front door and warned around and talk to people as i please. we had an office on the ground floor. our door was open nobody ever came in except to find out about the historic status of the building but we wouldn't allow people to wander around. so how can we make the argument this a public use. for those reasons i can't support the additional use >> thank you councilmember ford. >> staff can you address some of the concerns of commissioner sugaya. >> the character of the district the retail uses are not what you normally see for general retail that is open to the public. many of the retailers in jackson

square work with designers and a lot of the designers are by appointment only or where the general public purchases tements items for but more info architects. so many of the office uses are capable in terms of being interior design and architecture. it's - that's the basis of why we felt this type of office was capable with the retailers in the district. we've previously approved one office in the district that is also an architecture and design firm with similar conditions so that's the precedent we used for this approval. let's see if you're concerned about the density of visitor and active use the code talks about

the open to the public and being transparent and visible so the produce are sponsor has development their retail look at the front. any more particular questions i can answer and a commissioner moore >> i'm surprised we're describing this as a retail place when you look at wonderful things and windows it's the basic nature of the district. i'm concerned that delaying fundamental stuff in architecture use is not the e 1ru7b89 if they have delays in their window. the one thing i shunld over the report said their is no division of the occupancy of the store

has 1 or 2 people we're seeing 10 workstations here in a fundamentally efficient architecture office but that's not equivalent of the way the report was handled. i have a problem that putting this on consent doesn't allow the commission to discuss the project in the spirit of what i think any special use district sees you should do. a consent is a consent it's not abo agreeing or not arresting but perhaps the director or

secretary can talk about that and if the city attorney could weigh in or perhaps a followup to my question >> commissioners in terms of what we place on consent there's a discussion with the president about items that have not generated any feedback usually and it's a straightforward item to make a well, not also but when we use that as the basis of consent but there's the ability for anyone to comment and pull it off. >> okay. can i ask a followup question on the public inquire and where this project falls in. >> it was a changed use from retail management to

professional services. the retail foe is hire or higher than the other fee so it wasn't applied to this project >> okay. thank you. commissioner hillis >> i mean, i agree with commissioner sugaya's concerns but i think the staff gave a good response. it may point to i don't know how would this is but jackson square isn't your typical kind of retail corridor so, i mean again commissioner sugaya's concerns i'm going to agree with the staffs presentation why this is okay. and i'm going to move to approve >> second.

>> i'm not sure just a nuance to consider but if we don't have 4 votes to disapprove. >> unless there's a continuance for the other commissioners to weigh in. >> but if it fails you can't make a continuance. >> there's a motion and second commissioner borden arrest commissioner moore. commissioner wu excuse me. that motion fails 3 to 2. commissioner borden >> i'm going to ask for a continuance. >> february 6th would be the next quorum. thank you commissioner borden there's a motion for

february 6th did he hear a second >> second. >> on that motion to continue to february 6th. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. and commission chair wu so it passes with commissioner moore voting against. and that will place you on item 12 for the informational

presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners claudia flores i think you're getting copies of the presentation. i'm with the staff of the other city departments from the mta and the workers development to give you an overview on a new program. this includes participation from as i mention from the puc and the recreation of the parks department and the mayor's office of housing and the san francisco public health department. before we launch into this i'm going to turn it over to to ken rich who is here to address you >> good afternoon ken rich from

o e w d. i'm here to introduce you to our new public sites initiative for under all the other evidence pieces of land with a particular unifies for affordable and middle income housing as you know mayor ed lee focused 0 on our cities housing crisis. overall we're to have thirty thousand new units by 20/20 and more than half would be in the reach of middle income you households. i'll be happy commissioner sugaya to answer our questions. we have a 7 point plan and one of the points creates important

middle income housing to help this happen so we're starting that today. in a moment planning staff will go through the principles. we're not listing at this point the specific sites because the right thing to do is reach out to the stakeholders and neighborhoods. each site we want to assure you will have vigorous responses. i want to reiterate our commitment of the mayor and to the staff in creating nor affordable housing in the neighborhood and the land must be part of the solution and i'll give it back to claudia >> thank you, ken i want to also acknowledge olsen lee who

has walked in to join us. one of the program goals that ken described we want to have this for the growing needs for jobs and services. we don't have to prove or explain that the city is growing and we need more affordable housing as well as transportation and open space and others. we want to also those sites are shafrtd throughout the city so we have those sites be a good model. it's important we support the agencies operation. the real estate assets and holding of those are they're to support the mission of the agencies to provide the services their directed to provide so was

we look at the opportunities we want to make sure that's the case. as we look at other public benefits we want to make sure their original intent is being served. we want to model the strategies of high benefits for privy sector development. and lastly we want to make sure we're coordinated as a city. one of the components of the program as ken mentioned we're drafting a framework for the discussions. i will talk about that but we looked at what is the existing city policy say about public land so we created a draft framework and we wanted to give you a sense of what we're talking about when wear saying principles in a framework. we want to got up a

comprehensive benefit that can be provided collectively so what does that mean in terms of the those programs. we have a set of strategies and tools so once we have the memo of the tools we'll apply all this on specific sites and do some site planning and develop some rfps and start the development of the specific sites. what might be the benefit of the coordination. currently some of the sites are located where the development is difficult. also, if you go on a site by site approach sometimes the community focuses on no pain revenue resources like open

space. so we have open documents and policy to see where the highest need is for open space and can we spread those no revenue across the sites and combine them that support other services. related to that we look at them in isolation so not only at the collection of the whole sites what could those sites be used for. the potential that the public will have better information both the public and decision makers can look at this and not have the discussions individually and we want greater benefits of services. we talked about noolt in terms of strategies. what might be some areas for

piloting new approaches for housing and sustainability under housing we can pilot a version of the prop c where you can have the inclusionary housing. around transportation in addition to various transportation infrastructure can we live for example the management programs. currently only development agreement like treasure island or the shipyard can we have transportation and management programs or other strategies. and lastly sustainability. as another aero where we can be innovative. the department has done a lot of work around the eco industries. we'll give you an up to date

about the work can we pilot and create new eco districts for the program that is. the initial focuses is on enterprise agency sites they include the airport and puc and the mta the recreation and parks and some of the museums. but we're only starting with mta and puc sites. why are we focusing on those. they have significant land holding and have to report their property to the city ordinance but there's a little bit of easy around the process there's a separate process going on to look at the john updyke how to approve the city process.

so that's separate but we're indefinitely coordinating on what he's doing and lastly even though those sites are owned by enterprise agencies they should benefit the public. as ken mentioned we don't have a list today of specific sites we can say we're looking at some mta sites such as a folsom doing something there and for example, the puc there the balboa park plan that's been discussion. we feel first, we need to do the site specific analysis are reeven able to develop those sites before we can talk about the work so most importantly we

need to have the community discussion and say 1972 e this is a potential development site and most importantly i should mention we want to test the program so we want to make sure we track this cooperation and make sure we have a better process. so we thought it was important not to say we're going to do all of this but start small and track it. we mentioned we're going to have a framework and guiding principles. the interagencies of the agencies i mentioned we looked at the city policy and the general plan and our transit first policy and the city

ordinance we looked at the health care master plans you recently approved and what's the existing policy say about publicly owned land it gives direction about what those resources should be used for we filled the themes and came up with some draft guiding principles. i believe those are the second attachment i'm sorry the first one. there's the highlights here the first one is around open missing those resources. why are we using them for their best potential. the second one is around public benefits and not just your what's normally required but can we go above and beyond

>> one of the public services to support and enhance the provision of those services whether 31 they will be transit or the puc operations and so on. i've already talked about innovative approaches to deliver public services and last but not least while those are city properties they're related to in specific neighborhoods so we want to make sure we engage the community and this inspection is taking into consideration. this is the last attachment in

your staff report what's the potential we've talked about. we've alluded to it affordable housing, public transit and infrastructure. we need public transit and services to accommodate all the growth and childcare and fireball spaces and a aortas and p dr and benefits around the sustainability and rebuilding. what is the role of a planning department in this interagency effort? specifically planning department staff has been with the development and the schedule. we'll go to the site conversations we'll with work the mayor's office of housing to help lead the affordable housing analysis and we will lead the specific design and the public engagement piece.

we're here to provide direction on the program and once we've done some specific work we'll come back for the development entitlement and the packages for individual sites. the rest of this month and february based on your direction and the direction of the mta board we'll go to them, too, and they'll be the first ones out of the gate boutiquely around the stakeholders and open space we know what the needs are but what are some of the strategies. in march we want to initiative the first site meeting we know know exactly which sites but we'll know them later.

and following we hope to come back to you in april with the proposals for some of the initial sites. that concludes my presentation and if you have questions the city staff is here >> thank you. i have one speaker card. dr. jackson >> good afternoon happy new year to you. i'm appalled with this presentation that's been made. you know, they know where those areas are. i've gone to three or four meetings with lee from the mayor's office of housing. cutting and pasting a program that we started back in the early 90s. and it's called envision of

housing authority. there's no envision i would like you to look at one or two of you to look at the housing in bayview. it's a mess it's not built for family housing and when you talk about mta when the bond measure was passed back in i believe in the 80s for better transportation and bayview hunter's point what did we get? nothing. talk about mta the tea train don't run. it's a failure. i had to purchase a car in other words, to get to my doctors appointment and when you talk about a m i in that community

they've been talking about affordable housing since redevelopment started and since lee worked for the housing authority the income level we can't even move into those buildings what happened is they kicked us out. i have been watching this quite a while and the number of black people that have been displaced and kicked out there's in the tenderloin homeless they've become homeless. there needs to be a long session and meetings on this particular item here. and i hope that you don't say yes today don't be a rubber stamp for this corporation and in 18962 when the housing was built in alice griffith the project there was no eir done

that is the most toxic area my people can't get there they don't want you to know how many people are dying in my community. i'm 80 years old and thank god i'm in my right mind and i haven't forgotten anything that the city has done i've been coming to the meeting over 50 years. thank you very much and you have a blessed day (clapping.) please praven from it out burst. thank you >> i'm patricia. i'm seeing doctor jackson the same thing that happened in the fillmore happened at bayview

hunter's point. what they call affordable housing and low income housing the plan is a joke still run by the agency. and i think you should really look at what is happening. the affordable housing program is 50 to 80 thousand but what i saw was a bunch of realtors daughters and sons and a relative of the mayor, i think that took the housing and sold it 3 years later for a profit. the screening was done wrong and it's happening again. it's a repeat of what dr. janlts is saying and i'm very sad about it. and now i see a couple of smirks of b there but i'm telling you

the truth. and bayview hunter's point will be all white in seven years with their plan. a new a program needs to be planned on how to mitigate for the low income housing people and have a better program to actually give it to the people that need it. there being a kicked out and nobody is doing anything about it. you're going to have 3 cases coming up concerning this exact issue. i hope you start thinking and really working with us and each one come and talk to us. i've not seen any outreach just sit up and look at this. what's happening to this city is very, very, very sad because the public is being shoved out of

the process of the planning. i know something is happening in citywide but no one will tell me. and you guys are going to end up what mud occupy your face. thank you >> further any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john from the take could group. it's great to see this topic. this is at least the third survey for potential affordable housing development i've been through since the 1980s. the first one identified balboa reservoir and that was almost thirty years. what happens is almost nothing happens. and the reason is of the sites that have been identified over

the years of the translate migrant by the cities for whom affordable housing is simply not part of their mission they've identified other reasons not to let go of the site. that's what you're up against and i hope this time you can break through the barrier but we've failed. if it would for the freeway sites market and acting staff we wouldn't have be able to provide the affordable housing. what is here it was good to hear mentioned specifically of the subway site that's the best site for senior housing for transit housing anymore and if it's available in 2019 it will be able to go and the