tion that anyone who builds must have traffic control and traffic control must include the towing away and ticketing of vehicles that interfere with muni. i give you the intersection of market and van ness. how is the city going to sustain itself while all that construction is going on including construction for the planning department? so i would say unless you affirmatively say we have to look at housing and housing cost and transportation and payment of muni fees, all this is nice window dressing. it doesn't mean a damn thing because if the city grinds to a

halt and everyone that is low income, not making $200,000 a year has to leave the city. and eastern neighborhoods maybe in market, but you didn't plan it in the mission, south of market, in dog patch. that's the reality. so i would say next week you have a lot to do. thank you. >president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: i have a question about these area plans because for example the transbay district plan has it's own extraordinary district fees that are particular to the building going on in there and buildings over a

certain height if they got height bonus. did your plans include this in >> these include the area district plan fees. that area is an unusual case, we have the trd fees for each parcel. in market octavia we have a formal tiered where they have a second type of fee, they have a higher rate of fees for those high towers. >> rincon hill also? >> yes. >> there is a possible difficulty in determining those. is there

a possibility of fees raise generally to help solve this problem? >> this legislation doesn't affect the transbay. >> i think we are getting the two things confused. this is a nexus study, this isn't changing any fees. >> right. >> so citywide. the city issue is the mellow roost. which is not an impact fee. it's a special taxing district. that is not addressed in this per say, correct? >> correct. this legislation doesn't cover that and also there is a scale question. over the next 5 years the amount of revenue that all the plans are generating is not a contribution towards the transbay project in the dtx. i understand what you are trying to work on and there will be presentations about that moving forward. >> i understand the issue

around the entrance bay but the benefits extend well beyond those few covered by the mellow roos and it's where the areas you are considering the general citywide nexus fees throughout the city that will include the areas impacted by this. >> i hear your question. >president cindy wu: commissioner richards? >commissioner dennis richards: richards i find myself agreeing with ms. hester. i think it might be something to do. i may have been the one asking a lot of those questions. i have a question, how did us this tie into the affordable housing fees, when is that nexus up for review or fees? >> that's a great question. the mayor's housing on community development manages the

affordable housing nexus study and as far as i understand they are looking at scoping a focus update to that to answer some of the questions about reaching the mayor's goals and serving a variety of income levels. so as soon as we have more information about that, i will be happy to report back to the commission. >> thank you. >> sure. >president cindy wu: commissioner johnson? >commissioner christine johnson: i will keep my comments to the nexus study here with affordable housing and transportation nexus study are different and will be done in the future by different teams and different groups and they will be here later. i just want to focus on this one for now. a couple of things. the first is there was a statement made in the report which makes sense that fees could be adjusted, i know you have a maximum neighborhood by neighborhood but it makes sense to adjust

them based on the neighborhood they are on in a particular area. the gross square feet calculation maybe different when you have a high rise compared to a 1 story building. what i felt was missing was some indication how you would do that and it seemed to me, i understand, i don't know that it was their place as the consultant to calculate that out but it felt to me it left it a little bit arbitrary and i don't like arbitrary things and i feel like we would have a better indication of maximum supportable nexus fees is going to be for these areas that we are building into if we understood how the density level of the development should impact

the fees that we are charging. if we are saying that on average for a development we need $1 per square feet for bicycle structure should we need more for density or high density or are they together. i felt like i had to come up with some ratio in my head and as a legal basis inform what we should charge and some information for how we impact the infrastructure that's needed, other than just saying, well, there is just more people. i think if you are going to say that you can have higher fees and higher density areas, it should be made clear because that is a bigger population with more people and a per

person type of deal or because there is actually more material, more space, more efficiency that's needed in the use of space. i will stop there. >> i have a few comments that might be getting at what you are asking. there is two reports, there is an infrastructure report and on the nexus study and on the infrastructure report i find very interesting because what it's trying to do is have a level service or a citywide basis in an area with lower density residents you don't need as much transit as the higher density area so when we worked on the capital planning meeting, is to affect all impact fees and if you are in a neighborhood with a high person per acre which is the term we use or person per block then your service levels are different for all different

facilities, streetscapes, parks. we might be coming back to you to talking about how the capital planning committee is interested in using that information to do our overall city capital plan for all infrastructure. how do we think about the upcoming residents and growth. the second piece, i think we do actually get to thinking about if bill is higher density. that bill is generating more demand for transit and contributing at a higher rate. the per square foot is a proxy for number of people or number of jobs, either residents or jobs. if you look at the eastern neighborhood fees you will see there is tiering where there is a lot of value and we allow the buildings to get very dense, people are paying at a higher

rate and the financial fees ability is greater to contribute on those sites. >> okay. i think what i was getting at i got from what you were saying what i'm getting at is i still feel there is a hanging conclusion there. i think the point the consultant came to and yes there is more gross feet and more floor for a particular block of land for higher density versus not a higher building, but i felt as though they were saying that in addition to that there are multi- pliers to having the higher density districts in more ways because there is more people. having more

people together is affecting the more people and having the different fees in certain neighborhood plans and certain projects versus other ones. >> yes. i'm happy to look at the report. the other thing that comes to mind is how do you service more people as they become not 24-hour but have later at night and more multiple functions. let me follow up with you. >> yes. i can follow up. second to last thing. you started my next comment on rec's and open space. i feel like the max you -- maximum supportable open space is that conclusive, is that fee, i'm going to

ask the question, is that fee conclusive when you have projects that provide privately owned publically available space or is that the fee that goes to the city that gets put to parks and recreation publically available space. >> it's for the publically available space, the space that is required as part of the planning code is in addition to what we are talking about here. >> okay. i think first of all i think that distinction should be made in this report. i will just say in this report and you can figure out how you want to do that. that distinction needs to be made. my gut from reading this report that rec's and open space for non-residential development, that fee, i think the fact that it

is common now for us to have privately owned publically available spaces clouds the actual level of service that needs to be provided to the people who use those employees, the non-residents who use those spaces. to back up, there was a comment in both pieces of the study that employees tend to not use open space near their places of work as much as near their homes. they tend to use near to open spaces near their home rather than places where they work. because those people tend to use the publically available spaces near their homes versus where they work, we don't need as high as a fee for that usage for employees therefore we need a lower fee for non-residential development. i think that

analysis is flawed only because i think the fact that privately only publically available spaces are just as highly used if not more than highly used than publically owned and publically available spaces which indicates to me there is an opportunity to provide more publically owned, publically available spaces near non-residential development. first i would make that distinction what that was for and second, i think it would be good to address somehow how privately owned publically available spaces are used because i think that that is a screen for how much open space is really needed near non-residential development.

>president cindy wu: i wanted to ask one question. is there a nexus analysis plan or is that by designated area. >> since 2008, we did do a citywide feasibility update but we focused on the project that we knew in the pipeline. that is an abstract analysis when you think about it. you will have a chance to see some of that analysis in the spring or winter. >president cindy wu: we talked about how this report covers certain categories separate for transit and housing, would the feasibility analysis cover all of those categories. >> you have to think about how much value is left to capture and

it's a policy decision about whether it goes to transit or other consideration. so the analysis is available for all the different policy questions. >> okay, but then the decision on specifically which policy is prioritized kind of happen maybe in different documents still. >> along the the planning commission we do that and there is a tradition in sfrabs -- san francisco to say we are conferring value on the market octavia plan and the market depends on what we are capturing with. in general this market is unusual and there does need to be some conferns to allow the recapture in some ways. >> maybe, what i heard the director say there has been a call to relook at fees because of the economic situation in which we are in. it's not about a

new area plan and a new conveyance of value. >> the question, the issue that comes up is each plan has uses the fees in different ways. some plans have a bigger emphasis on open space and some on transit. we would need to look at those neighborhoods. the feasibility, they could ask for it based on feasibility for all fees and just to remind you, the feasibility fee, maximum if you will is almost always less than the nexus. the nexus establishes the worst case scenario and how that proportion is did i dividend up by neighborhood

plan. just to remind you the proxy limited to how much we can ask for affordable housing and we have to revisit that through a battle measure if -- ballot measure. what this does is gives us some foundation to do that. >president cindy wu: right. thank you. commissioner richards? >> >commissioner dennis richards: these fees make-up the impact of the cost and the other 70 percent is through the taxes generated. can you help us here? >> sure, i will also be back in january to discuss the implementation report which shows our progress implementing the various plans. for example in market octavia we secured a tlc grant to implement a major

improvement to haight street and we are also working with the capital plan committee to develop a 10-year capital plan for market octavia and eastern neighborhoods and other plan areas to understand what that gap is when we start looking at what has mta and what are they planning to do and what is that gap and how can this city fill that gap. i have been working on this since 2008 and we are making serious progress. >> the short search warrant are is -- answer is we are looking at various sources. >> the impact fees are modest. that's what i hear. wow. how much should we be charging. i think that's more money on the table. fyi.

>president cindy wu: commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: one of the things you mentioned we are going to be establishing some of the new parks in some of these emerging areas as we have the funding and the space becomes available. and one thing you are talking about is how to keep thesen livened all the time. one of the things >> as it occurs, you make sure you have the areas around nighttime uses. union square has a lot of

activities but others are almost vacant at night like maritime plaza, it's nothing there after dark and it kind of depends on the type of area you are creating but it's important to have some nighttime uses around them. >president cindy wu: commissioner moore. commissioners, we left off

under your regular calendar on item 11. this is a zoning map amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, diego sanchez, planning department staff. today i'm presenting an ordinance that will amend the zoning map for the use. it's part of the bay shore blvd home improvement part of that zone commercial would rezone to pdr or rh 1 as appropriate.

1600 court land address and would rezone the property to r 1g and recommends the proposal to the board of supervisors. the ordinance intends to correct a minor variance to the ordinance and you heard early ier this year and the zone -- aligns this property. the use set is permitted and promoted in the proposed pdr 1 g district and generally afterwards the light manufacturing currently enjoyed in the ipd sud. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >president cindy wu: thank you. let's

open for public comment. >> sue hester. i'm here to actively support this. when we did the rezoning we created a couple orphans and this is last one. this eliminates all the tables with the zoning on it. thank god. yes, after 8 years of work, yes, yes. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >commissioner dennis richards: i move to approve. >> second. city clerk: on that motion, commissioners, commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >commissioner christine

johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >president cindy wu: this passes 6-0. this places you on item 12 for case no. 2014.0417. for 531 castro street. this is for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president of the commission and planning commission this is for an application for 531 castro street. project sponsor conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 703.3, 703.4 and 303c and i to convert the

existing vacant patio restaurant into hamburger mareey for conditional use. hamburger will build out a restaurant space. has a total gross foot area of 844 square feet. patio restaurant cafe was established in 1960s. it was closed in 2005. after due to the interior renovation and has been closed since. hamburger

mary's it was themed and lgbt people friendly restaurant and that opened on 1582 folsom street in 1972 but closed in 2001. the proposed hamburger mary's would include other entertainment use such as live music. in the live music will be restricted to the inside area of the restaurant and sound equipment and soundproofing must be inspected and permitted by the entertainment commission prior to operation. we feel it is necessary and desirable to include other entertainment use in the proposed hamburger mary's because it will enhance the further use of the restaurant and will not affect

displacement of other neighborhood service use. furthermore, allowing other entertainment use will compliment a mix of goods and services currently available in the castro street neighborhood commercial district and contribute to the economic vitality of this district and providing additional entertainment option for local residents and visitors of the neighborhood. another issue i would like to mention is the sound technician from san francisco entertainment commission has conducted a sound inspection at the project site and did not detect any sound escaping the premises which would violate the san francisco municipal police code. a further sound test would have to be performed and once hamburger mary's is

in operation and live entertainment takes place. additionally, the owner and operator of the building business is the same person and owner operator also lives right in the neighborhood. so it is a local entrepreneur for this project. the represented owner has conducted a thorough neighborhood outreach and addressed all the concerns from the neighborhood residents and the neighborhood groups and therefore the project gained support from castro merchants and the neighborhood valley

association and the market benefit district. those letters of support i believe are included in the packet. and to conclude this project, because this site is on the east side of castro streed between 18th and 19th street and it is a prime location and it been closed since 2005. so it is really a distraction to both residents and visitors in the neighborhood. we believe the project will convert a vacant restaurant into an active restaurant and eliminate neighborhood blight which will contribute to the economic vitality and the compliment of current mix of goods and services in