discrimination of south of market that we should be treated like everybody else. that is the bottom line, equality; right? in that vein, folsom is not a street east of the 11th to be issuing limited live performance, because as the entertainment representatives have said, residential and djs or other loud amplified music just can't get along very well. very smartly the area south of harrison is set up. the silver tsunami is coming and i think this plan will provide for it. for businesses to succeed, they have to have a great product and llp is not going to help, if they don't have a great product and we already have nightclub that are closing and

already closed. thank you very much and thank you to the task force members. my partner and i did attend the first community meeting at betsy carmichael and really appreciated the chance to have some input at that stage. thank you. >> thank you, mr. whitaker. >> my name is themus mickus and i have sent supervisor chiu and you an email detailing my position. i want to apologize in advance to speaking to a very small point that perhaps through inadvertent, i think allowing a garage to operate in an alley way would create traffic and

other hazards should not be permitted. so i ask you to please, go ahead and adopt your plan as you have planned and without changing it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> >> supervisors i am with the company called archstone and we have a very large development project at corner of 8th and harrison on a 3-acre plus parcel. people have talk today about san francisco being weird and funky and there is nothing weird or funkier than a developer supporting a jim niko project. it's a compromise between

members of community, people in the planning department, developers, on and on and no one really walked out of this process feeling as though he or she got what he or she wanted, but i think it would be silly to think that you could go back and perfect it. because you are not going to get there. you are going to get just minor tweaks to what has already been created. so have i gone to probably 120, maybe 150 of these meetings over the last six or serv years. and i know there are a lot of talented and committed folks on the part of the entertainment industry who have concerns about the plan. i hear where they are coming from. and i do think entertainment is obviously an important part of what happens in this city, but i don't think it should be a cause to make major amendments to what is before you tonight.

thank you. >> thank you so much. are there any other members that would like to speak? thank you chair wiener. if you would like to close public comment. >> public comment is closed. [ gavel ] . supervisor kim. >> thank you. so mr. teague did present a set of amendments and i just wanted to go over them again, right now. first, we did a couple of rezoning of the red along the major corridor where's we felt there was actually a conflict there and those amendments are in and that is clean up. second, is the removal of the b, bulk requirements. third the educational component. [speaker not understood]

fifth, is actually to rezone class and rawhide to wmun and this is something that we worked on with cmac and terrance allen. if by some chance they protest this rezoning, i have been informed by the city attorney we can rezone it back next monday without it sitting-- pushing it to sit in committee for a third week. and i just wanted to bring up a number of outstanding issues with the plans that i think will be the subject of the policy discussion today. one was the grand fathering issue. there were two that came up at planning commission meeting on december 6th one was one you heard a lot about in public comment and that was the decision to grandfather the

purple building on 11th street. it was grandfathered in because it had spent many years planning to build residential and was not aware that -- or anticipated that the commission and our office would think about rezoning that block to wmuo, which was an amendment that the planning commission passed in december. just for the sake, for the conversation that has begun this month, with that property owner and with the entertainment venue businesses on 11th street we did just want to allow this item to sit for another week to allow the negotiations to continue. the building owner is considering a different type of use and just out of respect for that conversation i was going to wait off and on that grand fathering issue. we have a second grand fathering issue on the academy of arts, which is on townsend

street. and this would grandfather in the cu application and not of the use itself. i was going to ask planning some questions about that, but i wanted to go through the outstanding issues first. the second outstanding issue is the reducing the flexibility for historic buildings. this was a recommendation made by planning. i am going honor planning's recommendation regarding this. while there are a number of buildings historic on their on, if you look at the number contributing, it's an incredible number within the west soma plan and i don't think that was the intention of the plan to allow such greater flexibility for such a great proportion of buildings. so i will support planning's

recommendation. what chair wiener brought up is increased inclusionary housing fees. those are that are half an acre or more. again this is consistent with eastern neighborhoods. the plan had a fee structure for major projects that allows us to increase inclusioniry housing residents for 33% with other fees going down by that amount. for myself i know that buildings on-site is always far more in cost than the fees that are paid out and i actually believe there will be a net gain for the city, but allowing the fee structure -- voluntary fee structure to go forward west soma plan. i wanted to clarify it's not a mandate, no more than 12-13 projects are eligible and of those, i'm not sure how many would even develop over the next 10, 20 years. with that said, it would have

to pencil out out for the developer. this fee structure is only triggered when a cu is sought. i wanted to ask a question about the aau site. i know that aau is a very controversial property owner in san francisco, causing grief to some of the city's family. so i'm curious as to whether if we go with planning commission's recommendation, not to grandfather this cu, would it complicate current negotiations with aau? could this be negotiated regardless of when this board says? >> you are correct that the aau grandfathering situation is a little complicated and i

would back up to make it clear. under the current zoning, which is sli, educational services are permited with conditional use authorization. so the academy did file their conditional use authorization for that site specifically in may of 2012. however, that review of that cu is contingent on the environmental impact report for the large institutional master plan moving forward. the west soma plan proposed to rezone that site from the area of sli to sali and to make educational services not permitted within sali. if it moved forward that way, the project for aau would not be able to move forward. because it simply would not be permitted within that district. the question came at the planning commission as to whether a grandfathering provision should be untiled to

allow it to move forward with conditional use process and come back to the planning commission under the cu and that vote failed at planning commission. so they did not take the action of adding the grand fathering provision. as before you now, it unchanged educational services will not be permitted within sali where this site is located. specifically to your questions about the larger negotiations, unfortunately, i don't know that we would be able to answer that adequately at this time. >> i think for me, and i am very sympathetic. i watched the planning commission hearing. i know it was a 4-3 vote. i'm very sympathetic about those who feel about the land grab and without going through the process, i think that is something that is just occurring in the city and i have to acknowledge that. i also acknowledge that aau is

there and i'm not sure if they are going to leave and all of those sorts of things? i understand there is a city negotiation process. what i am curious about, if we don't grandfather them in, could they negotiate regardless of whether we grandfather in the cu? >> i'm not familiar with all the details of the negotiations, but it's my understanding that the underlying zoning district does in the permit the use, and it has not received its proper permits like the conditional use authorization, if that rezoning goes through, if that particular site and that particular conditional use authorization would essentially die and they would not have an opportunity to get that site approved through the conditional use authorization process. >> if that would happen, what would be the next step for aau at that site?

would there be an enforcement mechanism to ask them to leave? >> yes. generally if there is a land use gone into a district that was not approved or received the proper permits the first action is to ask them to get the required permits and if they don't do that or can't because that use is not permitted there, the enforcement action would be for them to vacate. >> could you follow up? >> yes sure. >> i will follow up and turn it back to supervisor kim. on the aau issue and i say this as the author of the student housing legislation, that really restricted conversion of residential housing stock to student housing. this has been a concern for me. and one of the things that i have always said with regards

to aau, is that they really need to go through this settlement negotiation process, and that as i understand it, that settlement agreement whatever is agreed to would form the basis of some sort of potentially a development agreement for various aau properties. which i think could change specific zoning. so i guess following up to the question that supervisor kim just asked, if we don't grandfather them in, so they then have this school non-residential school site, and their cu, the cu application would be invalidated, because it would no longer be permitted. if as part of the settlement negotiations with the planning department, there were an agreement that they could operate a school there, presumably, the zoning could then change at that point. and i asked that question only because, again, in my view it's important for aau to deal globally with the planning department on these issues.

and i can't -- maybe this is a question for the city attorney. as part of that settlement negotiations, and whatever results from it, could this be rezoned, even post-adoption to the western soma plan to allow them do this as part of the negotiations? >> john givner, deputy city attorney. i am not familiar with the negotiation details. i would defer to the department. >> sure, and i'm also not privy to the details of that negotiation. however, it's my understanding that part of the agreement, there could be an accompanying rezoning. i don't know if the agreement itself wore de facto rezone the site, but the site would be rezoned subsequent to this rezoning as part of that development agreement. >> okay. >> so i just want to clarify that. if we don't grandfather in the

cu, in the overall settlement a[tkpwrao-ept/] agreement with the site [speaker not understood] >> technically that agreement would have to come back before the board for approval as well. >> if we do grandfather them in, they don't have to come back to the board? >> right. if you grand father them in, they would be able to continue novforward with move forward with their conditional use authorization as with their other site as cross the city.

modifying the restriction of lot mergers and then rezoning the parcels, allowing rawhide to do the restaurant on the second floor. yes, mr. teague? >> i'm sorry, i don't mean to interrupt. i just want to be clear that the ordinance that is in front -- the updated ordinance that was introduced today, that does not include the amendment for wmuo, that would have to be a separate amendment and same thing with the 7th street rezoning. that would have to be a separate. >> that would have to be separate. >> those two issues were not -- so the first three, yes. the removal with the conversion of the b bulk designation to x. the rezoning of those red sites.

and the educational services breakdown. those three things are included in the ordinance that is in front of you, but beyond that would require introduction today. >> okay. so i am going introduce two amendments. one to modify the restriction on lot mergers. that would be my fourth amendment that i want to add and the fifth just to rezone the two parcels on 7th street, which is known as cycle glass and rawhide and i believe those last two are no one controversial and i would like to pass those together. >> can we take those amendments without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] supervisor kim. >> supervisor wiener, i believe you have one amendment to make. we had a discussion about it and then we can have a discussion about the grandfathering in and that will be the last discussion.

>> colleagues i distributed an amendment, which is to -- it's page 106 of the ordinance lines 17 to 20. and that is relating to impact fees. and the projects on development greater than .5 acres, but less than 3 acres and currently says small be subject to tier b affordable housing requirements. and then it states that the residential portion of such projects shall also be subject to the tier 1 eastern neighborhood infrastructure impact fees regardless of the tier level of the subject property. and as we discussed earlier, this basically if not exactly, but more or less replicates 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