a process in bad faith. i think -- i hope that's clear because it's been said many times. wait, one more point, may i? namely that obviously [speaker not understood] set criteria for ministerial providence is not sufficient. there are political influences as you all are aware in our process. there needs to be an objective appeal at the level of the board of supervisors when significant cumulative impact has been abridged. that needs to be part of their codification. >> thank you. next speaker. thank you, supervisors, for carrying throughtion this very long process. thank you for seeing you working together in a collaborative way, the many hearings, the feedback that has

brought us to this point. i want to thank particularly supervisor kim for drafting amendments thanks to your staff, prioritizing affordable housing and other publicly funded improvements. her staff -- and your staff are facilitating the lengthy discussions with city attorney elaine warren and planning staff sarah jones that got us to the point where we are today. i want to thank supervisor chiu for incorporating thea amendments into the set of amendments today. we hope supervisor wiener will see these amendments as fully compatible with his own arguments for need for ceqa clarifications and certainty. the response is some concerns raised earlier about prioritizing other projects. there are no other projects with as complicated a funding structure as affordable housing. i wanted to respond briefly to director ram's comments of prioritization if any, should not be codified or they can simply be done through a director's bulletin.

in fact, this prioritization is already codified in the government code and there already exist a planning department's director's bulletin. but this is not working. as members told us repeatedly, sometimes it takes six months to get an initial determination whether a project will need a cad ex, negative declaration or e-i-r and sometimes planning staff changes initial determination. staff informs us delay is being pulled off to other prior advertise, such as america's cup or warrior's arena. to be clear the choo choo is asking for the very first initial determination of the environmental review requirements. we look forward to seeing the draft language for these amendments and ensure the ordinance matches the intent laid out by both supervisor kim and supervisor chiu in had i comments today. thank you. >> next speaker. calvin [speaker not understood], san francisco clearinghouse [speaker not understood]. i'd like to elaborate and

extend mr. martee's comments. in terms of both the supervisor wiener and director ram's concern about articulating priorities for affordable housing and that being somehow burden somerctiontion i would remind the supervisor, as supervisor kim did at the beginning of this hearing or at least her portion of the hearing, that you, sir, supervisor wiener, used affordable housing as the loss leader in many of your arguments for making ceqa reforms. it seems only well and fitting that in -- after conversations with affordable housing developers, the council of community housing organizations recognizes the difficulty, the principal difficulty and the principal need for reform in the ceqa procedure was the failure of the planning department to carry out its already articulated priority, especially an initial project

environmental evaluation, prioritizing affordable housing. so, it seems only fitting that legislation would be added to this, your set of amendments. and we're somewhat taken aback by your difficulty in understanding the nature of that priority. finally, i would simply remind people that in 1986, the brothers of the city and county of san francisco passed amongst other amendments to the planning code section 101, which were priority policies. ~ voters voted on and passed by the people. and chief amongst those priority policies in the planning code is the production of affordable housing. not only is it an administrative priority, not only is it a priority in the general plan of the city and county of san francisco. it is a priority voted into the planning code by the people of the city. >> next speaker.

good afternoon, supervisors. sean [speaker not understood], residential builders association. i'm here to speak to project modifications, specifically those that receive a cad ex or negative declaration types of review. i understand the need for this. and through our conversations, we've all discussed the addition that comes in. it starts off as perhaps a rear addition and then you get a vertical addition to the right and six months later it's a vertical addition to the left. before you know it there's a new floor going on top. we've been there, done that, and we've all heard the horror stories. but the definition of an expansion or modification as given earlier was simply an expansion of the envelope or an intensification in use. and, supervisor wiener, you gave a very obvious example about someone comes in with a one-story addition and it becomes a two-story addition. that's a simple one. but perhaps we need some sort of a minimum threshold because

what happens if you have a new building or a building and you decide just to add an elevator? you are going to expand the envelope. what happens if you decide to add a bay to one of the bedrooms? you're going to expand the envelope. if you have ground floor commercial and you decide to utilize a car-stacking system and because you created more space now in your garage, you expand your ground for a commercial by 20%. are you intensifying the use? if you expand it by 10%, are you intensifying the use? 5%? if you add bike working or unit storage, are you intensifying the use? at what point -- we need some form of a reasonable minimum threshold to balance the need for this appeal. thank you. ~ bike parking >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]

>> okay, colleagues, the items are now in the hands of the committee. president chiu. >> thank you. and i first want to just take a moment and respond to the final comments that were made by mr. kidren. we want to make sure that the definition of modifications calls out other definitions within the planning code when it comes to expansions or intensifications of use or building envelopes or changes in use and would require public notice under other planning code section. so, you can rest assured that those definitions should be clear and that is going to be an important standard in this. as i said before, i'd like at this time to make a motion that we move these two items out of committee. at this point i'm not prepared to support either, but we move them without recommendation. i know as much as everyone has enjoyed all of these many land use hearings, i do think it's time for us to call the question and move it out. i do think we are at the end of the road. as i said before, we are drafting final language for the various amendments that i described.

i intend to make those amendments at the full board. vis-a-vis supervisor wiener's legislation and assume that those are made, i do intend to support his legislation and will likely add my name as a co-sponsor. but i very much want to thank the work that everyone here has done on all these -- on all of these issues and certainly if there's any additional feedback over the next week, i think we have eight days before the next board meeting. my office, we want to hear from you and please keep sending e-mails and making the phone calls. >> thank you, president chiu. so, again, i appreciate the effort that you've put in and i look forward to seeing the additional amendments which we discussed today, by and large seem a very reasonable. and i appreciate the support of my legislation subject to those amendments and the other amendments that you put in in the past. i think this has been a very

collaborative and open process and i think it's been a good one. supervisor kim. >> it has been a very open process because we have to talk about this in the public. so, i also agree, glad to see where this is heading. i think there are a lot of good pieces now that are in the ordinance as they move forward to the board. i'm happy to see that we're largely keeping how we do the e-i-r appeals the same and i think that's important that that moves through in both pieces of legislation. and i'm glad we're going to have a broad cushion on both electronic notification and modification. ~ broad discussion i also agree with mr. kidren. i think we should define modification. i think it's important for both sides. it helps builders and members of the public understand what a modification to a project is and there would be a lot less debate and contention about that issue. my preference, my policy preference, my process preference is of course that we

have amendments ready and that we vote on them at land use committee before we send them out to the full board. i imagine there are enough votes to send both items out of committee today. i would like to see the specific language. but if it is the wish of land use committee, then we'll send it out to the full board. i think we invite our colleagues to kind of enter into the fray at that point versus sending out one legislation that all three of us agree upon. but at the wish of land use committee, i will support those legislations going out. but just wanted my statement that i would prefer one ordinance to go out, but that would have been my process preference. >> okay. so, the motion is to forward items 2, 3 and 4, you said both. >> i meant both pieces of legislation, which would mean all three. >> the motion is to forward items 2, 3 and 4 -- >> mr. chair, we can't forward

item number 4 out, item number 3. >> you're right. item number 4 still has to be heard by historic preservation commission. >> elaine warren, deputy city attorney. it's one very tiny technical amendment that i noticed that should be made in kim's -- supervisor kim's legislation. >> i apologize for that. >> in section 31.16 f, it refers on lines 6 and 9 to section 31.1 9c1 and it should refer to 39.1 91 ba in boy. >> that is item 3? >> item 3 on page 40. and i apologize, ms. warren did let me know about the technical adjustment. i will make the motion to a medction. >> only with respect to item 3? ~ amend >> only with respect to item 3, lines 6 and 9, a technical error. >> thanks. can we take that without

objection? so ordered. [gavel] >> if i can make one more comment. i do understand item 4 is still trailing because it's at planning. if it is possible the discussion around the ero appeal to fold that into the conversation so we can cut a little bit of time in how we resolve that issue i'd like to make that request of planning to hopefully work with us to do that. >> so, the hearing -- >> so that that the hearing can happen at the same time. >> is that scheduled at the hpc is this item 4? when is it scheduled for? it doesn't matter actually. it is, okay. okay. so, the motion is to forward items 2 and 3 to the board. item 3 as amended. without recommendation. and, colleagues, can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call items 7 through 19 together? >> mr. chair -- >> i'm sorry, we'll fleed to continue item 4 to the call of the chair. >> so moved.

>> okay. motion to continue item 4 to the call of the chair. can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call items -- i skipped a couple. aye tech 5, please. ~ item 5, please. there are some people who got nervous. item 5, please. >> item 5, ordinance amending zoning map, sheet no. zn08, to rezone assessor's block no. 4108, lot no. 036 (909 tennessee street) from public to urban mixed use; and making environmental findings, planning code, section 302, findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ from public to mixed use. >> okay. ms. rodgers, will you be presenting, mary robvers from the planning department on item number 5. >> good afternoon again, supervisors. ann marie rodgers from the planning department. this item for 90 9c street

results from a previously zoned public property to a umu zoning district. this was heard both pi historic preservation commission in february and planning commission in march. both recommended approval of the ordinance because it does ~ take something that was under a public ownership and is now under private ownership. and it puts in place the proper zoning, which is the zoning that the adjacent parcel have on it, umu. so, we're going from a publicly owned property that used to be zoned public. now that it's privately owned we would like to rezone it to be consistent with the neighboring parcels to umu. >> thank you, ms. rodgers. colleagues, any questions or comments? is there any public comment on item number 5? thank you, supervisor. john kevlin here on behalf of the property owner in consideration of the committee's time, ann marie did a great job describing the proposed rezoning. i just want to make the point

there's no project proposed for the site right now. it's merely a rezoning to get it consistent with the other zoning in the area and i'm here if any of you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, dl a motion to forward item 5 sw recommendation? >> so moved. >> can we do it without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] ~ >> madam clerk, please call item number 6? >> item number 6 is ordinance approving an amendment to the mission bay south redevelopment plan, which modifies the land use designation for certain property to add residential as a permitted use and to increase the permitted residential density in the plan area, but does not increase the allocation of tax increment under a pre-existing enforceable obligation; making environmental findings under the california environmental quality act; and making findings pursuant to the general plan and planning code, section 101.1(b). ~ density in the plan area. ~ >> kathrin reilly will be presenting. ms. reilly? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm kathrin reilly from the office of community investment and infrastructure formerly known as redevelopment. and the project for the mission bay project [speaker not understood].

so, tonight or today i'm going to be presenting the amendment to the mission bay south redevelopment plan. this amendment would allow residential and block 1 which is the hotel site in mission bay south. i'll also touch on the amendment that's been processed for the mission bay south owner participation agreement or opa. since this has a lot of the meat of the deal which will probably be interesting to you. i'll first review the plan amendment after which i'll invite michael cohen from the investment group to represent the owner of block 1 block 1 associates to introduce his team. i think you all have just for your information about mission bay, to give you a little prepared by the master developer of mission bay, because he sent what the current status s mission bay is comprised of two redevelopment project areas divided by mission creek. build out over 6,000 housing units of which 30% will be affordable. in addition 4.4 million in private office and biotech and 43 acre for campus and

hospitals, hotel, [speaker not understood] retail, [speaker not understood] library and police and fire facilities as well as 45 -- 49 acres of park land. currently mission bay north is almost completed. fa it just has one completed parcel. [speaker not understood] ~. these include 150 units of affordable housing. [speaker not understood]. along with 15 acres of park land and the first phase of the medical center is under construction along with the public safety building. from about 2015 mission bay it will be completely different neighborhood. block 1, today's item is 2.7 acre parcel located in mission bay south. [speaker not understood]. expanded by a channel street to the south, 3rd street to the east, fourth in the west, mission bay park to the west along the creek. currently developed [speaker not understood] overflow

parking for at&t park. the site did he nated under the redevelopment plan as hotel and the current entitlements permit up to 500-room hotel and up to 5500 square feet of retail use. the block with the mission bay south hotel land use. since the adoption of the mission bay plan in '98 we had roughly [speaker not understood] developers meet with us over the years to discuss the availability of block 1 but none of these projects have gone any wiwhere. in 2011 we were approached ~ [speaker not understood] and owner participation agreement to allow different uses, mix you're of land uses. since they found the 500 room hotel is not currently feasible on the site. specifically, the block 1 owner is seeking amendments to the plan and the owner participation agreement to allow a smaller hotel, 250 rooms along with up to 350 residential units and 25,000 square feet of retail. this would be an alternative to leave in the current

entitlement of the 500 room hotel with larger amount of retail if that ever became more feasible. ocai wanted to make sure before proceeding with these amendments that the proposed project would be feasible. what we didn't want to do is amend the plan and opa to find out then there are no similar [speaker not understood]. we engaged ppf consulting which is a leader in the hospitality field to do a feasibility study of both the 500 room hotel, the current entitlement as well as 250 room hotel. the study concluded that a 500 room hotel is not feasible at this site in the current market conditions. largely because the cost of constructing this larger hotel compared to what you could get [speaker not understood] the cost was more than the actual value would be. also they found that most hotel investors are looking for a rate of return between 15 and 20%.

so, a 500-room hotel would be 5 to 8%. [speaker not understood] it would result in 17% rate of return. the feasibility of the 500 room hotel is also ismap in part to its location, distant from the moscone center, [speaker not understood]. ~ the higher cost of land and construction similar to new york, but the room rates are significantly lower. the feasibility report did find the smaller 250-room hotel would be economically feasible due to its lower operational costs and more -- since it's more efficient to a full-service hotel. the amendment in front of you is fairly simple. it would allow 350 units of secondary use with a smaller hotel. the owner participation agreement that's being processed separately is more complicated, but [speaker not understood] because it has the affordable housing, some other issues. similar to the opa plan

amendment, it furthers adoption of 500-room hotel or smaller with the 350-room dwelling. and also the opa amendment addresses the issue that with the block 1 wrote et is proposed we'd have an increase in market rate units in mission bay. so, it includes an affordable housing requirement. [speaker not understood] at this point we don't know which one it will be so we're open for both. if it's a rental project, the project would have to include 15% of inclusionary on-site units consistent with the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. these would be required to be maintained for affordable for 75 years, up to some households earning up to 60% of the area median income. again, this is consistent with the type of stand alone projects in mission bay south. [speaker not understood] condominium project would be required to pay an in lieu fee of 20% of the unit. and the fee then be used by

ocii to build additional units in mission bay south. recognizing that if there is a rental project built with inclusionary units, there is a possibility that it could convert to condos in the future. we wanted to build in protections for existing tenants. if they do convert, any existing tenant would be given the opportunity to purchase the units at their existing affordability with 5% down payment assistance. if they chose, they did not want to purchase, that gives relocation assistance. any vacant units or folks who decide to relocate would be offered family up to 110% of ami. again, this is consistent with the mission bay projects. also, any project on block 1 would be subject to the agency small business enterprise program. this has a 50% participation goal for professional construction contractors as well as 50% goal for local work force hiring. and requirement prevailing wages. last year we were able to achieve about a 40% overall

local hire in mission bay. as michael will be discussing more, the block group developer will be entering into a card check agreement, hotel developed on-site for the unions. the citizens advisory committee reviewed the proposed amendments in march 2013 and they voted unanimously to support these amendments. and i believe you have an e-mail from karin woods in support in your packets. the change in land use, we did prepare an addendum. ~ since this would be a change that's the environmental report that's being used. we did not find any change in the environmental impacts between what was already analyzed and for the proposed project. in addition to the plan and opa amendments, the project proponents began to do the planning, land use plaquev for the site and the commission on community investment infrastructure immediately approved the major phase. ~ planning

this is a massing diagram at this stage and it goes into individual projects, you get more detail skin. the photo gives you a sense. we didn't approve all the exterior skin, but it gives you a sense what the project could be going forward. we'll be working further with the developer on the individual buildings. in conclusion, opi found that by allowing residential use in the economically feasible hotel in block 1 that this will allow the full economic use of block 1 and accelerate the [speaker not understood]. in addition, the project did not result in any new use of taincrement and will not change the overall negative financing for mission bay. the change in permitted use from block 1 is expected to generate more revenue for property taxes he since the current entitlements are not feasible. right now the property spins off about 16,000 in property taxes. under the new proposed project there would be about a million

dollars in property tax spun off. also we estimate about 1.8 million in new sales tax as the proposed project. finally, the project proponent also anticipates there will be 21 million in new one time development fees. [speaker not understood] and additional revenues [speaker not understood]. an overview of the schedule, the planning opa amendments approved by the commission on investment infrastructure on may 21st, we brought the item to planning commission last thursday and both of those groups, and also we've gone to the oversight board for oppm and both groups passed it unanimously. we're scheduled to bring the plan amendment to the full board on the 259tion which is required by state law for a hearing and second hearing on the ordinance on july 9th. after that there is a 90-day referendum period so the plan amendment would become official in mid october. this concludes staff presentation and at this time

i'd like to invite michael co-ebb ~ cohen's group [speaker not understood]. >> i have some questions, but first supervisor kim. >> i am supportive of the former redevelopment area plan. i think it is important we are very thought the about the process by which we do the amendments because i know that's been a conversation piece outside the committee. i want to reiterate that again at committee. i just had two comments or questions. one is i really appreciate that there is some thoughtfulness around when bmr rentals are convert today condos. i know that was a question that came up recently in one of our buildingses. it put bmr tenant in an untenable situation. i'm glad we are bringing in triggers which will give them protections. another issue that has come up a lot is tenants improvements

to bmr rentals. it is something we're working on with the mayor's office of housing and what's come up in some of our buildings is there are different rate or no improvements made to bmr units in specific developments. so, when there is a vacant unit opened up and it's market rate, the property management or developer may improve those units, maybe a new microwave, new refrigerator, new types of paint. when it's a bmr unit that becomes vacant, they don't get the same level of improvements. and i'm not saying it has to be the same. i hope you are thoughtful about how to move forward on that as our bmr units start to age. the next issue is really a transportation issue. it's not really on the developer, but i hope there is some thoughtfulness around how the new residents and of course hotel patrons will get around during games. it is something that has come up at third and fourth street are heavily blocked when people

are exiting the parking lot after a giants game. so, i've heard a lot from mission bay residents they would like greater thoughtfulness how they can traverse out of their homes during this time period. block 1 is really right at the center of all of that between third and fourth street. so, as we move forward with the development, i hope we can give some thought as to how our new residents, new hotel patrons will get around during game night so our office doesn't have to field the complaints in the future. so, those are just the two feedbacks that i have, but i am largely supportive of thighs amendments. thank you. >> thank you. ~ these amendments i have some questions about transportation, and really, i don't want to put it all on this one project. this is really a wampum cumulative thing. the heart of my question and commentary is in terms of the people living here, visiting here at this hotel, ~ how are

they going to get around, how are they going to get uptown, how are they going to go down south, how are they going to get around? even though we have tracks there, we have what looks like transit infrastructure. we don't have enough light rail vehicles to serve our current population's needs let alone the additional population we're going to see in this part of the city when we build it out. i'm supportive of this project. when i look at this map, i think there are a lot of great projects on here. this is for me not about -- let's not have any development because we're going to have transportation problems. the question is what are we doing knowing that this development, this added population and these spectators to the giants or warriors, what are we doing to plan for that so that we have the transit infrastructure so that not everyone has to drive, so we don't have permanent gridlock

all over this area? and so that we can accommodate not just this part of the city, but the entire transit system. and right now i don't see what we're doing to actually do that. we had a hearing a few weeks ago where we on only one-third of weekdays do we have enough light rail vehicles to serve as the bare minimum needs of the muni system. on one-third of days for the bare minimum. we're going to need a lot more in the future. we're going to have to maintain them, we're going to have to rehabilitate them. which is something we haven't done until very recently. ~ we need to like sure up what we have. we need to expand it. and i don't see the plan in place to do that and we need to get that plan. and when i look at the map, and this only shows one area of many, many different kinds of ev