5.3 millon. if we don't get this approval, i am a local developer. we don't have a project. that thing will stay as a big ugly building which i thoroughly dislike. in conclusion, prop c was designed for this. all bunch of us work hard to get through prop c. we are the first folks to come to you and we need this approval. we don't have a project if we don't have this approval. we will start this project in the next two weeks if we get the approval.

that's it. 12 minutes. not a very good presentation, i apologize. >>: calling for public comment. i have one speaker card. paula richard. >>: good afternoon. i am paula richard. i work with plant construction. i have been at plant for about 13 years, construction manager and vice president on this project if there is a project. i was asked to take a minute and reiterate what is in my letter. we bid out all of the

subcontract work, probably 50 subcontractors ready to go as well once the project goes forward. if you're not familiar with plant construction we want to point out a couple of things. we are a san francisco company company, we been here for 65 years. of the next 26 months there will 521,000 man hours translated in the range of 125 people average per day and up to 200 workers at the peak. if you have any questions i will be glad to answer them. i wanted to put in our support

for the project. >>: any additional public comment on this item? >>: good afternoon commissioners, president fong. my name is john huang, and member of the international brotherhood of electrical workers local 6. i live and work here in san francisco. i'm in front of you speaking in favor of this project. this project is partially funded by emerald fund and nabf, national electrical benefit fund, our union electricians pension fund. in the last three years when the construction industry hit hard by recession nabf funded a couple of large projects in

san francisco, one is finished, one is at the end of construction. we do need this project to move forward simply because we have our pension money in it, we depend on it. this project is good to be all union built. they can put a lot of members to work. we ask you to support this project. thank you for your time. >> president fong: thank you. >>: good afternoon president fong and commissioners. my name is michael mckenna, director of business development for ivw here in san francisco.

this is a project that we need; it is ready to go, puts our members to work, gives us a return on investment. it is a project to beautify this area the city. we have residential units going up everywhere. this vitalizes the area. with people living here it brings new life to the city in this corridor. it really needs to grow and change; this is part of that, to bring residents' ability to live and work here, and be around this area. it is something that we need to continue to foster. an office building at this area has left; aaa dispersed the

satellite offices throughout. nabf is proud to pick up this building and transform this on something more useful for the city. we hope that you move this project forward. thank you. >> president fong: anymore public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner borden: all the paperwork that you provided us, i think what might be helpful for the future, having a lot of people maybe we can get in advance; it may be helpful to show the financial differential between the 12 percent and 15 percent so we have visualization in our minds what financially that means. in general we have always had this conversation about what is a cost to provide a below market rate unit.

i don't know that we necessarily know what that cost is. you have always been an advocate for affordable housing. everyone understands why it is necessary and desirable to have this housing project versus an office project. is a great adaptive reuse. i regret that i was not here in the original hearing i'm happy to be part of the secondary hearing, the type of project that we would want to be supporting, especially since it looks like you have a financing in the opportunity to move forward so we will see at least 48 units of below market rat eunits moving forward. i know that the building since

it's vacant not as much foot traffic. a friend was mugged in front of that building. it is quite ugly. i don't see enough adaptive cool use. a lot of other cities do a better job at that. we do a lot of new construction. i am very supportive. i will let the other colleagues speak. >> president fong: commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: a question, how we are moving forward in this proposition. do you know how many units are at stake?

how many approved projects we have that have not started construction that can come back and request the reduction? >>: this was an issue that came up the conversation around prop c. i don't bring with me today the pipeline. we have the conversation i don't know if mr. rand would like to comment on the pipeline % have to consider the number of projects entitled that have yet to receive your instruction permit. this only applies to projects that choose to go from another option to an on-site option; it limits the universe of projects in the pipeline for whom this reduction would be applicable. the other thing that is import to know is that prop c although it articulates a reduction in the on-site -- establishes the floor of 12%. high-rise developments

which comprise part of our pipeline which are under the 12 percent onsite obligation would not be eligible for for the reduction. i apologize. i don't have more data. >> commissioner hillis: can this be sought anytime? i forget with a maximum is, five year entitlement. can they come back after five years and request a reduction? >>: i believe there is a three-year sunset cost. >>: one someone has received the first construction document they are no longer eligible to come back and seek the reduction. >> commissioner hillis: have you ever received a permit? you have up until the time that you can apply for the permit, until your approval sunsets to seek this reduction?

>>: right. and then you have to start construction within one year. >> commissioner hillis: is that a requirement? >>: it is a requirement it can be extended by the zoning administrator. >>: there is included is a that period in which we will consider this kinds of requests expires in january, 2016. that is a window of opportunity. that is in the charter. >> commissioner hillis: that is helpful. i don't want to lose too much inclusionary housing.

this could turn into an office in the project were not to proceed. it is good that this project is proceeding quickly and we will get housing as well as inclusionary housing. it would be good to bring this policy back. it sounded good in the charter amendment but the devil is in the details. maybe we can have more discussion about the policy and timeframe, not just an invitation to reduce inclusionary to 12%. in this case i am supportive. >>: i want to point out, it is a project of for hundred units. the difference between 12% and 15% is a difference of 12 units. him a larger thinking i am thinking that not approving it and giving up -- for a difference of 12, the benefit

is in more bedrooms, more doors in san francisco to meet the need. >> commissioner wu: i want to follow on some of the thoughts of commissioner hillis. i wanted to see today that the project would not be financially feasible at 15%; letter from prudential shows that. i want to make sure that we are not opening the door for all the projects want to come back and get a reduction. it is important for us to take this case seriously is the first one coming back. i'm happy to hear that there is clarity around the fact that this program ends january 1, 2016. i also want to make the statement that staff said that the entitlements are open for grabs. this project is easier because it came to this commission more recently.

there may be projects that have gotten approved five or however many years ago. the commission may have a different take on what the titlement to be at the time; developers should know that if they ask for a reduction they are also asking for a review for all their entitlements. >> commissioner antonini: this is a very good project. a compelling case is been made for the need for 12% to allow for the financing. if memory serves me right over the years that i have been here for approvals many of the earlier approvals were already built. even if there are some coming back to us they were approved at the time of lower bmr anyway. this provision would not apply to them.

i don't remember project in the last few years especially the larger ones that have elected an on-site option. most of them have done this off-site. this would be on a case-by-case situation, to look at them and whether or not % this particular one is a no-brainer. this brings to mind a similar situation that occurred earlier in the last decade when the two chevron towers were actually approved for residential % it never got built maybe because of cost, maybe because of the economic downturn. maybe because of the inclusionary requirement, that could be a lot of reasons as to why that never happened. they are now occupy

commercially, still just as unattractive. i'm not talking about that. we have the possibility of making them more attractive building, a sideline of what we are trying to do here. the other thing pointed out is a need for 24-hour residents in the area. crescent heights is almost finished, trinity will be building a lot of units. you need a critical mass of people to support a lot of retail, a lot of other uses to make a neighborhood in the does not happen unless you have enough residents there. this goes a big way in providing that. and having the on-site inclusionary of course allows for the diversity of income in those units too. i think that it is a very good project. the point was made that an

office could be built probably but the building would remain as it now is. there is more of a demand for office; we have approved a lot of office projects south of market and the financial district with a better opportunity to grab tenants. on the design is moving in the right direction. the color of the glass is really important. i have always been a big fan of 560 market, the best glassed building in the city for aesthetics. a lot has to do with the rich green color imparted by the framing, very close to the glass. i'm not saying that staff says you need a lighter color to blend in with the other buildings.

that may be a case made for that. making sure it is a rich enough color is important. to can work with the project sponsor on that, make it a graceful building, don't trick it up too much. i am totally in support of this one. >> commissioner moore: in august we spent a lot of time discussing this buidling; the basic support ha s not changedit happened 13 weeks before the voters decided to support prop c and that is a much more important thing to focus on because there is a shift which put this building particularly because of its timing on the

calendar of this commission very much within the sphere of influence of prop c. you can stand in line right at the right time even when rules change. the concern about future projects coming forward and not looking at the conditions which surround the approval including other things that have changed, requirements of three elevators versus two. issues with respect to energy conservation, etc. in principle i think that the most important condition for this project is for it to occur within one year. and with the applicant standing here

and testify that there is intent to start within two weeks is the best proof. this is something we should continue to support and see that it indeed becomes exemplary of what this commission is looking for. i would like to make one comment. i think the commission as part of its previous approval stated that some of us interested to see the final façade design to be reviewed by some of us. i have not had the opportunity to follow up with staff. those commissioners who want to be involved should continue to do so. i want to restate the continued interest of some of us to participate in the final configuration.

>>: anyway. to staff, in terms of the one-year permitting trigger, with respect to the building permit, is there a specific permit that is referenced? can they go in for a site permit and that counts? >>: the first construction permit in this case is -- >>: in this case it would be the architectural addenda. >> commissioner antonini: i moved to approve, the required action must contain (indiscernible) >>: second. >>: on that motion: >> commissioner antonini: aye >> commissioner borden: aye >> commissioner hillis: aye >> commissioner moore: aye

>> commissioner sugaya: aye >> commissioner wu: >> president fong: aye it passes unanimously, 7-0. we do have a member of the entertainment commission here, for item 13, entertainment procedures and processes.

>>: whenever you're ready?

>>: good afternoon everyone my name is nicholas king, i'm here to give a brief presentation. this is an overview of what-- responsible for, and excessive noise prevention and enforcement. the epidemic commission regulates entertainment and nightlife in san francisco generally. will begin with basic definitions and underpinnings of our permits. i'll get to the handouts and described them. the commission issues many types of permits. today we will focus on -- we will get the conditions of the way to be on the same page.

the first amendment of the constitution, its equivalent sections in the california section. people are guaranteed the right to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. it is a guarantee in any attempts by us as the city to regulate assembly and performance is constrained by the first amendment. entertainment looking at the powerpoint please % i'm not going to read the whole definition. you can take a look at it yourself but you can see that it is long enough to be pretty inclusive of just about any type of performance that you can think of. a place of entertainment is defined as any premises to which patrons are members are admitted which serves food, beverages,

food and beverages included to a not limited to alcoholic beverages. to understand this it might be helpful to mention some things not included in place of and payment. we are not talking about private residences, or events truly private like a wedding or something like that. our place of entertainment permits run with the operators not with the address of the venue. when there's a change of ownership or management someone has to begin the process all over again even if the name of the venue stayed the same for example which is in contrast as you know withconditional use authorizations. if there is an attraction in

san francisco open to the public we want to make sure it is safe for the people who are there, people around it am not a nuisance for anyone who lives or works nearby. we want operators to do what they do well. we don't want them to control everything. we know there are limits. we do want them to be responsible for what they can control. in practice examples of the types of places we are talking about, you might have the new usf jazz building, down the street, a sophisticated well-funded professional space. on the other side a karaoke

space with one microphone, one stage and 49 occupancy. there are four hundred places of entertainment in san francisco. it has remained constant. the permitting process, the entire process takes around 45-60 days and will cost the applicant anywhere from $2000 to $2500. conditional use takes more time and is more expensive. several departments must weigh in. the planning department, department of hotels, building, electrical, fire, police,