thank you. ( meeting is adjourned ).

>> echo good afternoon, everybody welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and transportation committee for monday, february 6, 2017, my name is mark farrell be chairing this committee and joined by committee vice chair supervisor peskin and supervisor katie tang want to thank alicia and clakz madam clerk, any announcements? electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the february 14th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much with that madam clerk item one. >> an ordinance on the administrative code to authors the planning commission to hold noise issues in conversions of

hotel and molt requiring the planning department to consider the noise issues when reviewing those projects and making appropriate findings. >> thank you, madam clerk mr. johnson thank you congratulations upon chair farrell conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. brief comments one a one horticulture amendment at the request of the planning commission in 2015 the board of supervisors unanimously patsz supervisor president london breed night life preservation legislation that is protecting san francisco music venues and preventing conflicts the law is three-legged stool if they're operating within the terms of their that permit and two realtors and landlords before they move in there is a venue

nearby and empowers the board of supervisors to hold a - within three hundred feet of a music venue and to consider any recommendations that the entertainment commission provides how those two uses co-exist that last with an is fundamentally the most important part of law to help the land uses by working often the front end rather than after the fact people are unhappy and changing things that difficult this is the first of its kind in the country supervisor president london breed's further strengthens that by the authority of residential hotels

are complainl to the entertainment commission having to refund people's room and their triple ratings rate of interest are up they have to test to make sure the venues are in compliance with the amendment and working with the hotels but foshsz to do this after the fact we could have done this on before those hotels are approved this is a preying issue of planning department staff report shows 26 hotel and hotels are pending 17 within three hundred feet of mraechlt near the two nightclubs and 3 venues within

three hundred feet in fact partly our hotels are by the nature want to be near the action consider one recent example from austin, texas often the national hate for live music they built a hotel next to the hotel and suing for noise thinks we can protect the night life and make sure the hotels and

molts are good neighbors they bring one billions of into the local economy and thousands of jobs but define would we are benefiting the cove of the association that interest humbling set the 2015 quote entered the legend no piece has helped more than this in decades and landmarked i like the analyzed of the legislation but hope you'll join supervisor president breed in making that stronger i'll point out that was support by sftravel the hotel council and been enforced by the entertainment commission and the planning commission i want to thank diego sanchez and the planning commission recommended that we exempt projects that already have entitlements as october 2016 that was my 35 birthday actually gray hair is real there are two or three such

projects in entitlements supervisor president breed this i have copies of that change i believe in your packet but the gist is that sections 21611 f adds this section 116 shall not apply to those with the planning commission approval by and with that, on supervisor president london breed brave supervisors ask for your support. >> thank you police commission for your eloquent comments supervisor peskin. >> it was scripted. >> (laughter). through the chair to the are under that grandfathering clause

do you know >> at the time, we went to the planning commission it was two or three i did that a supervisors on january this was set before you the commission was very much in support of ordinance we thought as the ordinance protecting the real a balance between the hoped and the night life the planning commission unanimously recommends the with the modifications that was stated to exempt those hotel and that have security a planning commission and planning department entitlement before us 2016 that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> supervisor peskin anything more. >> no mr. as to how many projects. >> i apologize in the locations of those projects. >> one second i have those -

actually, 2 6th street and ellis the third one dropped off 2016. >> okay. no other questions for colleagues opening number one anyone seeing none, public comment is closed. so we have a proposed >> an amendment to section 16.11 f that would read as follows: the section 16 be 116 shall not apply to the hotel or molt by

the planning commission i move that. >> seconded by supervisor tang without objection motion it amended move that. >> i'll move as amended with recommendations to the full board. >> okay motion by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection. >> thank you very much madam clerk item 2. >> a resolution authorizing the real property assets from the san francisco investment & infrastructure to the mayor's office of housing and community development and making appropriate finding. >> owe with the mayor's office of housing and community development speak good afternoon, supervisors deputy director for finance with the mayor's office of housing and community development the item before you is an additional that is necessary to implement the previous actions related wanted to distribution of redevelopment agency under state dissolution the ike is required to fund and develop a number of affordable units in transbay, mission bay are the

shipyard and alice griffith hope sf ocii owns the lands on the development and the housing will be managed and the how are you developers upon completion ocii is required to transfer the land to the city for the long term asset and management and the affordable housing mohcd services with the loan agreement and monitored the restrictions this resolution the board knows the assets from appendixes to the city approval of the resolution will allow the director of reality and mohcd to accept each parcels as the housing is completed any additional be parcels not identified as parts of this resolution we will come back to the board for approval to accept those parcels i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you supervisor peskin your name is on the roster that

is left over. >> it's left over. >> okay i want to say thanks for moving forward in the process i think there is a few things i'd like to see to having amendments here we'll go to the colleagues we'll do a case review to the board of supervisors i want to see as part of amendments to require reporting back to the board of supervisors and don't see anything in the resolution honoring the regulatory ocii previously signed up is that can you talk about that that you'll be acceptable. >> absolutely that is part of state law that those continue to exit under our office and enforcement. >> thanks those are the two items items colleagues and apologize for the late distribution with that no other questions is there any public comment on item two.

>> okay seeing none, public comment is closed i'll make a most to adopt both of those easements and. >> send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> >> if i may maybe infrastructure the chair and the deputy city attorney i assume the first amendment even though the resolution is silent that city and state regulatory agreements are in. >> i don't have the language in front of me although i understand that someone many any office drafted that earlier today, i didn't get a copy giving me just a moment - >> yes. that's correct. >> that's fine.

>> motion by supervisor tang and the undermining item seconded by supervisor peskin without objection. >> madam clerk item 3. >> an ordinance amending the planning code for the arcades in the mixed use and making appropriate findings. >> okay. thank you very much i don't know who is speak on this oh, supervisor kim's office. >> good afternoon land use committee and members from supervisor kim's office we have introduced legislation to update our codes to the current environment of 2017 although we will include 2018 there was legislation in pro bono the katdz in the city in the city of

san francisco we have zoning code that prohibit arcades that things have come up in other castro and the haight previously and needed the board of supervisors cleaned up legislation to allow the arcades in the two other districts we are requesting the same for and to allow this in the south of market and the service light industrial area we had that before the planning commission in the fall some neighborhoods stakeholders were concerned about this change and wanted to be looped into businesses that were planning to participate in the south of market and so we had the business operators that were proposing this to reach out to the members of the south of market business

associations the south beach merchant association and they have had the conversations were before you today the planning department has requested a broader change to the code for the arcades and after conversation at the planning commission we decided to just leave to the south of market and have the processes that relate to eastern neighborhoods and chinatown be encompassed in the further update to the planning code so i'm going to ask for a continuance because the prepared legislation that speaks just to the south of market but there was - we want to make sure that redact all references to the ooerpdz other parts of eastern neighborhoods and a reference to other entertainment uses in the

chinatown mixed use district and the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district that still should be part of neighborhoods decisions e discussions is a ask for a intelligence or continuance because the project sponsor is here we want to give you a little bit of background on the legislation to have a cleaned up up versions so for your is consideration. >> i'll i'm going to turn it over to supervisor peskin but in terms of the continuance how long through the chair are be specific at this point. >> one week. >> okay already supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair farrell i'm subject to public comment will make the motion to continue the item for one week i want to say relevant to this issue on broadway these arcades were you the place where we had the most homicides and actually a reason

in certain district there you are controls on them the 4 hundred block of broadway was the source of a number of homicides in the early 2000s not a one-size-fits-all solution i'm concerned that planning once again is coming up with a we want to do the same thing everybody respect to mr. starr didn't make sense. >> okay. >> any further questions open up for public comment is there any public comment on item 3? >> nope you don't have to do public comment. >> a housekeeping thing the planning commission heard this on september last year and recommended to approve with a modification the modification was based on supervisor kim's letter she gave to the commission that can or day which asked to limit to the s l

i industrial district that's what the planning commission agreed to and should be before you today. >> okay just to be clear are you suggesting an agreement today or handle this technique. >> i can't suggest an amendment but the intention of the amendment to narrow it to that. >> okay supervisor peskin. >> so in the staff recommendation on page 5 where the recommendation is the department recommended approval with modifications and insert in the chinatown mixed use district in the south of market and eastern neighborhood although you say easter i'm sure eastern neighborhoods mixed use district are you saying that you want to have this definition apply to chinatown and it definition applies to chinatown at the

beginning in the - etc. that was to political other entertainment to the eastern neighborhoods district because she's not doing a much further extension of the amazement game market she's narrowed it quite a bit to just to that district. >> so you withdraw that recommendations. >> the commission didn't make that recommendation. >> thank you. >> okay. colleagues we've had public comment. we have a potential for some discussion around that sli or one week to the meeting for february 13th. >> motions? >> oh, i'm sorry, i didn't close public comment is there any public comment on item 3?

>> hi supervisors i'm an actual one of the folks that the commission office allowed us to put this together i'm on fourth and bryant in the sli district i understand the concerns about gambling and crime recommended to this although that was 35 years ago and what we're putting forth is not an amazement arcade but a bar and restaurant of course, it is kind going down to the net when it comes to land use i understand the planning commission is to allow for us to remain the same to be open to mixed use i understand a gentleman came in and halt this but look at the sub on the

corridor and it kind of opens up to more mixed use and for use as part sorry i'm nervous standing in front of you at this time soma the necessary i did is home to millennials and crime is not subject to this selma is home to the arts and you'll find all within a 3 block radius of us and i think that is worth take a look at the amendment in the sli district on 3 and fourth from harrison to townsend it is mixed use and it is dlooifl and i think that puts a stop on the growth of the area. >> is there any public comment on item 3. >> please if there are more

members please come on up you have 2 mingle. >> good afternoon. my name is eric i've should at businesses and restaurants that had arcades over 5 years that brings a sense of community and it let's people meet each other and just have fun i hope that everyone feels the same way a fun environment for everyone to be at thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi yes thank you i'm ben i'm a resident of san francisco for a couple of years now i'm a frequent of the area around the potential new games in the game room and it is upcoming area and the games provide a whole some sense of

community a great place for people to get together i hope for the opportunity to be presented. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi there my name is carli actually, i'm a resident of san francisco area specifically soma i just think that in the coin open it is something that the city in that community needs there's not much purview in the area besides the baseball games and such with the community we have here in the city this is something we're lacking i also feel that will you know bring that north america lyrics level to the city with the pack man and games that people grew up with that is important for the bridge of those generations and brings community together. >> thanks very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is james a

resident of san francisco i visited coin opt and found that spies space is a call to action to the low and behold residents in the soma more public space and they identify with i support everything their could go in the location it is a beautiful well thought space limited by the antiquated laws and give it change to our community so we can continue to evolve look forward to it thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is justin i'm a resident of san francisco i grew up here and also in oakland i've been to come in opt and found it to be safe and inviting inclusive of kind of all types

of groups as a younger generation i've seen older generations and my dad, i feel that their potential to grow and be this staple of san francisco is limited they can definitely more games and bring in more people oh, i remember playing that game when i was 16. >> thank you very much next item, please. >> hi, i'm paul lien a resident i said to tell you about my experience in coin opt my wife is a traffic controller we go into coin opt they have the basketball games and shoot hoops we compete and for me and

my wife who works in a difficult job it has been a great addition to our lives and see people if everywhere in the community everyone is really, really kind and supportive and it is an inclusive plays i hope more games. >> thank you. >> 3 seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner tang >> thank you thanks everyone that came out and speaking of antiquated codes it was a recent discovery according to the police code we can't conduct games unless they're a profitable organization i'll be wroing something to allow us to play bingo in this establishment but in this case i'll horn

supervisor jane kim's office to continue that for one week. >> motion by supervisor tang and honor the supervisors request and i grew up placing arcades games and for profit bingo games hope they come to the city of san francisco and supervisor peskin a second. >> motion by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection all right. madam clerk items 450e6 together. >> they're an ordinance and resolution to exempt the projects on market street with at dedication of jones street for the construction of affordable housing and with the addition adam one 80 jones street more affordable housing fund and accepting $2 million gift approving an agreement for the property and making appropriate understanding. >> okay thank you very much

so this item these items responded by supervisor kim and let her kickoff the conversation. >> thank you chair farrell and thank you to the members of the land use committee and supervisor peskin and supervisor tang i'm excited to be here in the legislation i introduced this gives the land which is currently a parking lot and one of the last developments to create 60 units of step up for single-room occupancy tenants in the neighborhood the project sponsor for market street group i is here in attendance working closely with the community and our office on coming up with an negotiated affordable housing proposal that works for the residents awhile i generally always prefer onsite affordable housing in my market-rate many of the resident

in the tenderloin have concerned they'll not afford the homeownership in the 950 market street project so the developer working closely with the community listening to them and went out and sought the acquisition of one 80 jones a parcel that many of the tenderloin retained looked at hoping affordable housing will be there the project on jones and market is important for the revitalization of the tenderloin area the value of a land purpose for that we are proposing today in the ordinance is approximately 25 percent of the onsite affordable housing obligation on top of this legislation often seeks $300,000 for the creation after a compton district t lgbt recognizing the history the transgenders and the lgbt

community in the history and present-day of the tenderloin neighborhood one hundred thousand is a t lgbt culture heritage and other one thousand dollars for the transgender community not tenderloin and finally another one hundred thousand dollars for the trained focus on nonprofit storefront in the compton neighborhood i'll be making a series of amendments and apologize you just saw the amendments our land use legislative staffer quickly working to get it to the community but before we go into public comment i wanted to thank our 950 market coalition with the sro collaborative many i see in the audience and recognize market value for the mass the com ton coalition with the staff the mayor's office of housing kate hartley and olsen lee and

jeff department of reality and planning and oewd and the city attorney and, of course, the project sponsor and just in listing all the people and departments if we can get a sense of how big this project was and how many parties came together i want to congratulate the developer who is here today, this project what many years in the coming we talked about this in 2012 and introduced a green help for the 900 block of market street and exciting we'll be able to approve this deal today that have authorized unit bring the hotel and market-rate housing housing to the neighborhood but a dedicated site for 100 percent affordable housing in the tenderloin neighborhood that will particularly be dedicated to a single-room occupancy tenants

that are moving forward on the ladder so again, i will be making amendments but while we get the amendments ready if there are questions from the members i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and looking forward to hearing from the members of the public. >> thank you, supervisor kim and supervisor tang >> thank you you thank you. i'm sure we'll get for clarity but through the chair supervisor kim if you could state kind of exactly what the deal has been. >> sure. >> thank you for asking we have to make amendments here today but there obligations that the developer would owe the city and building offsite affordable housing without this proposal today would have been $15.4 million now we knew that was not enough

funding to cover the actual development at the one 80 jones so the community working closely with the developer and we were able to negotiate a 2 housing unit $7 million gift on top of the $15.4 million obligation from the developer that will help us close the gap in meeting this development goal so based on did numbers that planning that our office in december the gap was less than a million dollars today, this is again according to a planning memo if the accountant over a month ago on top of the $18.1 million contribution minus the purchase of land cost the developer has gone out and occurred there is an additional $300,000 that is being dedicated to the creation of a compton lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgenders tisk district and the tenderloin mid-market those two components are the major components of the deal. >> thank you and you mentioned the gap is less than a million dollars and in terms of the one 80 jones project so i guess i'm hearing definitely i'm wondering if you or mayor's office of housing can speak to what exactly that gap is and how we actually plan to aid it. >> why not kate hartley. >> good afternoon kate hartley supervisor kim is correct when we began work on this negotiation we're brought into the contribution transition we ran the performa to price the

building of 68 units of affordable housing on jones we used what we leveraged in tax credits and assuming that we can get an allocation of vouchers that helps the homeless veterans and came up with a number that was with the section 416 and 413 and left-hand funds will cover the costs of program substantially a correction in the housing fee that left us a small gap and then subsequent to that an additional $1,200,000 in gift funds from the developer that make up a portion of gap in the neighborhood of $800,000 the problem and the reason why you're hearing that the gap was larger in the in the meantime

awhile new york city were going on and donald trump was elected with the promise of tax reform we we rely on heavily for every single one of the housing deals has dropped down significantly so in addition to the approximately $800,000 gap we have often seen equal at the state of original discussion we have to prices the tax credits lower we're looking at an overall gap of other than $2004 million this takes into consideration credit has nothing to do with with that project there is an industrywide issue we're trying to address it that's why our hearing different numbers in the gap. >> there was a difference before i thought of $1.4 million

that you are only - before our tax credit issue. >> yeah. that was mitigated by the additional gift funds. >> right >> so through the chair. >> no, no. >> given what you stated again, the change at the federal level beyond our control here the gap is slightly learn the $860,000 what's the plan to address the shortfall. >> we're looking at the issue across the pipeline in this case some cases we have creating larger problems of 2 no idea and a half million dollars the value is relating low given the total development costs and the amount of funds from the developer and the fact that the land is part of a contributions i believe given our history of financing we should be able to bridge that

gap with other source of fund inclusion linkages what the housing trusting at that level when the gaps are $3 million we're able to provide the financing to make the project happen. >> and then one last question here i'm looking at the timing for when the various funds will be distributed by the developer and a large bulk is $12 million would go towards the one and 80 jones affordable housing fund at temporary certificate of occupancy i'm wondering given the shortfall of $2 million or so whether moving the $12 million i don't know but moving the $12 million up earlier will help. >> i think i believe that the ordinance requires in addition

to the acquisition of land and initial $1.5 million for the development expenses that will allow us to get going on the transition and then reentitle this project i actually don't think that having all the money in hand right away is something that we would make a difference. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor peskin. >> so to put that in real time numbers so far as the $1.5 million for the redevelopment costs at first construction presuming i assume when they pull they're first permit what is the duration of the construction until temporary certificate of occupancy. >> i believe that is approximately 18 to 24 months. >> so okay. so i guess i have

a few questions first of all, the table two and perhaps updated numbers but on our letter if december 9th there was a few things first of all, that there is a non-portable exemption on this project to the tune of a benefit of one $.75 million can you talk about that initiation to this project and some of the market-rate not part of this project why after passing that law are we are doing this. >> i'd like to defer to my planning colleagues if i could open that issue. >> okay. >> to our planning department. >> enact emery rogers this is

due to the project not addressed for the planning commission but part of exemption questions of the overall - to the benefits that are delivered to the city in the form of unique affordable housing project and unlike many times when we see a project they clearly meet the section 416 affordable units that was the unique affordable housing and dpa match up in the unit size and the way we compare so the commission requested more information and worked with the project sponsor to get the cost of how much the water requirement would have cost and compared to the benefit of that is provide to the city to the affordable housing project so all this was permitted to you because the commission didn't

have the benefit of thoroughly vetted development to the oewd felt comfortable with the project and recommended approval asked the staff work with the mohcd to provide the board with additional information to understand. >> i mean let me say i'm excited by the new prolong and the units and the affordable housing project i guess i'm confused about why we passed on ordinance and on exemption there after in terms of project i'm glad we got the information and the planning commission perhaps didn't look at it super alcohol but i'll ask staff again, the second part the main thrust in table 2 perhaps a number from supervisor kim's office but this table two the surplus as

designed was 17 excuse me - $14.7 million without the proposed ordinance and now the developer thinks that 17 point one million dollars so we have looked like. >> 18 point one. >> sorry 18. >> oh. >> so the developers is making x million dollars more bans this project and enthusiastic about this project but we have a funding shortfall in the project itself in the opportunity to pay for that to dip into he 9 fund in terms of delores that wouldn't be otherwise used why are we allowing the project knowing there is a funding gap and knowing the developer based on this ordinance a making millions of dollars more

compared to the status quo look in my district as well we have land use projects if we're going to have alternative projects based on the community needs addresses desires great to turn around and say to developer authoritative that is all get millions of dollars off the project is difficult to stomach so to me as long as it is newly costs to the developer we should explore the options we shouldn't be doing that. >> i agree with the premise as and the goals i will say that we and the planning department myself and my department worked worked to put that december 9th together in answer to the planning commission questions but for your benefits of

analyzing the project and see what makes sense how the transition should move forward the developer had a response to this and the projected market-rate unit revenue we are users based on a third party table was overly aggressive they said you are assuming an inflation rate to the sales revenue that will be available in 2019 but unrealistic they made a good point we know that interest rates are rising and the market is adopting to this kind of housing, however, we do know on the other hand, tax reform and possible that high income will have - people will have more money to spend it is an unknown that was their counter point to what we assumed

and other localities to the financial analysis the costs of funds for example, we have an interest rate on the construction and the construction loan money they contact and said exact their money was more expensive than what we projected we don't have access to all the underwriting assumptions but this is, you know, certainly can be a very legitimate correction we landed we have estimated there was a benefit conferred on the developer of $2.4 million for this ordinance they said, in fact, they're doing worse and their preference will be doing the onsite inclusionary but because of the community requests they have moved with the acquisition of one 80 jones

i hate to not have a good answer but have to say we don't know what their surplus or shortfall will be in 2019 so know exactly where sales prices will in 2019 from mohcd perspective we had to honor the community with 68 units of affordable housing and so this is where the transaction landed. >> i understand that i guess from our point of view now this is my first land use committee meeting but when the we had our budget analyst provide us with the data at the board of supervisors as a city so you know third party's whether the developers or others will dispute it we're here to rely on the data from the city departments this from our

planning department so it is difficult to say that that is a great idea we are doing going forward with the data that the city provided. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair farrell is there somebody here who can tell us how you came up with the t dr in the amount of one and $75,000 that's how many units of t dr. >> planning department staff that. >> that was based on the market-rate of t dr and the developer will pay the difference up to 9 bus there is an amount that is over $26,000 plus approximately that because the original project would have

had that for it and exempted for the bmr we calculated out how much that amount is based on the master for t dr. >> what and how many t dr. >> i believe we used calculation of about $25 per gross square feet and what zoning district are we in. >> c-3 g and how many t dr in the c-2 g. >> i'll have to get back with you. >> i thought the going rate was 35 bucks not 25 bucks. >> i'll have to get back with you. >> the documents indicate to the non-portable water cost credit that was based on the written estimate provided to the the project sponsor have you

verified that. >> the planning department has not. >> yeah. >> emery rogers. >> no the department of health are involved in the ordinance they're not developers and have no familiarity with the costs they can confirm the estimates. >> we've not gotten the third party consultant i consulted to look at that. >> no, sir that's the developments agreement the city has not had time we were rushing to bring to the planning commission. >> thank you. >> so can i ask you a follow-up to supervisor peskin question have we dispute this with our financial analysis have you seen the developers analysis as the city. >> no, i haven't seen this

i've seen a summary they've response they're our summary and the third party analysis which we relied on but then the developers said well, you relied on the most aggressive assumption san francisco analyst came up with we used what we had. >> okay supervisor kim. >> yeah. i the president to talk about certain components of the deal that with the land use committee we have those in the mid market this was the shoring seen on the parking lot you're aware of that faces golden gate and a frontage on market street and it was also on offsite land acquisition deal the former possessive and shorenstein committed to the

majority of financing to fund 100 percent affordable housing that site would actually be entitled to the market-rate housing but shorenstein purchased it from the prior you own and shorenstein san francisco would ever 100 percent we wanted to be consist or consistent and below-market-rate housing acknowledging that most tenderloin folks don't meet the income bracket with the bmr units will go to norman i prefer onsite but recognition those projects were in the neighborhood the ami is far lower than what the city requires for bmr unit to we divided this but have been consistent in the deals a third

o mment /* - so a history to how this offsite would arc and wouldn't have been possible without the the mayor's office of housing to work with us and their ability to include this in the project pipeline but i the president to give the developer an opportunity to speak to the the planning and the request for the green water exemption their project began early in 2014 and had taken you know over 3 years to come to an approval process due to the complexity and the and the size that's why we honored their requests but recaptured that value in the

affordable housing gift to the city so i'm not sure it is the gentleman would like to respond to some of the concerns chair farrell has brought forward >> thank you supervisor farrell a couple of things i do want to calling your attention to the december 15th letter to the clerk the board and to the response of december 8th memo and that does include our projections for the purchases and interest rates and construction costs going into 2019 i mean the bottom line here is that. >> i don't have that front of the me so i'll take our word that is there. >> i have a copy. >> great. >> you - the bottom line is that we started proposing 31 offsite unit with the affordable housing ordinance we when supervisor kim community

came to us and said we'll put that on as an alternative as a point when an alternative gets two costly that's where the balancing act is we think we're there and in fact, the balance includes the $2.7 million gift from the developer to the city. >> i get it as i'm sitting here in the land use committee the only document i should be relying on from our department the developer yourself is making million dollars dollars more and by the way, an identified funding gap that is getting worse so that's a challenge to sit here and say yes. that is a great project to move forward but some way to verify the urban design guidelines numbers and

get everyone on board it is a different scenario i get it, i can't rely on that. >> one other response to supervisor peskin request about the t dr an incredible wash if you don't onsite affordable housing you create the far with the affordable units so we have 23 square feet of inclusionary unit and not buy the t dr so you'll not have to buy t dr so no matter what the value of t dr is whether we got them free from inclusionary or whatever. >> what about the portable water number. >> non-portable i should say. >> part of the calculation as what it takes to make that

worthwhile with the community testifies an extremely expense not in our portfolio but a negative declaration that was withdrawn when the city decided not to pursue the mid market so there was a subsequent negative declaration that was issued in july and prior to that the staff didn't like the design and debate it to the commission for three or four months and the commission approved the design there was a year of delay with the developer when was decisions of the city so partly trying to get to a point that offsite deal. >> okay again, i wish i could is there

is the first time i heard there was delays with the developer in terms of the policy. >> either through planning or the mayor's office of housing or supervisor kim i appreciate the comments around the onsite versus the offsite and outlet projects that have moved either is my fault for not looking at closer but we're amending ordinances and budget shortfalls and to the analysis we have in front of us that amended ordinance grant a windfall with the developer that will cover the costs if there was a windfall of building new affordable housing so this is a conundrum i have in terms of the analysis i will take a look at

your letter supervisor kim are you on open mike still. >> all right. colleagues no other questions or comments from staff supervisor kim are you - >> actually, i have amendments ready to read but can read that after public comment based on our preference chair farrell. >> why not read them now. >> great we have a series of amendments to make to the ordinance that will one delete the offsite options, two changes to the affordable housing commitment if 18.8 to $18.1 million and create a district t lgbt stabilization fund at $18 million and for the prevention we're making an amendment that the conveyance of one 80 jones to the mayor's office of housing and community

development is for a total of $10 and changes the number for the commitment of $18.1 million we also want to - we have an amendment to reserves 13 percent at the one to 40 percent of area medium income and current residence of sro tenants to after the amendments ready for community members but the amendments largely state the numbers i've stated on the record. >> thank you supervisor tang. >> i think there was a couple of other amendments recommend by the planning department staff has to do with with the timeline with the delivery on ton 80 jones and the second one was the i'm level

commission planning was incorporated already or. >> through the chair emery rogers supervisor kim has made those they're concerned about the ami should the developer be building an ought and the city will be. >> at the lastly supervisor kim thank you for tightening up the lunge to make sure the contains didn't go through the pie there is a linkage back. >> ms. rogers given the discrepancies and their exterminates we're using as our estimates for the total water systems and why is - we pushing this forward without the

analysis and everybody on the same page here it feels to me rushed. >> it is certain the decision when is it fair to say before the planning department they appreciated the information on one 80 jones and understood the mohcd to come up with the funding but that same question is before you plus ailed information and also additional physique uncertainly it is in our hands commissioners. >> okay. thanks. >> move on to public comment please feel free to line up against the far wall we'll get going.

>> i'm here representing the coalition that is made up of transgender serving organization in the t l and a resident of the tenderloin we support this project and the legislation that will not only allow for the creation of units of affordable housing but creates the first transgender district in the world san francisco but in particular, the tenderloin has been a safe haven for transgender of people of color and lgbt people that are often overlooked and abused by people of the community we want to thank everyone that is involved in the building and out in the city that as has been working on the project and make that a historic integrity a reality we look forward to working with everyone in the this room to make that thriving historic and save neighborhood for the transgender community

thank you. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> ken stall with the central collaborative and helped to negotiate in communities benefit the first one for the record there was another member of the market collision that supervisor kim forgot was tndc was part of the group tenderloin neighborhood development corporation want to make sure that is on the record and part of market coalition we worked over a year and a half to make sure we got the affordable units out of that major project that effects the neighborhood hopefully for the better and we wanted to thank joel for really working with the community to make sure that we had a good benefit agreement to that make sure those unite are affordable for the residents off tenderloin

which are not abraham lincoln able to food a higher price in the city hopefully, this will go forward and the unit will make sure they'll make people's lives a lot better thank you very much. >> good afternoon committee members thank you. i'm with the central city sro collaborative before you the result of many years of negotiating process one the most communities informed community benefits agreement processes that any of the united states are our of in negotiation a compromise 3 of those stressed to weigh many values of different parts of the community we're celebrating the fact we've arrived to benefit many parts of the community and formally homeless and lgbt as well and

the developers are iron to a lot of our needs more importantly those needs more affordable housing generally tenderloin housing clinic where i work is open to supporting projects simply with their affordable housing that follows the city law but the tenderloin is a low income neighborhood in the community we felt it necessary to allow for much more deeply affordable housing in the tenderloin and so rather than having 80 percent ami we'll have twice as many unit constructed as much deeper affordable we feel there is concern the gray water exemption but necessary unlike to figure out a compromise that allows for affordable housing that was meaningful and this gray water exemption is a useful compromise that will allow affordable housing to be built

and we feel the overall benefit worthwhile we reviewed the data for months and i feel comfortable that is a major commitment and didn't feel consistent we're not here to support this so, please help us wrap up this processed and get going and shovels in the ground to build the 60 plus united in the tenderloin it is much needed thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> any other is there any public comment. >> david member the central city and part of negotiated in process for the last two years i remember a member of the market street coalition this development on 950 market and jones this is the first i've advocated for norm i'm against

this this is 5 hundred unit coming up on market street half a hotels and half condos in the tenderloin and i would have seen it as an affront to the tenderloin but when i looked at look out would the developer have finally delivered in terms of step up housing with a workforce development and magic theatre an opportunity for children to learn the theatre skills and the t lgbt $300,000 benefit when i look at the collection of the benefits i believe they justify the project i'm here to advocate so for and hope you'll pass is this supervisor jane kim's amendment unanimously i understand there is uncertainty about the value of gray water exemption we've struthd with that and it is true

we don't actually know how much profit the developer will make i don't think anyone can but given i hope you don't let the uncertainties keep you from voting i want to thank supervisor jane kim and wouldn't have been possible without the her and thank you for your time and attention. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> laura clark formally grow san francisco but now action you know i'm coming out to support this project but i think there are a lot of problems with that the developer has maxed out their contribution to certain politicians jane kim putting forward this - i appreciate that supervisor aaron peskin that trying to get the developers out of politics and trying to say that developers

shouldn't be donating to the campaigns we need a take the politics out of development and not case by case decisions a lot of people spoke about the multiple years that took to hammer out this negotiation that is 7, 8, 9 wasted that is time lost we're in a housing crisis the rules needs to be the rules if you follow the rules we get your permit awhile i think this housing desperately needs to be built and don't have time to draft this and renegotiate we need to make that process faster and fairer and not have cast a shadow on projects like this they have to make dpoopgsz to get the projects introduce the process if we have a fair and equitable system housing that is so desperately needed get built

we need to follow our own rules thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm sonya i support this project and look forward to it pga i'm here i did one of the original versions don't see why we didn't do that more profit and surplus to argue about and more community benefit with really no down side no down side to having increased height but nevertheless, here we are i support the project thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on items four or five. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> mc i'd like to move the amendments to 4 and 5 as presented by the sponsor supervisor kim. >> so a motion on the

amendment and happy to support that by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection so again, i'm excited about this project as well i have outlying problems with that to be blunt certainly i think we should be relying on the city's projections and come up with a convenience what was right right now i'll nobody the supporting this in its current form we're pga an ordinance according to the city's benefits giving multi million dollars benefits to the developer and with the shortfall to build the affordable housing that we need i'll be in favor of a continuance to support the numbers and colleagues up to our discretion for further comments.

>> supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair farrell first of all, let me express exemption to one the commenter relative to the comments made that are unfair now that i've gotten that off any chest i'll concur with chair farrell i think that is some unexplained issues relative to the gap and relative to how certain numbers particularly the non- portable water not been independently verified and arrived at i will respectfully join with supervisor farrell in having a short continuance and may be the parties can help us recess if not eliminate the gap and clearing in hearing testimony from the mayor's office of housing and planning there is a dynamic attention that needs to

be resolved by what was said and not said so with that, i would be supportive of i don't know two weeks a reasonable amount of time to get to the table. >> i'll put it back to the planning department and the mayor's office if you continue this to the - i'll defer if there is an opinion from the staff when the timing here and don't want to delay the affordable housing any more than it needs. >> chair farrell. >> i'd like to point out two weeks from now is a holiday. >> one week be enough. >> well, we'll have to sit down with the developer and review our numbers like i said, we received a summary that you have now of december 15th that was sent to the board

but you know we had questions about that so we have to have the opportunity to sit down with them and really kind of dig in and also in terms of pricing the non- portable water i can check with my colleagues to see if we have come a long ways but evidence of the pricing they've assumed that would help so - >> so only action more specifically. >> is one week enough if not three weeks i'm fine i want to do expeditiously but we're investigating questions the analysis was not done and needs to be done to go forward. >> one week we'll have to just - i'm not sure. >> because we're relying on the developer to provide their. >> i'd like tell you what i'll

suggest that for one week and if next monday it is not done we do it again. >> commissioner tang i understand a lot of time has gone into this i appreciate supervisor kim's office paerngsz to what the community needs and that delivers that i think in our financial hawk situation here i would support a continuance just because it is not the details behind the agreement are not transparent with the accountable agreement through the oewd so i want to explore to you to address the funding gap. >> to that end going forward search warrant the land use i'll ask the planning staff to have an agreement but situations like

this unfortunate but working with the staff i want to put us in at position to succeed and build it housing as quickly as possible and again my main concern ask the funding gallop how we'll get this knocked out on jones with that, do i have a motion to continue this for one week. >> can i make a comment. >> certainly and supervisor kim thank you obviously i think this is the last detail supervisor kim. >> i won wanted to have the clarity on terms of the impacts within the time for the one week continuance you've office has been working on this ordinance for several months and want to be sure that the land use committee take into account our other development agreement particularly with the martin

luther king and sorensen it is next door to make sure we are maxing the contribution in the market-rate developers i've been an advocate and the biggest fighter for housing in our district and you want to make sure that we are getting the maximum from the developers but want to be fair and consistent and not ask certain developers for more than others but despite the fact that the deal was similar in terms of what is being brought forward to the board of supervisors but if we can have a clear understanding of what answers are expected by next week i'll ask not not to continue it for more than one week because of details and specific about the clarifications like to have between the planning and see mayor's office of housing and the developer by next monday we'll work expeditiously with the partners to make sure the

answers are provided. >> i can only speak for myself what i'd like is a convenience understanding of table number 2 from december 9th and what that looks like today and verification of any of experts but not the developer saying those are our estimates and not the city putting forth numbers and seeing those numbers are wrong we're looking for quite frankly for the city to know what those numbers and if this is from the staff and the third party's developers coming forth with the maichd and the department can stand behind that's what i want to see. >> is that if all the committee members. >> supervisor tang. >> i mean we've heard about from from mohcd but a clear

process how we'll be addressing whatever that money gap will be i don't know if there will be impacts on the issues in the pipeline. >> sorry let me add to supervisor kim's point on top of that analysis that is literally a approach to say why are we supporting a project like this from the numbers look net positive to millions of dollars and knowing this as a result will be a multi dollars funding gap hopefully we're not doing that anymore but if that's the case i want to understand why. >> i'll add to that that i acknowledge the great work that the community and particularly supervisor kim's office the problem i have is when the city

experts that we engage that are sponsored well the developer responded with a different interest rate estimate we didn't individually verify the non- portable discount in one million dollars before us plus or minus but buy the argument about the t dr i small, medium, and large it seems to me when we do a cutting-edge deal i support and one 80 jones is better than the alternative that produces 60 unit and probably more than the planning department, staff and the mayor's office of housing staff rather than saying we don't know we're not sure their numbers versus not our numbers but not sure that seems like they need to do a better job before we make a decision if they can sharpen their pencils

in a week my inclination we'll see admonish affordable units to a community that absolutely needs them buttized saw a little bit better work out of our city staff. >> supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection. >> okay madam clerk, is there any further business before this commission? >> no, that concludes our business for today. >> thank you, everybody we're adjourned