ons the academy of art could wipeout housing stock it's not in the overhead all of of of those are housing acquired by the academy of art they've wiped out that neighborhood the uttering tenderloin their expansion areas are those are from the eir those are documents you had before you their expansion are on this second thing i've sent letters about one 50 hayes street the permitting they're using that planning on using that as hair headquarters violating the planning code because they're not supposed to get any permits unless you're with the institution plaster plan

one 50 hayes have not been a planning institutional master plan planning department people the mayor are all invited to it at the places that are legal thank you. >> thank you is there any is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here my name is katherine an architecture historian i'm here to talk about the old mint in 2002, the commission the historic structure report for the city owned thank you commissioner moore city owned old mint that was part of revenue process to find a tenant and the use of the building at this point, i co-authored the

report and following the story colons since then for the last 13 years but now the commission is familiar with the current situation at the old mint as pubically recorded the chronicle and other sources going back to gerald adams there's another slew of articles and more media attention on the old mint you called multi wrote a piece that have rather i don't know if you saw is it the photograph of the old mint and the port could was a homeless encan enhancement that was shocking. there were other pizza piece in the san francisco magazine and the old mint all of the those pieces of were

over the dictates talked about the significance recent piece talked about the mayor's office ethics and workforce development with the tenants and the historical society looking at the old mint that is the current situation a lot of talk and at the same time the building really seems to be more activity prefshtd more than ever by san franciscans newly arrived san franciscans and old-timers the old his or history expo is a testament it is gratify to watch people walk the halls and really i you know an >> in of the building and expo let's them in the door so as a historian i want to remind the

commission since 1937 it has long faced questions about its future and it's demolition which was contemplated during the mayors christopher but in the redevelopment areas over decades we have to ask about the 08d mint i'll leave you with that quote is 1958 the building was documented. >> sorry ma'am, your time is up. >> you have a question about anything. >> (laughter). >> sorry no discussion. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions about the old mint. >> okay. thank you is there any additional public comment soujdz of sound like zoning administrator sanchez wants to hear the quote.

>> what's the quote (laughter) what's the quote. >> (laughter). >> i'll be men and women happy to tell you the 1958 it was part of the building survey that is the nation's more significant building at the time they said this is the quote the building is located in an area of commercial san francisco which is due for redevelopment 1958 and such a building of the historic past can add scale of any your honor, development in this city thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess the question for the zoning administrator i glanced when she was coming here 4 or 5 times some of the items fall under the jurisdiction of the planning department but not to the extent we don't know what

they're affecting have you heard of any projects she's brought up in the past we've had like an injunction against department permit. >> we've referred those matters to the department of building inspection and i've not here comments of buildings in violation i reviewed the photos last night some of the cases are cause for concern and others consistent with what section 317 allows it is not the best way of going about this problem it is characterized as a problem we can do much to have a greater impact of feasibility. >> i don't know how the commissioners feel but i don't want to see her. >> i enjoy seeing her.

>> it is a little bityes, ma'am barriers so in the future i know you referred those to me and i've referred those but once they start rebuilding the dbi will determine if this is excessive demolition but section 317 if they have dry rot they can't replace those walls they need to rare and replace those instead. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move onto the regular calendar item 12 for case m t and z the central selma plan to fund public benefits this is an informational

presentation. >> good afternoon commissioner wu and planning commissioner steve with the planning department staff i'm here to talk about the central selma and the feasibility campaigns a milestone we're talking about what we want to see in central selma what kind of demands it can address we've been talking about how to make central selma a great neighborhood for the 21st century and this is really the bridge between the conversations the first thing we'll see the plan in its full

entirety outing how to works together from here we'll have robust conversations on what we can really achieve with the plan for now, it's a soft focus you can see 50 percent of affordable units or infinity profit rainbows leptin consciousness there's a lot of possibilities the loans up to $2 million in central selma as an increase of $1.4 billion if so plan was not passed with that said, there's a plan for public benefits not getting them so this is the start of that conversation we're certainly not here to propose the requirements will be or the benefits spent on

this is how to start the conversation p.i. i may have said that hundred times we're looking forward over the next week's and months, etc. to working with the community and the policymakers for the proposal with that introduction i'll launch into the presentation. >> so with the overview we'll have the central selma refresher and then we'll talk about the planning feasibility and i'll be joining any colleague who has done an amazing amount of work and our consultant and i'll come back to talk about the analysis what that means when we look at the whole picture. >> so as the plan the demand for new space for housing and jobs we started 24 in 2011 there was a demand and certainly many

years into this demand not going away anytime soon and why in this area central selma is did best transportation in the area and developmental land and reduce the demand for small property owner the geographysecond street the timeline we grand in early february of 2011 but the plan started before that in 2008 with the ooerjz we've carved out the zoning district and figure out 80 out later in early 2013 we released the draft plan and we're in the middle of 2015 we expect the plan to be releases

towards the end of this year we're hoping for november as the permanently we have to give a big grant back if we don't finish it, it is nice to have a out bound for an eir i want to came back in relationship and coming back a whole bunch of times in the fall and plan adaptation all the stars in alignment for next year. >> a reminder of the plan objectives that is spelled out but to make sure that the central selma is fire hydrant and accommodate 18 new employment how those two are intrairm linked arrest talk about financial responsibility the goal of this process to maximize public benefits and it

is not rocket science if you set the exact requirements too high you'll not get investment and you won't get public benefits if set the requirement allow you'll not get it you want like importantly ridge the department will happy and we capture the most for development. >> what are the benefits we've heard this is the caveat and those slides this presentation has a dual purchase for all the people watching on tv and here of course, this is also on our website and reviewed possibly more times over the many months more for a presentation stand out but it is important to get the context of the presentation and take away on understanding

with that said we're looking for affordable housing maximum pleased e missed and the transportation amenities about bart and really you can envision what is necessary open space you want to make sure that every everyone was the accessibility to open space in central selma every street is safe and pleasant sidewalks and biking lanes and this is not what you see in selma today production repair we have requested for no loss of community jobs we've heard the notion of creating space for the plan area we have a desire for community facilities right now no action to create new spaces for health

cylinders or service provider that is something we're looking at and historic preservation commission what is happening to fund the preservation of the building and childcare a tremor demand and environment sustainability the department decided not to make this the most environmentally sustainable neighborhood we'll add that and we're looking at what that means possible a neighborhood that brings amenities more than it takes away and when you think of it when you close our eyes we're talking about a vision with that, i'm going to turn it over to my colleague lisa to look at the typical development and i'll come back.

>> good afternoon, commissioners lisa with the planning division as steve mentioned the plan offers a board provision for the plan area for the financial feasibility analysis our task to translate the benefits with the quality of life affordability and so on to what the impact is our goal to kind of hit the sweet spot the importantly ridge analogy so see how to maximize the plans identifiable for the potential over the last year, we've worked closely with the consulting to analyze this question and i want to acknowledge people who are here in the audience she's helped us to parcel it out and she'll be variable for the methodology

functions today, we're presenting the preliminary analysis we want to start the conversation and excited to do so we'll be accomplishing the results and want to hear from you and the community whether we got this right and most importantly the priorities we want this plan to express so our analysis long time the impact of existing and proposed excuse me. the existing and proposed requirement feasibility so we concocted what is called a land analysis of 44 typical developments i'll explain and we wanted to reflect kind of a range of different development types we would expect to see across the plan area and range of zoning changes combinations of high-end use so we looked at those different typical involvements and modeled

the impacts of the development requirements so here is the list of prototypes we looked at office and to briefly step into them this is the office one hundred and 60 feet high for the zone in the prototype it is mixed use office office and residential it is a health from hundred 84 to 60 feet prototype b is a condo 60 units the zoning is getting - would be changed from preliminarily industrial to mixed use office

and this - the height will remain 85 feet c one and dwo two are versions of the same project at different heights a residential condo so c one is hundred and 28 units and for both of those scenarios we kept the zoning consistent but we increased the height in c one the height is from 85 to hundred and 60 and two it increased to 4 m.d. feet for the residential tips so their ownership units and for c one and two the payment of the affordable housing fee so a couple of can have you don't see yots any height changes that are part of

the plan so our real challenge to kind of take this limited type of prototypes and the memo we'll accomplish is outlining that also i'll say we evaluated a lot of scenarios for example we looked at a 85 foot office and rental versions of many of the residential prototypes but what we're presenting is kind of the most feasibility projects we'll actually we'll expect to happen given current economic conditions so once we developed our list of developed prototypes the next step to decide what development requirements you wanted to test for each prototype we looked at two basically scenarios to start

the baseline scenario that basically means if we pass the plantarum or today or in december and we didn't change any of the requirements or any of the policies around affordable housing are impact fees or, etc. what would we get in terms of community benefits our second package was called the full community benefits here we tried to do consider all of the benefits and all of the kind of quality of life manufacture presented in the plan and figure out if we asked for some of everything you know a little bit of this and that and a lot of one thing what would we get and what's feasible so i wanted to also add did caveat those are numbers not regretting any development requirements that are ultimately

adapted but set them another similar numbers for other policies for the city i'll also note that this was very preliminary analysis in that we will make due a nexus analysis for the policies so briefly here are the public benefits that we analyzed for the office prototype under the baseline scenario you you know we require eastern neighborhoods and school and water and art fees we also tested as a place holder the potential transportation sustainability fee that is proposed for later this year and in the full community benefits package we studied all of those requirements we added an increase in the job housing linkage fee, studied the eastern

neighborhood impact fee and added a central selma fee $10 a square feet and added the addition of transfer the development right which will fund excuse me. historic preservation commission as well, a pdr space and nonprofit space and a melrose space for this. >> here's a list of baseline and full community benefits packages for residential prototypes similarly in our baseline in the eastern neighborhood fees, school and water fees and the transportation sustainability fee affordable housing requirement we started with the existing requirement which is 12 percent onsite and in 20 percent for the fee option for the full benefits

package we increased that affordability to starting point of 20 percent onsite and 33 for the fee like the office prototype we added the central selma fee, we added the pdr and the melrose and add did community facility fee steve mentions will fund the nonprofit requirements. >> so before i get into the study results i'm going to describe the rationale behind it the consulting had a land redull analysis to analyze decision on development it is the same methodology used for market octavia and it allows us to test

the option for impact on development and allows us to prepare apples to apples so to speak so here's a simple slide of the prototype that increases from 85 to hundred and 60 after plan adaptation so to conduct land residual analysis first look at the costs which is in yellow that means considering the revenue from the sell of condos and for retail and minus any retail costs next you subtract the cost from the physical building this will include the construction costs and construction financing and other costs it includes the target development market an

expected level of profit to the developer and provision e proportionate as you can see in this graph the cost revenue is in scale with the size the project so when you subtract the cost the reminder is the land value that is the potential amount to be paid for the land the basic analysis the difference difference too think two read red bars it represents the full amount we'll capture for public benefits for example, the increase in land use value from 45 to hundred and 60 is roughly so million dollars so once we establish what the

value created was try allocating the benefits to figure out who is supportable using the same hundred and 60 foot condo here's where the project that contributes today with the exit fees and other requirements so in this case the project will be providing $12 million in community benefits over half are allocated to affordable housing so if we add that value difference between the previous charts the baseline you'll get a targeted amount we ask for from the city will capture hundred percent of the value by the plan that brings the total to $8 million in community benefits however we scaled our target to

6 have to 75 percent and understanding we need to build if flexibility to account for fluktsz in market conditions and conditions for planned areas our next step is evaluate the impact of the benefit packages i've mentioned earlier so in that typical example we see that the bar is well above the hundred percent line in fact it translates into hundred and 63 body capture and it means that the project won't happen so we realized we needed to scale back the ask because it might not happen so this represents a series of alternatives with that think 66 to 75 percent of the body

capture range for all the prototypes 3 all of the elements an affordable housing and diversity and infrastructure the idea we wanted to dial-up one are two tops almost to the conclusion we don't have to chicago's choose between 123r this is a trade off we may well decide to choose from each the option in the end so for our affordable housing alternative the goal of course to ma'am misses affordability as well as provide amenities like open space and childcare that was through the central selma fee and the melrose job diversities alternatives it

is meant for the office prototype including the nonprofit and pdr space as well as including the facilities through the residential fee and for the infrastructure the diversity focus on melrose and if additional value allocating it to other fees. >> so very briefly here were the main finding for the 4 prototypes the main take away that all of the scenarios the full community benefits package exceeded the amount our target so we the play with different alternatives to get within that range so for prototype a our body capture scenario under full