eastern neighborhoods' fee adjustments where if it goes in western soma above a certain size, .5 acres, the affordable housing fees will go to tier b. and tier a and tier b are both higher than the normal inclusionary fees will go to tier b. and then there will be a reduction in the other impact fees including transit impact fees from their normal, what we would normally have developers pay. and so the amendment would strike the sentence the last sentence of that section, which lowers the other impact fees, including transit impact fees and would adjust the affordable housing impact fees from tier b to tier a, which is still i

higher than what they would normally pay, but would address the issue that i raised before, about how we're putting new density into the area and i don't think it's good policy to reduce transit impact fees when we're increasing population. whether it's transit or pedestrian safety needs, we're so dramatically underfunded in our transit, we need these transit impact fees and we should not be reducing them that. is my motion. >> can i ask a question to the chair? could you explain how much higher our the -- so tier a versus tier b, you say this change requires additional affordable housing money.

>> yes, tier a and tier b are both higher -- i don't know what the tier is called, but maybe planning can discuss. >> sure. so the baseline across the city was 15% for on-site, with prop c everything came down essentially 20%. so it's now back to 12%. originally, in umu, where the tiers apply, a was 18%, b was 20% and c was 22%. so even the lowest tier was automatically higher, 3% higher than the base for the city. and then each tier was 2% increase. so by going from tier b to tier a, you would be going from approximately 17-15% instead of 12% that is currently required for all projects across the city.

>> if you calculate the other side by taking out the tier 1 piece, does that essentially pencil out for developers? so it's about a rough equivalent? >> well, it's difficult to say, because obviously there are different constraints on every development. and depending on how you meet your affordable housing requirement, whether it's on-site or through an in-lieu fee or off-site, there will be different costs. so it would be difficult to say exactly how it would pencil out and even out. but we could attempt to do more analyses on that, on the version that has been proposed, if you like. >> and my goal -- or the goal here is not to increase or decrease the overall fee burden on developers. you are never going to hit it 100%, exactly the same, but to be as close as possible. the policy vote is around the transit fees and open space, but primarily transit.

>> i mean, i already expressed my thoughts earlier today. this has gone through an extensive community process and in our offices, communications with the neighborhood, the neighborhood for the most part feels very strongly about this option. they would like to see something that allows the larger sites to build more affordable housing in exchange for fees. i hate that always have the conversation about transit versus housing and you ask people what their top priority and people really feel the crunch in south of market. it's where most of the development is happening and where people are feeling pushed out and would like to see an option for developers to build more on-site inclusionary housing, even with the slight reduction with impact fees. i think that mr. teague had said this earlier, but it's not

really an even change. i think at the end of the day, there is a net gain for the city through this policy. because it is always more expensive to build housing on-site rather than the fee itself in and of itself. so being that this impacts such a small number of parcel, 13, but realistically, i'm not sure if even 4 or 5 parcels will consider it and it's voluntarily. i have to represent the community that i serve, and affordable housing is just the top priority for that neighborhood currently. but i understand the concerns. i believe that we need to figure out a better way to fund transit. i don't think we fund transit enough and that is why i that that discussion keeps emerging.

>> supervisor kim i completely appreciate and respect those comments. affordable housing is also a huge issue in my district and a big issue everywhere. i completely support more affordable housing generally in all of its different forms. but i think i also, not just in any district, but everywhere i go in the city, people are very, very frustrated with the deterioration of our public transportation system and especially as we're adding new development with low parking ratios. which are just starting to come online now, a lot of people are really nervous about what that means for the transportation system and the strain on muni. it's just a very nervous time for the future of transportation in the city. and so i am not suggesting that -- i am just suggesting that

we go back to our baseline. it's actually above that baseline for affordable housing fees, because at it's tier a. at transit it should be at that baseline, which is still inadequate, but this would be as currently proposed. >> i am seeing these amendments for the first time now and i don't have time to talk to community folks, so i will not be supporting these amendments today. >> i am also seeing these amendments and hearing this discussion for the first time. first and foremost as we said before, i would absolutely want an analysis of what the current legislation has vis-a-vis what supervisor wiener is amending. at the moment of hearing the

discussion, i am inclined to support this, but i would like to really understand the numbers. and if we could see potentially even a pro forma of what one of these projects would look like, of what we are providing to housing and transit. i think that would make sense. i do think longer term, and i know our colleagues, my colleagues appreciate this. we have to figure out how to resolve these issues, so we're not pitting housing versus transit and i think it entails in part a longer conversation about how we found a woefully inadequately funded transit system. but at least as this was been presented today for the handful of projects that is where my inclination is, but i want to state to both my colleagues i want to see how this pencils out and we'll have another discussion next week on it.

>> okay. >> so with that, prepared to support amendment, but again, reserving the opportunity to have further discussion next week. >> and this is true, and this may be end up applying for the au issue, that we'll be getting more information over the week and that we can consider that as it comes in. >> are we proposing to make the amendments in a week or are we proposing to make the amendments today? >> i think we can do either. >> i guess the question is if we -- the idea is to move this out of committee next week; right? >> city attorney, if we could just ask. >> this amendment is substantive. >> so if we did it next week, it would require further continuance. >> if i could ask our city attorney, if we made these amendments and for whatever

reason we got information that suggested that we should do something differently, would that still require -- what? >> rescinding them? >> rescinding them next week. >> deputy city attorney john givner, your question if you want back to the language as proposed today? >> correct. we have imperfect information. we don't have all the information that we need in front of us to really understand the economic impact of today's proposal versus what we had in the legislation coming to us? i want to be able to move the conversation forward and hopefully next week not delay moving this out to the full board. >> if you make the amendment today, you can rescind the amendment and go back to the current language next week without additional. >> why don't we do that? >> okay. i won't be supporting the amendment today, if there are further conversations over the week, that may change, but i hope that my colleagues on board will respect the feelings

of the constituents. >> being no further comment, madame clerk will will you call the roll. >> on the plosion of amendments, supervisor chiu? >> aye. >> supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor wiener? >> wiener aye. >> there are two ayes and one no. >> that motion passes. [ gavel ] >> then i guess regarding the final peace on grandfathering, is it better for us to take the amendments today and rescind them the following week as we get more information? i just want to make sure that as supervisor wiener said, that with both issues actually that we're able to still consider that as we get more information? so with 340 11th street, i want to respect the process. the i appreciate the property owner taking the time and i feel that the conversations

have been fruitful and i am hoping that we come to consensus by next monday. as planning is going through its global negotiations around a u, so leaving that decision to planninging in its negotiations and kind of grandfathering in just the cu. >> the question is again if you make the amendment today, and then rescind it next week? >> what would be your advice? should we do today to potentially rescind or next week and continue in committee? >> if you want to leave the option to send it out of committee next week, you should make the motion and leaving open the option to rescind it next week and pass it out of committee then. if you don't make the amendment today and decide to make it next week, it would require

additional continuance. >> thank you. what i will do, but i will process what the statement that i will make a motion to amend on grandfathering. one is to actually the opposite option, not to grandfather in 340 11th street and i want to be clear that we are not doing this to preempt discussions with the property owners and venue owners. it's been a great and productive discussion. i would like us to get this out of committee, since the community has been waiting so long for this to move forward. so i will make a motion to do that and a motion to grandfather au pending a final answer from planning or city attorney whether this would impact the negotiations or not? which i assume is the main considerations that the committee members would consider. and i can divide those into two motions. >> i think i would appreciate it two motions.

i would support the purple building. i think it's appropriate. with regards to aau, as what i understand as was repeated before, there were conversations around a more global settlement around the different issues, given there has been numerous enforcement and other issues alleged here. and i would feel more comfortable defering that until that more global settlement occurs. and i think at that point it would be appropriate to move forward. planning code changes such as the one proposed here, to move forward as whatever gets decided as part of that. >> since you split them on the 11th street motion, it sounds like that is unanimous. you made two separate motions, correct? so why don't we take the 11th street motion to remove the grandfathering. can we do it without objection? >> sorry, supervisor. >> yes. >> it's not actually on this motion, but on the previous fee

change. i just wanted to throw out for everyone's information, the change in the fee may require an additional notice. and we'll figure that out with the clerk's office and the planning department as soon as we can. i can't determine on the fly right now whether it will be. if it does require additional notice, it would trigger a two-week delay instead of just one week. >> what would trigger a two-week delay? >> when the board is considering new or increased fees. the clerk's office is required to publish a special notice. and so i can't say and it sounds like -- >> is this in regards to chair wiener's? >> yes. >> [kha*-eur/] chair wiener's actually reduces it. >> it sounds like it's not entirely clear. it reduces a to b is a

reduction. the deleted sentence potentially increases the fee. and so i guess bottom line is that we can figure that out. and we will after this meeting. i just wanted you to be aware you, and we would just have to confer with department about the actual effects. >> and we would know the answer to that presumably shortly? >> yes. >> and if that impacts anyone's view on the matter, that a change could be made next week. i don't think a one week versus two weeks is that big a deal, but if it were to be an issue for someone that can be dealt with next monday? >> the other thing i would suggest if we could figure out and maybe we continue this to the call of the chair, so if it is two weeks you could schedule it two weeks from now. is that part of thinking? >> i would defer to supervisor kim and if it require another

week, we could always continue it again. supervisor kim? >> i would feel more comfortable having it scheduled for next week, but i am happy to let our community know it got continued, so they wouldn't waste their time and come out. >> whichever you do prefer, supervisor. >> i do prefer one week. >> back to the removal of the grand fathering for the 11th street property. colleagues can we take that out objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] and i want to acknowledge supervisor kim and her staff for spending an awful lot of time on that one parcel and i wanted to express my gratitude for that. i know you and your staff took that incredibly seriously. thank you. now to the academy of arts university property. i guess my take on this issue is if it's the case that this can be considered as part of

the settlement agreement and resulting presumably, with a department agreement as president chiu said. if on the other hand for reasons that i'm not aware of and it's the case it would not somehow we possible to dole with that as part of the settlement agreement, then i may have a different position on this. because as i understand the history here, this is currently in use as part of the educational -- as part of aau. they are always had the ability for a long time to go in for a cu to legalize it. they did it without permits. they then went in a year-ago and applied for a cu and the current zoning as proposed would end that cu process for them. i am a little uncomfortable

permanently eliminating their ability too use that under the current law they do have the ability to get a cu, they should have done that a while ago. so it's important information for me to know whether this can be resolved in the settlement agreement? right now, with the legislation saying "no grandfathering." supervisor kim's motion is to grandfather. so if we were to not grandfather today, but to grandfather next week, that would require a continuance next week? >> that is right. >> so i would be willing to support the grandfathering today pending getting further information and if that information is that this can be dealt with in the settlement agreement, then i would be in favor of stripping out that grandfathering. but given that it would be --

just so we don't have to have multiple continuances. >> that is fine with me. i would like to hear from the city attorney's office whether or not that is possible. >> i think i have gotten mixed responses and i am comfortable also going back to the planning commission's original recommendation, if it doesn't impact a global negotiation. that is really my primary intent. if the answer is that we won't impact that negotiation, then i am comfortable going back to the planning commission and just making that motion today. this week, just so we don't have to continue this plan anymore than we have. so i appreciate that support. thank you, supervisor wiener. >> so on the aau grandfathering, colleagues can we take that amendment without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] . okay, any additional amendments? colleagues? no? any comments? >> i will get a chance to thank a lot of people, but i forget to thank danny at my

office, who came in midway through the process as april went on maternity leave and has done a tremendous job the last months, picking up this plan and tieing up the loose ends, but i will take time to thank him and the other folks at the next land use and economic development committee. thank you. >> i wanted to acknowledge the work of the task force. i know for anyone that goes through a long process and going to the board of supervisors and supervisors have opinions that may not always been consistent with the task force and i know it's frustrating and we're all just doing our best to make good policy for the city. so i want to acknowledge and thank the task force, especially mr. niko for the money years of work that we might v. for all the years, i am grateful for those who take that time to move

their communities in a positive direction. colleagues is there a motion to move this to one week? >> so moved. >> can we do that without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] . >> madame clerk is there any other business before us? >> no, there are no other matter matters. >> then we are adjourned. test

test, test, test, test, test >> good afternoon and welcome to the personnel committee of the committee i'm john. joined to my left by commissioner cohen and to my right mar. i'd like to thank our staff sworn testimony for their work. madam clerk do you have any announcements to share and approve the minutes of the next item >> okay colleagues any comments? why don't we go to

as you all know the administration code stips that we appoint the executive and we're responsible for the hooifrg and firing of the executive demeanor. now the executive job duties includes the