staffer in the mayor's office. i used to live in an efficiency in the excelsior, and it was comfortable. it was clean. i had running water, no troubles. interestingly enough, i think i agree with ernestine's comment in the fact that housing is needed. and whether it is a small efficiency room like an sro, for in this case we're talking about the definition of an efficiency unit, and there is still a demand for it, i believe.

it the efficiency is too small for someone or a family, i believe it is up to that person to move on and to find some housing someplace else. but i do believe it is our responsibility to create housing that is affordable for all income levels here in san francisco. and for those who do not know, i am a san franciscan, and i have four younger sisters, all of us in various stages of our career. i see in my own family the struggle of living and maintaining a life here in san francisco. it is very real. these decisions we make our very real to me. also, being the only african- american on the board of supervisors and paying attention to the dwindling numbers of the community, housing, access to jobs, quality health care, quality public education, and many things factor into white

communities leave a city in some communities are able to thrive. i am in support of the definition of the efficiency unit that supervisor wiener is putting forward today, because i do believe that we need housing inside the city. i am also having a little bit of an internal conflict, because i also believe in the public process of transparency. so, for me, whether it is -- what is it, the department of building inspection said this went through or the planning department, i am not quite sure which is the better of the two venues. oftentimes i sit and listen to people almost spit on the planning commission decisions and the department's analysis, so it is interesting to hear that their advocates advocating to send this to planning. and this is not a reflection --

certainly i do not have a judgment on the planning department. but i find it interesting that is an argument that is being used today. so i am going to stop there and said the rest of my comments, because we have a wonderful agenda today. i cannot wait to get to the other stuff. i have some good comments for those. supervisor mar: sounds like there is unanimous support. so we're moving it forward without objection. thank you. ms. miller, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, ordinance -- one, establishing the name of the waller street stairway at waller and broderick streets and connecting to buena vista park as "adah's stairway," in recognition of adah bakalinsky, author of the book stairway walks in san francisco. supervisor mar: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i think there will be less public comment on this one. this is legislation that will name an existing city outdoor stairway at waller street as

adah's stairway in recognition of adah bakalinsky, the author of a famous book. this would commemorate the stairway and the commemoratives street plant ordinance. and the city would accept the plaque as a gift. this is an iconic book that has been enjoyed by visitors and residents alike for almost three decades, allowing people to explore our amazing urban environment and to discover staircase is that people who lived here for decades never knew even existed. this would be a fitting tribute to ms. bakalinsky, who believe is about to turn 89. and so this is a stairway that has never really been named. it will still technically be waller street in terms of addresses and the like, but we will rename it as adah's stairway. that is the measure. supervisor mar: thank you.

is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. are there amendments? supervisor wiener: there are some technical amendments, and i have distributed it those. it is in terms of the way some of the geography is described, but they are not substantive. so we can adopt the amendment and move the item forward. supervisor mar: can we approve without objection? colleagues, can we move this with a positive recommendation? thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor mar: item number four. >> resolution authorizing the property acquisition with mercy housing at 1180-4th street. supervisor mar: and we have a member from the office of housing. >> good afternoon. i am with the mayor's office of

housing. before you today is a resolution. we're asking for your support and authorization for 1180-4th street. it is and affordable housing project. it is being sponsored by mercy housing. 150 units, family housing. it is going to go up to 60% ami, and i have a few corrections to the resolution. i think there is a typo. so it is going to be 150 units, 60 units -- 60% ami. one, two, and three-bedroom units. there will be a lease with the city with, i believe, a 24-year extension period that will be allowed. the project is being financed by a number of sources, including

the financing -- bond financing. wewe're in the final stages of that process and hope to have the project closed within 15 days. we have bond financing. we have state transit oriented funds, 4% tax credits, we have some money from the former redevelopment agency, tax increment fund. this is one of the first projects we're doing that has been transferred from the former redevelopment agency. we are happy to be working on it. again, we will close in two weeks, start construction. we have a two-year construction period and we hope to have the tco in april of 2014. i have pam simms here, who is the lead on the project.

and jennifer dole and lindsay to answer any questions. would you like me to submit that? the first one is page two, line 13. we want to add him or his designee the last one is page 511. we want to add a phrase, covenant or any easement. i will print out for you. >> thank you. it is on fourth street close to

a channel street in the mission bay area. >> beautiful area. this is an area that typically the mayor's office does not have a lot of projects in. all the sites are our site. we're working on them. it is a wonderful opportunity and a beautiful neighborhood. if you have any questions, i have other staff or could answer for you. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? we have two speakers. >> good afternoon. i am corinne woods, i chair the mission bay citizens advisory committee which will survive

the dissolution of redevelopment. this project is very important for us. we have been planning for years. it was complicated to put together the financing. we're looking forward to it. not only is it family affordable housing, i do not remember the number of units reserved for homeless families. we're also going to have child care on the premises. we will have a team room, will have a community meeting room, and it is pretty. we cannot wait to see it start. we have two projects right now. this will echo what is going on and please approve it. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you.

this is what we need. this is a fabulous organization that has contributed a lot to housing for which everyone should be proud. we do not have housing for fire, police, nurses, teachers, etc. that should be called personal housing. what will we do if we have an earthquake? call them in oakland and say, hurry up, we're having an earthquake because we do not have the key personnel here to handle it. think about it. this is your priority. please concentrate on getting them here. after you have these key personnel groups and you can consider other things but this should be first and that will take an awful lot of planning,

priorities, and attention. please direct your attention in the right areas. focus on that. that is what we need. that is what the people 1. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else would like to speak? >> if you're not nert trained, i would encourage you to. she offers a bit valid point. supervisor mar: i see other nurturing people here. if you want to speak to, please come forward. >> did afternoon. i am a member of the mission bay cac. -- good afternoon. we will be living across the street from the project. i should not sit across the street, it is across the creek

from the project. i would say that the neighbors are looking forward to the project. the mercy housing has been assiduous in making sure that the community ideas are part of the project and coming to the cac and speaking to us. we're familiar with the project. one point that has not been mentioned today. they're also very good at identifying and soliciting and obtaining ground-floor retail. as most of you know, mission bay is very weak in retail and we're looking forward very much to improvements mercy housing brings to us. we certainly support the project and hoped that you will, too. thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? public comment is closed.

can we approve the amendments without objection? thank you. can we approve this item without objection? thank you. ms. miller, please call items 5 and 6 together. >> ordinance amending the zoning map to change the map and classification. amending the general plan of the easter waterfront plan as part of the 8 washington street project. >> we're joined by president david chiu and we have a number of city departments that will present first before hearing public comment. we have every rodgers from the planning department, kevin gheiuy, -- anne marie rogers frm the planning department. the presentation will be as extinct -- assisting dess

possible so we can get to members of the public. >> we're back again today to present the recommended height changes to the general plan and the zoning map. this is where the commission began their consideration and proposal with these two ordinances and with the fundamental credit -- question of what is the proper height at this location. the commission went on to consider the other entitlements you have approved through the conditional use authorization and the planned unit development. because of the nature of the appeal process, this board was forced to consider the ceqa appeal and the cu appeal prior to looking at the more fundamental question of height. is that policy discussion for today. the project planner will review the general plan policies that led the commission to believe a height to change was appropriate. both ordinances make the same change. the first changes the height map

in the general plan. while it is changing, the commission would submit this change is consistent with existing policies in the general plan. the second is an associated changed to the map for the same area is our policy is that i have been part of the city. as existing for work at least as early as 1947. hills should emphasize height and the downtown plan discusses the creation of a human built downtown mound that should emphasize this downtown activity center. it is the natural.)1( shape of e city's hills that we are seeking to emulate. after mr. guy discusses the actions, jonathan stern will speak for the port. >> good afternoon.

as ms. rogers was mentioning, policies within the general plan emphasize the importance of an urban form that slopes down toward the waterfront with a cluster of tall buildings tapering to progressively lower heights in the box toward the embarcadero. the subject property is zoned that -- if we can have the exhibits back out. for a maximum height of 84 feet. this is shown in map 2. this next exhibit shows proposed heights that came out of the northeast embarcadero study which was published in 2010. the residential portion would be constructed within two buildings situated on the southerly portion of the site with frontage along the embarcadero as well as washington and drum streets.

this looks as if you were looking back toward the project site, at the bottom center and right, back toward downtown from the water. the western rebuilding of front along drum street and washington street would reach a roof height of 92 feet to 136 feet. exceeding the existing limit of 84 feet. the ordinance would be required to reclassify the sites and allow the project to proceed. ordinances are before you accordingly to reclassify one area to 92 feet and another to 136 feet. at a hearing on march 22, the planning commission recommended approval of these changes. the project is over the site that fulfills the plan. situated in the tallest portions relating to the background of taller existing buildings within the embarcadero center and the golden gateway center.

you can see this sloping line that represents the fulfillment of the map saying that the downtown to bring to the waterfront will -- to the waterfront. we're looking at another perspective. west to east. you see the existing of the one maritime plaza and golden gate towers and the golden gate- washington project and you can see the effect of slowing down to the waterfront in terms of height. within the project itself, there is buildings up front along the embarcadero at to a height that is lower. the easterly building along the embarcadero is six stories. stepping down to five stories near the health club building. this exhibit shows the uniform existing height limit across the entire site.

whereas the next exhibit illustrates the step from a maximum height of 136 and the various taping -- to bring an scoping down to the northerly portion. the northernmost portion, the areas left of the public space, further enforcing the step map. the transitions in height scope the form in a manner that is sympathetic to the shorter residential, commercial, and boca buildings and preserves the legibility of the progression of taller buildings with any financial district to the southwest. -- within the financial district to the southwest. this is a helpful illustrative. the planning commission recommended the heights are appropriate because they queue off and implement a sloping

front of height. i want to reiterate the heights proposed are consistent. those are consistent with the recommendations of the northeast embarcadero study. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you might have. i would like to continue the presentation by introducing jonathan stern. president chiu: i understand the challenge of the planning department and to think about height being killed off the areaqx÷ or the height limits tht are the 40-foot height limits that are to the north in the residential areas. your department shows -- chose to justify the increase by looking to a commercial district. the question i have been asked is how do we think about this as a general policy for the department? i have read from residents and

-- in supervisor mar's district that this could allow for decisions around height that key off of the commercial street corner which has more height and bulk and i could be used as a way to justify increasing heights in the richmond or if you take sick -- supervisor cohen's district, you have height and density in mission bay and that could be used to suggest we could have higher heights in potrero hill? -- in potrero hill. >> i would argue the recommendations do queue of both. if you looked at the northerly portions, the northernmost portion has zero height because it is left as an open space. the health club is 35 feet and as you progress across the site, closer to the financial

district, that is where you see the scoping of heights increase. it is mediating and killing off the heights within the financial district -- queueing of the heights within the financial district. it does take both bookends of heights into account. president chiu: one question i have always had about this project is exactly what height we are to set that out as. a year and a half ago, this project was two 84-foot tall buildings and the decision was made to drop to 70 feet. one might suggest that kind of a drop in the front side should justify a 14 foot increase in the back but you are asking for an increase of up to 140 feet. how do you come up with these

numbers? should it be 200 feet or 120? how do you do that mouth? >> there is one exhibit i would like to refer back to. this is from one perspective. i think it is a useful one for the purposes of this discussion. if you look at queueing off both ends. starting on the high side on the one maritime plaza building. if you look at the theoretical line that is drawn here, you can see that the heights that are proposed for the project and requested for the planned actions are within that theoretical lion that slopes down to the waterfront and are the pri -- the appropriate heights to queue off of.

and then to the taller buildings in the financial district to the southwest. >> one final question. there has been some discussion about the decision by the planning staff to reject additional height at this site. this was at the time the height limit was dropped to 84 feet at the site. your department is regarded the study and analysis that was done at that time. could you address that and why was there no consideration done to wear your department had concluded differently on this project when we looked at this last time from a city standpoint? >> in terms of the analysis, that was done on the existing urban form and the relationships of the buildings as they exist today. these are