our concludes you've talked about the role of costs difficulties around the location of small businesses and profit in san francisco right away right now, i'm encouraged by itself work we're doing only legacy businesses some of the possibility of allowing the right for a lot of business owners to buy their retail spaces or that line of thinking has been strong i hope we can continue to look in that direction i'm interested in what commissioner johnson had to say whether or not the multiplier works i see the diversity in income maybe the longer than businesses stay here the longer than people in the businesses their wages increase and start

to earn more of a middle-income wage we want to bebe careful because just because we have all those jobs the wage increases come with it so what are the multipleer. >> commissioner richards. >> actually, i had to scratch my head when talking about proposition i sorry i'm offering coming a cold this is just gotten lost and showing you somehow we can publish we'll do a great service to the city this is refreshingly truth you're calling a spade and spade those are inheckling the growth with the 7 actuaries we have the 7

the two big ones are the real estate and the omaha with the balance of affordable housing to the jobs i think you know it looks like jobs are shrinking and so i heard a dump bell critic called the downtown hole in the middle i don't time to have the city become a tale of two cities it is extremely rich or not rich we have a disconnect between housing we approved a housing elements being recommended called for 51 percent of affordability and all new destruction yes week and week we fool ourselves are the affordable rated every time we approve a housing let's not fool ourselves whatever we come up

with the go mayor's office of housing he helps to move the needle towards the economy in all sectors and become balanced i think the jobs maturityer is an interesting one it came from a large tech company we have that struggler we struggle with the services we wanted to have here in the city the services with the $35 an hour plans on staying here we were constantly going out domestically like 2r0i9 aiken ken where the wages are lower they have a great workforce but one thing that go out with the jobs in the wage was turn offer we have the jobs but people are struggling to existing here and a high turnover forget it we have to

have this activity somewhere else and to commissioner antonini's comment on prop m to my knowledge the first time we're hitting the cap is coming up we've noting been preventing office space from being built we don't have the cap once we figured out the criteria we'll have a balanced view of things very good work i appreciate thank you. >> commissioner hillis i second my fellow commissioners we hear a lot of that anecdotally every week but the information behind it in a factual way a question for the gentleman he was getting to the concludes that are here and i agree with commissioner richards there's a couple we're not quite meeting the infrastructure cabinet but many

cost money especially in affordable housing and the cost is staurlg high increasing job training and transit infrastructure are huge amounts but it didn't seem like the economic and little city is growing director ram noticed not a lot of people satisfied with high taxed so how do you fund those were does the funding come from is there an opportunity to increase revenue sources and taxes in the city to help pay for the city's needs we identify and you identified them i think human resources there's a lot in that question i think what i take it in a

couple of different pieces going back to the sort of 2007 report number 3 of the priorities of why we do economic development strategies to make sure that the city has a stronger footing this is not my area of expertise but the city is near the high district is in order for us to be able to fund our priorities the city needs to have a strong economy to fund those things and get to many of the commissioners points of inequality having the resources gives us the ability to tangible those challenges as we face the challenges is there too much economic growth issues having that economic growth gives us the income to tjpa

those the cities that don't have the resources to tackle the resources so i think your question about you know other opportunities to bring more money into the fold to tackle transportation i think about one of the housing recommendations and certainly today look at a fund to support affordable housing development in the city i think we're we've seen the type of fwifg that unhappiness within the tech community and other philanthropic community to tangle the fundamental challenges that i see effectively the city's economy i leave the question for more

taxation to policy holders in some cases to prove that but a fair amount of resources going going into tangible those and the resources that our department has to table those resources makes a difference. >> what we see that market rate housing which say we focus on that like show you that will solve or effect the problem whereas we can generate revenue from market rate housing not a ton to help affordable housing but often miss the broader picture if we are going to fund affordable housing or transit at the level we need to fund it to make an impact it has to go beyond the impact fees to a

broader you know bond or parcel tax kind of taxes in order to do it i don't think focusing on market rate housing is ever going to be enough to solve some of the protons we have that's what we tend to focus on it is good to get a bigger picture you know in the issues of the potential funding. >> okay. >> commissioner wu. >> i just wanted to add on some things i think the planning department staff to a lot so that this report when we were looking want housing elements a couple weeks ago there were a lot of questions on jobs and housing i think that generally i guess i have the suggestion we try to incorporate this data or work closely with oewd with the housing work i know we've got

the industry report this report really starts to answer a lot of questions we start to have and the second thing on this question of the local surveying businesses say there any kind of planning code co-relation we have so many types of businesses are there certain ones that fall skwairl within the city and make that easier for those types of businesses to succeed. >> commissioner johnson commissioner johnson commissioner hillis i agree with a lot of the questions and issues about financing this goes beyond oewd co-show write use

the financing in the district in sort of a way to get at the tax parcel idea we're talking about going to get it through all the impact fees i'll keep saying this so just wanted to say that real quick and, sir real quick you're the only one that had a. so - >> yeah. i can answer questions. >> you miss public comments i don't know if there was anything to address add to the conversation. >> i mentioned public comment i appreciate i was interested in the transmitted capacity that's certainly very much on our minds at bart seeing the growth in downtown we need the infrastructure to support that

we're nearly at the point unfortunately we are going to have to start commenting on the irs on the downtown business project we can't bring people through the embarcadero station or montgomery station unless we make investments the infrastructure discussion is a good one and we talked about how to talk about more together the city has been reluctant to invest in bart capacity we have the impact development fees on the development we've had that not a penny to bart for the capacity we used all the capacity when used when we bought the bart system we have to now pay for it and fourth a woo i understand there is runthd

user reluctant continues if we did a bridge toll and really investing that p there was a lot of tunnel and other things but core system bart transit and getting people across the corridors we can work well together so i know the t d i f will come back to you and look at it whether what capacity needs do we need to have in the plans to make sure growth is paying for growth and we're building the infrastructure to sustain the additional trips that's a conversation we should have sooner or later and the number of projects that we up to date this is a great conversation and thinking about it you know not only multi agency but multi jurisdictions

what should we be doing and the other thing san francisco does have a seated regional body sending a clear message to the city about what the city needs to be the economic engine for the region from the region would be helpful it didn't speak in one voice and with circulate in a strategy way this conversation today could be the beginning so how is the city representing itself in those regional overlook foufrmd it is a great conversation and look forward to working with the folks here. >> commissioner richards. >> one question for mr. egging gone i was at the commission and those ideas came up how to fund affordable housing and transportation pawar laying on

commissioner hillis commissioner hillis comments one of the things i'm not you've thoughtful about this potentially asking the state for some sort of prop 13 like has that been considered. >> it's not something identify been aware of commissioner. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. thank you, sir and others i know those suggestions are all great ones bond issues in the past a lot of bond issues for affordable housing and even infrastructure have failed i think the compliment is right for a large bond issue or bond issues particularly about housing to provide money for housing as stated market rate housing is only going to provide a percentage towards affordable

and does many good things for a growing housing for twitter and other companies that can afford this and if we remember not building new housing they're here and staying here but as far as dressing e addressing the larger picture for the bridge toll which was braupthd that makes sense instead of building those lines of bart out a someplace where we'll have a small population and they have their own bart station we should be working on enter city bart expectations and a bag are places we had to advocate everybody is happy to have jobs here and happy to help us meet our needs by giving us

this fund and not one that votes for hire taxes i'll be under oath of bond issues to address our needs we courage all our friends to vote in favor of this. >> director ram that's correct i want to thank you, everyone for coming i know while the planning department is seen as having kind of a small piece of this puzzle we can't just focus on the individual buildings and have lived development projects we have 0 broadened our prospective in how we do our work vice versa and how our work effects the city a lot of comments number one the city in my experience is working more regionally and the mayor has established relationship with the mayor of oakland we've been

working with the counter partners and there's a much greater sense than in the region and all the issues obviously infrastructure and transportation is the key whops but affordable housing and so on are much more regional issues and if i could ghetto on my soapbox about the federal government the federal government contribution to local infrastructure projects has gone from 80 percent funding to thirty or 40 the challenges are huge because they're not supporting the city and counties cities and the regions that excludes the affordable housing so we're all for i hear this we're all forced to go it alone in terms of the two pieces of our needs it's apple numerous

challenge when you talk about the dollars i will urge us all to think about the kind of regional consequences of the federal government getting out of the business of sporting the local infrastructure it maybe thinking more critically how to address that. >> okay. thank you very much xhifrgdz we're going to take one more item and take a break very good commissioners that puts us on item 10 market street this is a draft environmental impact report please note that written contempt comments will be accepted until march 22015. >> good afternoon. i'm with the planning staff and the eir coordinator for the market street project joining me is

chris and members of the project sponsors team are here this is a review and comment on market street draft eir case no. 20120087 e with the identical and ground floor uses in the make the and octavia plan area this demolishes 3 buildings to build a hundred and 20 foot pukd u.s. bancorp mixed use building with one hundred and 89 units 28 parking spaces and one hundred and 10 bike parking spaces in a blow grade parking garage the notice of feasibility for the exemption were issued on october 22, 2014, planning department determined that an eir must be prepared for

the proposed project identified potential significant environmental effects related to the structural impacts that were not previously identified other as documented in the community exception that was attached to the notice of preparation the draft eir found a relative in the significant affordable impacts an individual historic resources the draft eir tubed 3 the no project easiest and the no preservation and the market preservation easiest aetsz the oak preservation alternate the no and the full preservation alternative would avoid the project historic resources impact the two reduced impacts

on historic resources compared is to the proposed project but not to a lens significant level the draft eir was blushed in 2015 and the public review closed on march 16 on - the hpc helped held a public hearing fog the draft environmental impact report after that the hpc arrived at the following questions and comments the first thing the hpc is concerned about the loss of two historic resources on the project site historic preservation commission is most censured with the loss of the hope street building that appears to be architecturally expensive of the two historical pieces and the seconds the health commission recommend the

f eir include an alternative that exclude a larger scale vertical edition on top of the building of similar projects the go hpc believes this will provide for the development of a higher number of housing unit than in the draft eir staff is not here to respond to the comments comments will think transcribed and respond to comments and we'll make transmissions the draft eir as permitted this should be directed is to the draft eir for members of the public who are here today please state your

name for the record for those who are reader or interested in a letter submit our comments to the office by march second when the comments are complete copies will be given to the participants we'll return to the commission to with request certifications of the draft eir if certified the commission may offer a approval to the project that concludes my presentation. and i recommend the commission on public hearing on this item. >> any public comment on this item? >> commissioner moore. >> seeing no public comment commissioner moore. >> the eir is interesting in the way it's set up it's clear there are just a number of airs where i believe there are

missing pieces parking space information pieces this should be a summary of the 345rg9 octavia finding that are particular with those sites the market octavia plan for those sites are valuable and we commented on that had lots of discussions in most cases indications of a larger taller buildings and they went much furthermore that this is an important question because what we have is cumulative effects and no discussion all about buildings that are close by the joining parts of other tell you buildings is not being discussed at all in context as a physical simulation of ideas that should have come out of octavia it is something u miss in how we

looked at the historic preservation commission alternatives would you e how we need to look at the massing of the buildings and the under side as well as the change of settings a large part of what will become the vertical side there's a transformation that is not properly addressed when we look at this eir on one building this is not the building to recall a few minutes we talked about the project with the focus on building housing that is noting necessarily in the category of affordable housing that is not part of it what this eir has to get only the second point of what i'm missing there recent no, it usage violations i believe the two lots in north-south

direction will will visually an effect i'll be concerned about together with no adjoining buildings with the eir that visible simulations looking at the east and looking at west with the historic district and the u cu city hall has a mark on the skyline effecting market and van ness and the adjoining building will effect how we look or not look to city hall so the massing what surprised me

unfortunately, the intersection of market and van ness is probably from my experience one of the worse intersections along two very powerful streets one market and one van ness what we have from a traffic point one of the most inefficient and almost non-workable intersections with two many modes public safety and easy of pedestrian movement is absolutely zero and there is nothing which any of those projects are doing to address improvement of that situation but what their rather do is make that worse the access to public transportation and bart foreclose of those buildings is one of the worse places to get into the fire station when i come to the department i walk

down van ness and each time i have to do it is horrible cumulative wind effects each project in the general area of the intersection of market and mission that already in its current state at wind have a lights are unsafe i don't see a discussion about that and that is, i think at this time those are my comments i'll support of the historic preservation and further alternatives that deal with the historic buildings one that

which is read into the record it was interesting but i think there is more commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i would agree with much of what commissioner moore said it looks like alternative 4 would be close to the historic preservation commission was talking about pa partial preservation alternative it seems to reverse 55 okay. and separates the buildings to some degree but there might be further ramifications or alternatives that preservation alternative that might be worth discussing and responses to comments to see what we were actually interested this is an important building and all