families need and not try to cram too much on the parts of the land. and i was happy to see the big increase in affordable in this particular year as you mentioned unfortunately almost all of it is low and very low but there's very the being built for the middle only 10 percent for the affordable housing within the 19 percentage actually and people that make a little bit more their housing is not counted as affordable housing. so we have things to do but overall that's a positive report we'll talk about this next week

the mayors goal and try to approve projects when we can >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i'd like to on table 19 on page 22. maybe it's definesal b you - al take 2013 we have a total of seven hundred and 12 units and a total of all new units at the 2439 my question is how does 2499 compare to table 21 on page 6 if you take 2013 i don't see

where 2239 orients >> this is for all units that were produced looking at the positive. >> on table 2 units completed from new construction it's not a correct number. >> that must have been a mistake so. >> it kicks up, up higher. one last question from 2009 to 2013 commissioner president wu pointed out the affordable it 22 percent is that expected to continue given the mayors initiative given the

inclusionary the inclusionary percentage has dropped because of the veto so do we have any idea this can be sustained? >> it's a hard question the mayors goal is to sustain thirty percent a number of projects in the pipeline the question is it's hard to know but the housing truth fund sets aside funds so some financing. >> i guess in terms of collection of fees a lot of the fees should be coming in this year. >> that's right. >> commissioner hillis. >> a comment i know we're to have future comments on this but i think, you know, mr. cowen said inaccurately the market drives this market rate housing but funding you sources for you

know that the city gets controls a lot of the affordable housing so it would be good to get an understanding what did funding horizon looks like for affordable housing is it going down for the redevelopment is it underway are we expected to build thirty units can what he do it and what kind of financing is out there. >> commissioner antonini. >> in terms of the whole question of future affordable even under construction there's a couple of big projects on valley part of transbay it has a higher percentage of affordable i--i don't know. >> 35 percent. >> so you, you look at the approvals being done for

transbay they're going to be quite a few of the buildings that will be housing eye and 33 percent affordable by itself there are oakland army base other areas of the city that staff can comment on that have those similar kind of qualifications for the percentages built. >> okay. thank you for your report. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places you on general public comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may

the commission up to three minutes. . i have no speaker cards >> dr. espanola jackson i'm so happy to present to you this afternoon that the fact in 1992, the vice president of the united states came to hunters point his name have to have been dan quail it was at that time, it was the beginning of management controls be trained as managers and all parts and in order to are the tenants to operate the affordable housing by the way, what's happened in 1998 people were trained monies was diverted there's plenty of money i've stated this at the board of supervisors on tuesday there's plenty of money that has begun to city hall under the name as the mayor's office of housing, the hope program that began in

bayview hunters point those funds was to get people off drugs and put them in draining e training and become employees. the monies being funneled all over the place at the end of the year may or june we're going to hear a story oh, we found $20 million you ain't found nothing those funds have been coming here because the community has not been benefited talltall:. under the city planning land use, the so-called infrastructure of the redevelopment agency all of those programs that's been set up have not been adolescence for the city and county of san francisco you all need to ask questions you as city planners where's those monies don't believe what olsen lee actual i

made a statement to one of the city planners they said if you can't talk aboto me i said represent the sins the san francisco. i wrote a note about him this rad that's lawsuits been filed i think that's what he was reading about in the newspapers that's a joblgz it don't mean nothing. it's for big developers he know some of you support of the developers coming in here and taking over the properties and sending you tell us out the san francisco willie brown said if you don't make $100,000 a year you don't need to be here. i bought my house for $26,000

thank you >> hi i'm the marshall parent again, i'm trying to understand the process by which the parents can give input into whether or not this developer is allowed to develop 3 hundred and 50 i hate to use the term market rate i think luxury apartments is more accurate the mission is is culturally unique nature of the san francisco it's what makes san francisco the city st. it is and about 50 percent latino. there's tons of development good morning all right. 3 hundred and 50 units next to the school 3 hundred and 50 parking spaces on to cap street that's congested

and 10 stores is going to put the playground in shadow pretty much all day in the heart of the mission 3 hundred and 50 units unaffordable to the people right now driving from hate valley takes time there are construction sites one hundred to 4 hundred units and some have come on line one bedroom is 32 hundreds and the parent at marshall school want to talk about not how we can get the developers to build us an extra playground but how to talk to the city about doing somebody else with the valuable piece of

real estate next to an lermentd that will benefit that community. >> thank you. the gentleman has offered to be a point of contract. >> i'll give it to you as soon as - >> this period is over. >> okay other general public comment seeing none, public comment is closed general public comment is closed. and commissioners that places you under our regular calendar the b m t and z initiative general plan amendments as part of the visitacion valley project. consideration of the resolution

to initiate amendments to the general plan and schedule a public hearing >> i have good afternoon, commissioners planning department staff i have copies of the presentation for you. so as mentioned we're here to give you an overview of the project. i'm here joined by ken and emily from the office of economic workforce development to give you an overview of the components of the project even though today's hearing it to initiate the plan on june 5th we'll is ask you to take action on the components the mayor and board introduced the related

planning, zoning map amendments as well as other related document incorporated into the ordinances like the updated skyli sign. we also have here today, i want to acknowledge we've been working with agencies from the mayor's office of housing from the mta and from rec and park department. and the project sponsor jonathan is here if you have questions later. heres an overview i'm going to go over background and context and give us the highlights to the 2009 plan and the related implementation project and emily and ken will talk about the

agreements. this map hopefully, you'll see in your presentation shows the project location we're talking about the southeast corner of the city in the large map the corner that is already adapted the special use district and to the east of the project you can see the major projects the executive park and the golden gate park and the san mateo couldn't the draft ira was related last year showing developmental the susan daily hope sf is undergo the development of the planning other prongs not on the map given the desire for the community to see straits and

infrastructure improvements which includes the green that's moving on about so the implementation phase and the visitacion valley and there's a project called green notes making improvements. this is a map of the transit to give you a sense of transit context. it shows the existing network as well as the proposed transit improvements there's a lot of priority projects for transportation that are going on here which include the geneva extension and caltrain there's a project to look at where south of the project in san mateo couldn't should be moved north or south senior somewhere else the mta is looking for the

transportation with the priority rapid transit like that and the t third, i think this is the caltrain study but there's a proposal to move the terminal closer to the caltrain extraction and our colleague is going to talk about some of the transit fees and obligations will be as a project just to zoom in on the site it this whole process started with the closures of the factory in 18994 and a home depot property so this process from 2002 to 2008 there was a strategic plan that was produced and from 2002 to 2008 the redevelopment re-established this and forged or forked or formed the advisory

committee and that was brought up and result in the adaptation of the 2009 redevelopment plan and the sign but i'm sure you're aware of in 2011, the redevelopment funding went away that's why we're here between the 2012 and 2014 adapted plan >> this is just shows you the goals in the 2002 concept plan. this guided and led to the goals and objectives in the redevelopment plan, which were established in conjunction with the cac and the must be of the public at large. the major components of that effort and of that plan was that the community wanted to see parks and open space and see the continuance the street grid from

the visitacion valley on to the development and really the real needs for a negotiates as well as extending the retail leeland avenue as well as other commitments to infrastructure and public benefits. those commitments were to memorialize the redevelopment plan as well as the design for demonstrate by all the commitments have costs so this is necessary we revise them to move forward. the planning department has been taking the led on the community process and the physical open space restrictions and o e e w d has been the led on negotiating the feasibility and exploring the tools to leverage to pay for

the fees they'll give you an overview. so what are the key changes we've finalized first, i'd like to is the restriction to the fund stay untrue true to the goals they're not wholesale we're not starting from scratch dollars been several tweaks we're highlighting the most significant changes. also i'd like to say that the changes were crafted for balancing the quay e criteria the community priorities or the sign and planning and feasibility what has been the community engagement we've had four community meetings that have been well attend and we have orange county other things open to the public and we want

to thank the search-and-seizure it was comprised of former cac members that are active participants we we called on them at&t park after the cac was dissolved to service serve in a advisory role and i believe we have a few members here day today fran and doug so i think this is a community led plan it wouldn't be where it is today without their commitment. there the first community meeting we told them those are the benefits community benefits in the plans what are the top priorities those are the top 5 priorities a negotiates insuring the same amount of parking spaces and making the improvement and on leading land

avenue improvements and affordable housing. i'd like to mention the old office building didn't make it to the top 5 it is still on the list and a priority to the community so when emily talks about that she'll talk about that rising the historic property >> this is a list of the key changes i'm going to go through i'm not going to read the list i want to emphasize the other guidelines that are still important are still in here those are key changes. the first change we looked at was to improve the feasibility of the project was to increase density to increase the units to get the project moving forward so the way to achieve that was

through improved heights on the map that on the left were 55 story heights and 85 foot highs in the southeast corner of the site i should have flipped the map on the right the heights were primarily 65 heights the grocery store is a little bit taller 76 to accommodate a good ground floor retail space and towards the southeast portion of the sites the heights were increased to 86 foot stories and the community expressed the desire to have the heights towards the back of the heights because on the other side of bay

shore they wanted the increase gradual. another key changing the parks there were a couple of alternatives in the original but in order to jump start this in order to attract a good retail tenant having sufficient parking for the grocery store we worked with the community to look at where should the grocery store stay there was a part in the south site they wanted it in the middle of the site. this is what we ended up with we use two blocks to accommodate parking and swapped the parks to make that happen. this also related in the revisiting with the community that park configuration whether

the configuration and shape still worked so we heard a slight preference for leeland to be a 2-way street that might be safer so we went ahead with reconfiguring that park. the retail square footage was reduced again. we looked at the feasibility of attracting that the plan was a little bit over baby boomer and when we started the restrictions this was realistic that's been reduced to maximum of retail that's primary on the red i wish i had a pointer. primarily concentrated here and initially that was all along

bayshore as well as leeland. i'm not a lefty. one key change was sauls of the height increases we wanted to make sure that the pedestrian experience and we still had active streets the original plan was to require mostly excuse me. ground floor retail requirements and so on the left map those are the solid red lines the change is still to require the ground floor retail by have individual residents that's what it showing up as orange that was no a requirement given the increased in heights.

something else we heard in the community is e.c. calibration around the grocery store we wanted to make sure the discredits were well-designed so we have new guidelines and strong language for certain pathways to be open and well landscaped and some of them visiblely open even if not physically open. another important change to the design controls and standards sorry. was again given the increased no height we added this new tool to create a lower building scale and reduce shadows and pathway in streets we have a new requirement for setbacks in upper floors some of them are

one and two stories it adds other interests but there recent varying rooflines we didn't change. also the original plan uses to have a requirement to break walls larger than or larger it was a requirement that would require four separate buildings open a block with straight stairs and elevators so we changed it to put some guidance to have increments changes in the color and materials to break the scale of the building and notches. so that is kind of the highlights of the changes to the gm's and controls. in terms of change that are in the special use district we changed there were 3 key changes that are significant to point

out first, the zone is its f one and two it's a zone to be xvent with the site primarily housing and mixed use we're changing the zoning to mixed use and a formula for retail both look at the feasibility as well as the community desires they wanted to make sure that the good formula was attractive and help leeland as well as the new development so they didn't want to have anything that would discourage a tenant from lomg in the city so instead of having a conditional use requirements that would discourage the potential tenants they want to know what's

happening so a thirty day notice but the approving or disapproving would be for the decoration of planning. the parks was increased primarily to allow a grocery store use to attract a grocery store tenant we changed that the new chaldean-american all the time cement for the vertical building permit applications there is in the special use district basically administrative application the purpose of having this da and approvals ahead of time we heard loud and clear in the community they have been involved ♪

for 15 years want to continue to be involved and we made sure that the face applications have a neighborhood notification consistent and the preapplication post application meetings but specifically for the parks they'll be most concerned about the park design. and we've also put out a requirement to see where the community wants to have the developers come to give progress reports. those are only moderate minor modifications that are allowed. the general plan is minimal th