in the proposal. and i do think it is close to a resolution. the second which is no surprise obviously has not been resolved yet, is the issue around parks and shadows. let me say a couple things which i've said to both sides of this issue. i think a lot of folks know my district and the neighborhoods i represent have the least amount of open space in the city. and despite proposition k in the 1908s where voters said we need significant and careful thought around new shadows and parks in the most dense neighborhoods in the city, many of our parks have been incrementally shadowed over time. and legality me give some examples of the drifting shadows, and this is a document from project supporters. herman plaza, 87% shadowing, [speaker not understood] in my district 39%. st. mary's and willie-willie wong, soviet union i don't know square as everyone knows is 38.3% shadow [speaker not understood]. so, on the one hand i do think it's important that we find

ways to address the incremental shadows that over time are alerting the quality of our city parks. but on the other hand i'm going to say this to the folks, the proponents of the potential ballot measure, i don't think that the ballot measure that is being circulated to halt this project is impossible. i think it's very problematic. i think the ballot measure could seriously restrict appropriate development in the city as generated a lot of concern from a lot of different corridors. and while i understand the frustration that folks feel about the erosion of some park, i don't think that a ballot box war is productive at this moment. i also don't think years of litigation are particularly productive. so, it is my hope, it is my hope that we can avoid this in the coming days with a more reasonable compromise. i do understand there is a proposed settlement letter. i do hope that no progress can be made. i want to build a mexican museum. i've told supporters of the museum i'm concerned that the supporters are going to have to spend a year fighting a ballot measure and years spending litigation.

at this point my suggestion, colleagues, to the committee is that we continue this item for one week until next monday and i'm going to ask both parties to really come to the table to see if we can resolve this, that we calendar this for next monday with a committee report out to the full board on tuesday so that it can catch up to the hpc appeal or likely going to have a long day at the board on tuesday. but i want to see if there is one last ditch attempt to get us to a better place because if we don't have that, even if the board approves this next tuesday, we're in for a long fight and i don't think that's good for anybody anyone. so, that's my suggestion, colleagues of the committee ~. love to hear your thoughts. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to say that this project was definitely a difficult one for our office, given that, you know, many of the parties that support or oppose this project are, of course, within district 6.

a couple of things that i will just say about the project itself. again, i think all of us support, including members of the four seasons hy also support the addition of this cultural institution in the yerba buena garden area south of market area. and that is the mexican museum. i think there is broad support for this institution coming and i'm happy to welcome that along with the contemporary jewish museum, museum of african diaspora, [speaker not understood], it's the perfect place and perfect location to add on this cultural institution. my two main policy concerns in regarding this development which came up during the appeal of the e-i-r were, of course, pedestrian safety and open space. everyone knows and i had talked about this before, 3rd street corridor i think is one of the worst corridors to walk down during rush hour and even on the weekends. it is a very intimidating corridor as a pedestrian.

cars just justing in and out through the crosswalks and the box. it is definitely a corridor we need to do a lot of work on. ~ jutting i in district 6 have the highest number of vehicle crashes or collisions. last year alone, we had 96 4 pedestrian accidents, 240 were in district 6 alone. that's almost a quarter of all the pedestrian collisions were in district 6. clearly work needs to be done in that area. this is not just an issue for this one development. this is an issue for the city as a whole as we continue to plan the increased growth and density in south of market. that is one of the issues i brought up. it's not just 706 mission. my concern is the larger overall continued development of district 6. i support our growth. i just want to ensure that we are adequately building the infrastructure to absorb that growth, whether it is central corridor, moscone expansion, so many other projects that are happening throughout the south of market. but i am happy that the

developer has worked closely with our office on addressing some of the needs of pedestrian safety. one is an addition of a crosswalk depending on the outcome of the pedestrian study which they are also funding. the traffic signal timing and modification at stevenson and third is incredibly important. but i'm actually most excited about a pilot program which would fund 12 beat officer to do [speaker not understood] on third street. i want to thank our constituents that e-mail our office. i know a lot of you wonder if it does good to e-mail your supervisor. several recommended we have more enforce. on 3rd street, first street to change child behavior. part of the physical improvement, we also have to do enforcement. that is concept of we have 12 beat officers we fund through cbt. could they also do traffic enforce: i'm happy about that pilot project being funded through the developer. the second large issue that i

had was, of course, open space mitigation. there is shadowing on union square, but there is also significant shadowing on jessie square. regardless of the height at 351 feet or 400 or at 45, there would be the same amount of shadowing on jessie square at least on the district 6 side. having -- actually, after the e-i-r i decided to spend some time at jessie square. you know, there actually is fairly usage of that square. i think it is an incredible development that came out of the four seasons development was the creation of jessie square in front of the jewish contemporary museum. and i think it's a great space and great to see it activated. i know part of the yerba buena garden fees, [speaker not understood], hoa, will be going toward continued activation on jessie square. i have also asked that we continue to improve on the open space and parks that we have in district 6 with that fund as well. supervisor chiu said it. district 3 has one of the

lowest parks and open space per resident. district 6 actually has the fewest parks and we have the smallest parks in the city. but what we have learned is increasing open space isn't always the answer because the city doesn't always have the funding to maintain these new parks. and now i'm hearing more and more to residents who are left to better fund and better maintain the parks that we have. so, i'm really excited that some of the fund that are going to be paid by hoa will go towards maintenance and capital improvement for the parks we have in our district. and i think that's incredibly important that we have really, really strong parks for the few parks that we have in our district. so, and also i'm glad that the developer is voluntarily paying the city open space fee payment, calculated at the exact same rate that they would have paid if they were in the transit city district plan. by residential square footage and cultural institution square footage. i think those are also positive

improvements and things that i support as this development moves forward. you know, the height is a tough issues for me. on a policy level i have not opposed height in general throughout the city and especially in our district. we have very tall buildings in our district and just east of these buildings we have, you know, increased entitlements up to 600 feet for the paless hotel, a thousand tarot for transbay tower, 700 feet for 181 fremont. i think what is hardest for me is we didn't have any opposition to those increases in height which had significant shadow impacts throughout the city. ~ in chinatown and union square. ~ palace it's hard, then, to say not this building. why the transit center [speaker not understood], really across the street from the plan itself. i think given the fact that we are working on mitigation for

open space type safety, it doesn't take care of everything, but i think it is certainly significant contribution to the neighborhood. it would be very hard for me to oppose the height increase for this project, but not for any other. and i think it is it' important because there's so much development in district 6 ~ that i'm consistent in how i determine policy. i do think prop k is a very legitimate argument, but again, you know, it's one that we -- we allocated more shadows for through the transit center district plan. and being that they were paying the same fees that they would have paid if they were across the street, i think that there isn't a distinct difference, then, between these developments. but it is a hard decision. we certainly know that members of our constituents are very opposed to the height of this project, and i agree. a lower project could probably work. it's just hard to say how that would impact the benefits provided -- that are being provided to the neighborhood.

so, i would be supporting this project. i will be supporting this out of the land use committee and at the full board. >> thank you, supervisor. do you have a view whether we put it out today or do it as a committee report next monday? >> you know, i don't have a strong feeling as long as it is finally voted next tuesday at the full board f. we forward it out as a committee report next monday, i'm for that. i don't think more discussion hurts, but i do want to make sure this comes to the full board next tuesday. >> thank you. actually, i share a lot of supervisor kim's perspectives as she's articulated, although i will add as i mentioned earlier in the meeting in terms of paying for infrastructure and complete neighborhoods, having world class public transportation has to be part of that. again, this is -- my comments are not in any way connected specifically to this project. it's a broader issue that we

just in many different ways, including around development, we persistently underfund transit and a disfunctionality in the city. i'm hoping over time we can correct for the sake of the future of the city. ~ dysfunctionality you know, i am -- i have been hearing about this potential ballot measure and i think i understand what it's about and i think as i indicate [speaker not understood] this morning i think a ballot measure is extreme and is horrific public policy. i also hope that over the next week there will be some discussions. and if there can be a compromise of some sort that folks can live with, that maybe no one is thrilled with, but everyone can live with, that would result in peace in the world, that would be great and i would encourage both sides to talk over the next eight days. i do think it makes sense to

keep it in committee for a week and then i will commit to all side that i will again as a committee report next monday so that it would still be able to come out to be heard at the board on the exact same day, i.e., a week from tomorrow. and i can keep it in committee, allow us to continue to exercise jurisdiction. if there is a resolution, great. if there is not a resolution, i would be prepared to put it out to committee as a committee report next week. and that's my tab on t. president chiu? >> my last comments and i definitely appreciate and agree with many of the comments of both supervisor kim and wiener have made around global thoughts on this. ~ part of my thinking about why i think we should bring it back to committee as we all know, deadlines hopefully force decisions. and i think if we don't leave this until a 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. special order on tuesday, the right conversations i think we were hoping to have happen will not happen.

so, again, it's my hope that people will be scheduling time in the coming days to see if there is anything that we can do to get to yes, i am prepared to be involved and i'm sure any of my colleagues to be involved in those conversations and trying to translate the needs on both sides, i do know a lot of conversations have already happened. i'm also going to say this. i know that there is probably not the closest and warmest and fuzziest feelings between the two sides, but i actually do think that there are very well intentioned individuals on both sides who will be negotiating in good faith and i ask for that to happen. i also don't think next week needs to be an exercise of how many folks can turnout public comment on both sides. it's really about seeing if we can get to progress. because if you can, i would love to be able to support something coming out of this committee going to full board. if not, we'll see how things proceed and we'll have to make our decisions at that point. >> thank you. i will reiterate everyone has an absolute right to come out

and make public comment again or bring other people with them. i think between today and also we had a pretty extensive ceqa hearing, i think we all very, very aware of the strong views on both sides. and, so, everyone is welcome to come out again. i know we all had today's public comment very much in mind. city attorney first of all to confirm, there will be no issues with putting this out as a committee report next monday or the following day? >> that's right. you can put it out as a committee report. >> even if there's tweaks or changes? >> sorry, it depends on what the tweaks or changes are. if the only issue that the two sides are discussing is height and the height comes down [speaker not understood] without other changes out of [speaker not understood], that could come out of committee. i can't comment on what other changes may -- >> okay. >> and that will actually be the same issue, whether we put it out today or as a committee

report. if we put it out today and next tuesday and make amendments before the board, if it were to require the committee, it would require continuance at the full board. ~ >> that's exactly right. >> and a reduction, simple reduction in height. if that happens, i'm not saying it will, would not require continuance? >> that's right. >> okay, thank you. mr. givens, did you want to make another comment about these? >> yeah, sure. early in the discussion before public comment, the committee was discussing different types of impact fees. and supervisor kim mentioned there's a total of $115 million in benefits and contributions coming from the developer here. and i just wanted to clarify for the benefit of the public really that there are some development fees that flow from the board's regulatory approval i believe somewhere in the range of $17 million and there is a separate proprietary

agreement between successor agency and the developer where the parties have negotiated for a number of other benefits and contributions that total approximately 97, $98 million, totaling 115 that the developer is paying out. just wanted to clarify that that separate agreement with the successor agency and the developer is not something that's before the board or requires board approval. >> thank you very much. ~ for that clarification. okay, colleagues, any additional discussion? then do we have a motion to continue this item one week? >> motion to continue to one week with a committee report from monday to tuesday. >> exactly. and we will agendize it as a committee report. is there any objection to the motion? okay, then without objection that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 5? >> item number 5 is an ordinance amending the planning

code to add a definition of "significant increase in residential development potential" consistent with the housing trust fund provisions in charter, section 16.110; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan. ~ trust fund provisions. >> okay, dan adams from the mayor's office of housing is here for item number 5. why don't we wait a couple seconds. if folks could keep the conversation to a minimum so that we can proceed with our agenda. okay, mr. adams, i think we're ready. >> thank you. thank you, supervisors. dan adams with the mayor's office of housing. i'm here to speak on behalf of the piece of legislation before you today that references a significant increase in residential development potential. and this is part of the housing

trust fund package. it's one of the last trailing pieces of legislation. you will remember that among other things that the housing trust fund did, it established a cap or stabilized the fee obligation for affordable housing for the period of the trust fund for the 30, 30-year period. the -- those fees or obligations could be increased by an inflationary [speaker not understood] kinds of requirements are not allowed. however, it did provide exceptions to this cap and there were a number of exceptions, two of which that were significant increases in development potential. the first referenced project specific rezoning through an sud or [speaker not understood] piece of legislation. and under those scenarios there was a definition for what constitutes significant increase in residential development in the charter itself. however, for larger rezonings,

plan area, scale rezonings of 40 acres or more, the parties who were kind of key in negotiating the housing trust fund could not reach agreement on a definition of significant increase. and, so, what the charter did was it created and empowered a housing review committee, comprised of the director's mayor's office of housing, economic and work force development, and the planning department to come together as a committee, hold a public hearing, and determine a definition for significant increase in the residential development for rezonings of 40 acres or greater. so, the legislation you have before you establishes that definition. it is the result of a number of public hearings as well as a series of meetings that we had with key stakeholders including representatives of affordable housing development and market rate housing development and the definition that's before you represents a consensus

position among those parties of what is a fair definition. and i think our city attorney can speak to this more directly. the charter lays out a process by which the housing review committee proposes a definition for review and approval by the full board. it does not permit modification at the board level of a definition. it's an up/down vote should the board not approve this definition, it would go back to the housing review committee to be reviewed and resubmitted. this proposal before you does represent or was approved by the planning commission sometime ago. very quickly, the definition again is for rezoning the 40 acres or greater and this would exempt parcelses and projects that receive this threshold of up zoning from the cap. it would not require that

additional exactions or fees be applied to the project. it would merely exempt them from the cap. and it wrotev -- the personal project would have to meet 20% or greater increase in developable residential gross floor area as measured by change in height when the floor area ratio limits are other use or use over prior zoning. a change in use permitted, permitting residential uses where none were previously permitted. or, and again it's an or, for parcels with an existing residential development capacity of 10 units or greater, it would have to reach the lesser of a 50% increase in residential den its over prior zoning or increase in density of at least 15 additional units. ~ densities so, that is my presentation. again, it does reflect a consensus position amongst key stakeholder groups, and i look forward to your questions or comments. >> thank you, mr. adams. colleagues, any comments or questions?

great, mr. adams, thank you for this. i do remember this [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> it was a very elegant punt to an expert committee. and, so, i think it ended in a good result. >> yes, thank you. >> so, i guess we'll open up for public comment. is there any member of the public would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> and now i believe we need to convert this into a motion, mr. givner, is that correct? >> that's right, because of the funk ~ sunset piece for this ordinance. the board has the authority to reject the ordinance and would do so by motion or the board could approve the ordinance if you prefer to do that. so, it would be an amendment to amend the item into a motion, approving the ordinance. >> okay. so, can we then have a motion

as described by mr. givner to amend item number 5 to convert it into a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> okay. and without objection? the amendment is adopted. [gavel] >> and can we have a motion to forward to the board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> without objection, that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, sly any additional business before the committee? >> there are no further matters. >> then we are adjourned. [gavel] [adjourned]

>> hello, san francisco. holley here with another list of buzz worthy activities. the bay view neighborhood comes alive this thursday at 5:30 third on third, community wide arts celebration for the whole family. sponsored by the san francisco arts commission and the puc and features pop-up galleries, beer and wine, children's zone with free art making activities. this saturday you're invited to bicycle with the san francisco mid-bike mystery ride as they set out to a new mystery location in san francisco. ride start locations will be posted to their website the day of the ride. only the ride leader knows where they're going, so, bring your sense of adventure. this sunday at 2:00 enjoy the san francisco symphony for their annual free concert in dolores park. why not make it a tradition? have a picnic basket, grab friends and family and enjoy

this world class experience. grab it. and that's the weekly buzz. for more information on any of these events, visit sfgov-tv.org and click on weekly buzz. and while you're on the web, check out our youtube page and see some of our original

we are celebrating the glorious grand opening of the chinese rec center. ♪ 1951, 60 years ago, our first kids began to play in the chinese wrecks center -- rec center. >> i was 10 years old at the time. i spent just about my whole life here. >> i came here to learn dancing.

by we came -- >> we had a good time. made a lot of friends here. crisises part of the 2008 clean neighborhood park fund, and this is so important to our families. for many people who live in chinatown, this is their backyard. this is where many people come to congregate, and we are so happy to be able to deliver this project on time and under budget. >> a reason we all agreed to name this memorex center is because it is part of the history of i hear -- to name this rec center, is because it is part of the history of san francisco. >> they took off from logan airport, and the call of duty was to alert american airlines

that her plane was hijacked, and she stayed on the phone prior to the crash into the no. 9 world trade center. >> i would like to claim today the center and the naming of it. [applause] >> kmer i actually challenged me to a little bit of a ping pong -- the mayor actually challenge me to a little bit of a ping- pong, so i accept your challenge. ♪ >> it is an amazing spot. it is a state of the art center. >> is beautiful. quarkrights i would like to come

here and join them ♪ >> thank you for coming to the talent dance performance and talent show. [ applause ] >> today's performance and talent show. ♪

>> public recreation has every bit of the talent and every bit of the heart and soul of anything that any families are paying ten times for. >> you were awesome. >> hi, i'm corn field and welcome to doing building san francisco, we are doing a special series, called stay safe, how you can stay in