>> (speaking spanish.) >> these proposals are just creating confrontations and not solutions if you look at outside half of people of san francisco living on the streets. >> (speaking spanish.) >> so it is difficult for us to find housing that is available for us who are middle-aged in the community. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i think we're all in agreement we all deserve dignified housing that is

affordable for all. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> >> (speaking spanish.) >> good afternoon. my name is anna a single mother and difficult to find a home that i can afford. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i ask you to mr. will in the reduce of number of units for people with low incomes. >> (speaking spanish.) >> for me difficult to find a home i can afford to pay. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i want to be able to find

and home i can afford stability for my son. >> (speaking spanish.) >> right now, i'm sharing with an room with my son we share as a kitchen is the dining room. >> (speaking spanish.) >> please i ask you is to help build more housing for people with low income. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i want to continue living in san francisco and be able to give my son the stability so he can continue in his school work.

>> (speaking spanish.) >> it is not only a problem for myself but many mothers that are single have to work day to day to support their families. >> thank you thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> and if there are other speakers here or in some of the overflow room line up. >> can i get fernando to translate for me. >> i'm from the north of market a friend of south of market community action network i'm a friend of christen that was on the commission for seven years and for seven years i saw she carried big binder with her is it within your discretionary to reject both of the proposals you know the problem obviously the problem of getting middle-class housing there are

so many reason the inclusionary housing is one tool i don't know if people are keeping that in mind part of the problem the surrounding community surrounding us $30 million they're not building enough they consider middle-income housing not acceptable or unpleasant or something i mean let alone low income hours it is a part of 0 problem building more rail service in san mateo and marin what is on the table is you know i don't think we - also think it should say a wedge issue and not reflecting well on bonding and if you're it will come back to haunt you i will say that i also question

the assumptions that controllers report was making that somehow middle-income housing is the biggest problem i mean it didn't add up you see middle-income people are they sleeping on the street are they dying i think the second problem with the assumption they cleared the housing stock but not including the housing stock that is the whole bay area when you throw that in you see the low income has a greater need i mean, you can't walk down the street and not see the need so i'd like to close strong i heard someone close strong everyone deserves a place to live that's how i will close everyone deserves a place to

live. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is mel flores i've the thirty years plus residents in the excelsior and the president of the improvement association though i'm speaking as an individual although i think many will be in agreement i'm here to a speaker in support of supervisor safai and mr. reid's proposal for workforce housing while i favor housing opportunity for all san franciscans obviously there are a lot of people that are supporting the low income folks and a lot of people advocating for the them i feel the middle has been overlooked and squeezed out of the city with the housing opportunities need to be created for the workforce families thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. flores. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,

commissioners i am here and making a question like how many propositioned you got a lot and propositioned prop c mandated when people vote it is a mandated 15 percent for low income in inclusionary housing i don't know how somehow two supervisors didn't get the prop c that that it will change the mandate on the people of voters in san francisco i don't understand how it will happen but i'm in support of supervisor breed and supervisor ahsha safai proposal not for the people and the working-class people in san francisco i'm helping the latino to apply for the opportunities and in the program we had seen

like for 17 unit 680 indiana more 2000 applications. >> what i see when i help the latino apply for the lottery people are in the range of 15 percent and a few go farther and a majority that don't get there why are we changing the percentages for the housing question want i to have respect the voters for prop c thank you thank you, mr. romero is there any additional public comment on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and open up to commissioner commen comments. >> commissioner fong well, i appreciate staffs support, board of supervisors are report and public comment

many truths spoken here also with that been many complications and twists and turns and misinterpretation of what is at stake interesting the proposals are not that far apart and obviously when you boil it down not that many units we're talking about it effects the whole inventory of san francisco for the amount of time we spend on it, it is important i'll continue and don't have to form on opinion at this time but hopefully those will come close it together and the board of supervisors will reach an agreement and less pitting one against another in san francisco. >> thanks can i ask a couple of questions

on the state density bonus? >> and also the overall percentages and i think that may be helpful for the next presentation to get kind of an apples to apples comparison obviously supervisor kim and supervisor peskin they show higher percentages but that assumes there's - that projects take the density bonus program i'll say that it is i think a bad assumption one i think that we haven't seen the state density bonus though it's been changed in the last year to allow it to be taken advantage by the developers one i don't think we've seen is overwhelmingly used and two we don't want to currently it especially in neighborhoods where we been aggressive on

setting height limit and density controls if we encourage the developers to take the density bonus program if in the case of supervisor kim and supervisor peskin's the only way to make their project feasible to take the density bonus program i think there are a lot of cases the density bonus program may be allowed will not be the preference of neighborhoods on this commission so i'd like to see these numbers - if you then assume that someone takes the density bonus program what do the percentages say in the rental large projects turnout are they they same how different are they from the supervisor safai, breed legislation. >> so that was essentially the summary they find the considerations they've laid out but the numbers that we have for

large project the 18 percent talking about 18 will onsite under the supervisor safai proposal that was the maximum from the controllers study take into account the bonus of 35 percent the equivalent of 35 onsite that is a correct comment that you have in the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin legislation the 24 percent is u equivalent of 18 percent in you bet the bulls. >> if you took the bonus you'll be at 24 percent but on the supervisor president london breed supervisor safai proposal 18 plus the state it will be roughly u haven't but less unit and that fee will build or finance the affordable housing. >> low income. >> and not at the moderate levels but the low income and that work outs for ownership good those rates tend to be the same and at the higher level.

>> yes. >> okay. >> and he ththat is important one is a give away i'll agree the highest feasible level the controller kind of allowed for was keeping those projects feasible and you'll agree that that that is the case. >> yes. >> with the exception the fee percentage set to be equivalent and the legislation from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin will be infeasible that higher rate you don't get a bonus but correct on the onsite numbers only but a little bit of a disconnect what fees is u equivalent let's have that fee what the bonus apply but not at the state level. >> we're only need to not get

into this on the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin if you took the full density bonus program you couldn't do moderate income it has to be lower technically that makes the project infeasible but there is overly complicated just the fee for the density bonus program unit is just a more eloquent solution to this is simpler and not an incentive to take the density bonus program i think in some places we should encourage the density bonus program it maybe appropriate a south of market and places but on mid market on 24th street or hayes valley or on van ness street it may not be appropriate i don't think we want to currently folks to take it but again, it maybe good but going back to it it if their roughly u equivalent to

the percentages the supervisor safai prevention has more hire more moderate income does that affect the burden on the developer because they're targeting more kind of 100 percent or 75 percent than the supervisor kim legislation. >> yeah. i mean that's a important question so important to look at what the controllers reports assume they came up with the income split on prop c 50 percent low income and 55 and 10 period of time moderate and kept that ratio no matter what the onsite percentages so that comes out to 73 ami i believe on the rental under prop c right now so you see the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin is city there on rental and the supervisor safai legislation going to percent on average so,

yes it would have an impact you know we have not run the numbers you but theoretically it would make that so the onsite numbers can go up. >> a little bit higher. >> reasonable they're not that far apart the reason we have that range the way the maximums there was a significant amount of discussion and not - had was consensus on the range but not where of the maximum because folks are different concepts we want to emphasis it is at the top of the range as it is and then on the issue of kind of i mean this obviously we obviously are hearing every week we're noting building enough affordable housing at all income levels to that me i don't view prop c as the sacred i think that prop c said is they're not

violating prop c prop c left it up to policymakers to you felt that to skew towards the low income or moderate income; is that correct? >> yes. that's exactly right the prop c called for the study the study called for the board of supervisors to take action to set the rates that's why we're here and the temporary rate at 25 percent one thing i go note in the presentation we abbreviated it alleged of the ramp, if you will, it is proposed by supervisor safai and commissioner london breed and supervisor tang it will be end at 25 onsite and 33 fee which are the monument many prop c right now so essentially that proposal is kind of marrying with the proposal from the controllers study to phase in but ultimately at the end at the prop c oh, okay. and. >> we should skew affordable

housing whether to inclusionary housing to lower income taxes so we're not producing that housing or that higher percentage of ami and fact of the matter we're not we're producing less of a percentage of need and we are for other income levels the question i agree with commenters we should increase the pie when the pie is increased we there the productions the same for example, the city passed a bond initiative those funds are used for the the low income housing and i think that is appropriate because those fund can be leveraged to build more low income housing than if we used them for you know for more moderate housing and this is a function of kind of the financing tools that the

city has available more affordable housing inclusionary is one of the few tools that get at that you know more middle-income level i have a question i don't know if this is for you where we showed kind of what we have in production or current advertent or the 340r8d income to are in inclusionary a big chunk in the mohcd program how is that built we're hearing non-financing tools where are the unit. >> we've heard from olsen lee and from housing earlier he pointed out that part of mohcd portfolio that is in moderate income a legacy of the redevelopment agency this is how those were appreciative achieved essentially inclusionary deals;

right? but not 90 under the 415 program so the redevelopment agency no longer exists we've heard earlier we used to be able to do that but section 415 is the only game in town for directing the unit at that income level but. >> we'll get it straight from the source. >>

- that will have 40 percent home ownership but not a lot of home ownership opportunities in terms of opportunities to serve moderate income in the group in the current pipeline as we know it today so the bulk of home

ownership and prior inclusionary unit. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. thank you, president and thanks to everyone that came out on both sides a lot of good discussion going on here i want to touch on the mayor's office of housing report very informative talking about family housing i was wondering if we can 30b8 take a closer look of who is occupying the family housing so we can get a pulse on what types of families are something to think about are they more single parents or married coupled parents how many children traditionally with living in here just to get aggregated information a great

report as far as the proposal a and d i've often throughout the middle-income and the working-class have been overlooked decades ago more people used to live in 2 to 3 and take the bus it was a sustainable economic back then over the course of the decades the tech and certain industries have come to the frrmentd we're not making as much bread or bottling coke so those jobs not only the businesses depended but the workers that worked those jobs are more likely to be displaced too so again, we need to produce more housing and a build more bmr and build more middle-income housing there is a

couple comments that are really recessed nationally with me phil ginsburg mentioned citibuild that is an important workforce development program here in san francisco is trying to doing the right thing and giving people careers to stay in a city their born and raised and once their completing the programs and assembled into this program with a good career their it is difficult to find a place to live and should be comparable to stay here to continue to contribute to san francisco and mike mentioned we're under building inspection the affordable housing but grossly underbuilding middle-income housing i think a couple of points that resonated with me and interested in hearing about

those. >> commissioner johnson so thank you to the staff and supervisor kim, supervisor president london breed, supervisor peskin and supervisor safai for making the time to come today great to meet all of them don't get to see too much of them that's why we're glad that he made the time thank you for the staff for a great can say report to clarify the proposal like other hearings over the years this has a lot of thavkz and two proposals that like everyone said not that far apart that would be helpful to have that table to compare so a number of people i guess want to hear us ask questions and make comments to add to the discussion i'll try to do that today and we'll i have a lot of

things before us and sparked by public comment i'll try to keep it not too much disjointed so i'll start with the last year in the table and some of the discussions we talked about you know what is the average i mean, like the average ami of fundamental work out for a project under different scenarios and caution us relying on that sort of language too much because for any give me individual or families ami has 3 data points income levels over and over other income levels like my salary is not an average a dollars figure so i think we

need to be sure that we're making sure we understand who it is that projects are serving recalled of what they're adding up to so caution about stepping right away away from the ami so i think that is one thing how we are describing the proposals so you'll jump into a few different things the first one top level some people are referenced specific projects that were able to grade their affordability one during the process; right? and we've talked about a few of them today and in days past i want people to understand there is a larger set of stakeholders not always in the room that we're talking about when we have

project sponsors and developers that are working with the performas to create affordable housing whether middle-income or low income only a few levers they're working with how much does the land cost and labor and building construction and the cost of financing this is what we're working with here and i don't know how much we're going to be able to do that but people in the forgot some of the stakeholder that control the levers that own the los angeles police department that is purchased by the vendors and in control of capital and the financing that is supporting those projects those stakeholders doesn't always have an incentive to budge or compromise when we talking about the performas and making the project feasible you know or know there is a set of stakeholders we're not speaking to and don't have a dog in this fight so a bigger picture than

just talking about the developers and can and cannot do so that's a little bit of soapbox for you guys moving on commissioner president hillis sort of i think you kind of said in the discussions about the state density bonus and how it interacts without get into the weeds i don't think that is not get into the weeds it is important the state density bonus law as i understand it does require that projects provide the affordable units to holder with 55 percent ami or below so internally inconsistent to have a proposal that states that a project needs to take the state density bonus to pencil out but if can't provide moderate income housing if it does if it takes the full buns

with 3 concessions that's angle internal inconsistent i don't feel it is in the weeds but needs to be resolved if i'm wrong here i'd like staff to come up here or the board of supervisors when they're supporting this to clarify that but as a current understanding in the case report from all the literature you've talked about over months with the state density bonus and how that works to me those to things doesn't make sense but require the projects takes the state density bonus in order to pencil out. >> commissioner because you asked what you described does need to as a presentation and information that you have but there is a nuance the state density bonus law actually allows for additional buns based on a range of affordability you asking can get a buns for other

things but for only one income category in our offering two categories you have to pick one in order to get the bugs our local program allows for all but the state law is not. >> the state law for the zoning maps if you're picking one income educator i'll back up is it all-or-nothing can you get one floor the density bonus program i think that is kind of where my understanding of it is heading. >> the next thing if they have to pick affordability levels they'll pick the lower affordability level they'll get a bigger bonus and the middle-income unit will be provided are not achieving any

bonus the way the supervisor kim supervisor peskin proposal is written don't have to go to the low and middle put all of your affordable units on the low income but likely from the developer is trying to achieve affordability but using that they'll slide the unit down to the lower income and that will maximize the state density bonus. >> i'm sorry we'll go back to this let's say supervisor kim supervisor peskin says you can have here we go 15 percent low income and 9 percent lowered and 24 percent total in order for that to work you're building a rental project take the stewardships get the couple of extra floors for that to

work. >> if you calculate your bonus based only on the 15 percent of low income for the 50 percent ami you get a partial bonus. >> would get a partial bonus but as we've heard in order to reach a feasible project you need to achieve the maximum bonus you might not choose to do a bonus if our numbers are accurate. >> we're saying the same thing a projecting is a project if you're building your performa this proposal says you need the full density bonus program for 2 or 4 or whatever for the full bonus you need it to get it full bonus and you'll not get that if you provide 15 unit and others

for a percentage of ownership so i stand by my comment that is extraordinarily inconsistent and needs to be worked out at the board level philanthropically i only have a few more things i agree with the idea of making projects have some sort of bonus to you go up in the air to create the density in other words, to accommodate everyone we can't you know slice us the piece in terms of the envelope of zoning so many ways we can slice that pie we have to find more pie go up-or-out he be more dense and density bonus program are a woo to do that i believe

the best way to have our own density program that reflected the value of san francisco and in the neighborhood whether or not that is the density bonus program last year or home sf support by supervisor katie tang or supervisor tang whether that ends up a version of the local density bonus program i think the philosophy of having them illustrates a density bonus program to pencil out throb will end up getting us more units and not takeaway take away from peter to pay paul i question i question if it gets us there it does not mange to me but hopefully workout at the board so that was sort of my big thing

and have a couple of other things that is important so one thing is this is a little bit of a smaller one we have inclusionary requirement for ownership i think is good i've talked up here before about sort of at least my personal thoughts on the homeownership opportunity for inclusionary and affordable housing but i really think that there's no discussion of the full freight of inclusionary ownership and i hope that there can be some sort of analysis or commentary 0 on those costs of hoas we've seen this in the downtown and the southeast we have inclusionary onsite inclusionary we applaud and then

as the building is being worked out finished the projects are finished out oh, wait the hoa is getting more than the subsidized mortgage and in some cases we have to go back and allow the developers to pay in lui fees to create that housing as we're playing with the inclusionary percentages i hope we're talking about the freight for the inclusionary ownership opportunities one of the main reasons why i am really a propensity of matching up inclusionary with stewardships to create more units seems like more housing is because i do think we need to continue to make the plug for market-rate housing staff showed a chart of households that we're losing i don't know why nobody showed do uptick in the light blue

household macro 40 percent of ami and above that bar was up and the folks focused on the others percentages. >> so when i have the rent for the one and 40 percent ami based on the 2016 not the 2017 it should be updated the market in most neighborhood is well north of that you end up having moderate and structurally foreperson and professional reasons and leaving we saw the uptick of blue bars i don't know why people don't think that is the problem i don't think we need to increase the ami percentages for important affordable housing or some public sources but we definitely need to be thinking about creating more unit and not

lump market-rate into luxury it is not a luxury if our struggling month to month that makes no sense i like i think those are some of the big thoughts that i have i do have some thoughts about the bedroom requirements and the fact i apologize i'll ask staff one more question and turn over the apac the bedroom requirement both proposals change the requirement citywide between having two and three bedrooms unit and we're proposing a unit mix citywide i apologize again staff can we all talk about what those bedroom requirements do for affordability you know, i know the controllers report if focus on the type of units but

has they've been any analysis or staff have thoughts how that three bedroom requirements will affect the affordability of unit. >> we have not run the numbers that is something we can try to bring back for april 6th in general information from the mayor's office of housing and even maim households that have qualified for the three bedrooms bmr have qualified for the two bedrooms it is cheaper and the same logic for the howard street market-rate housing as well that's correct the controllers didn't look at the issue my understanding that the prototype the consultant study included the bedroom mix we have here in the planned area so basically 35 percent two bedrooms and 5 percent three bedrooms so we have the one proposal if

supervisor safai and commissioner london breed and supervisor katie tang that creates 25 percent bedrooms or that or the? we have not studied with the proposal a we have 40 percent two bedrooms that is from the controllers and 20 percent three bedrooms that will go above and beyond you know essentially change the number for the controllers we'll have to look at what impact that will be for the development economics so generally our understanding yeah, we'll double up and go into a smaller unit we've heard that testimony today, we want to look at what the smartest family-friendly package in addition at unit sizes. >> one last thing i'll say in commentary i personally support having the bedroom count mix whether the percentages are right across the two proposals

of two verses 3 and two and three or two or three when percentages required i think there can be work done but i like the citywide requirement it has short time perks for new development and large units are more expensive the unit in the future a future version of rendering and someone have a two bedroom we agreed to have that count today you that's what i look at the future and finally last question i apologize. i promise the last one we have this discussion when we talked about a couple of state density bonus or at least one we have the diversities between the base project what bonus and the actual project you go in and do the layout of what you're

providing and in some cases, you, have a difference your base project says the minimum requirement or liveable unit in terms of bedroom sizes and all those things that would be helpful in not having to set ourselves up to have legislation to fix things we're dmaeft between a base project and the final project looks like when we are talking about the affordable housing housing fees i think i was going to ask mr. lee to comment on this i guess i still will i gather that supervisor peskin supervisor kim proposal produces really complicated method of calculating the housing fee i'm not sure that planning staff or mohcd will be able to sort of

accurately do on a continental basis if you can comment on that and then i'll continue. >> olsen lee director if a the mayor's office of housing we've complicated it by having the tiers that complicates it in terms of how you would implement the program in terms of the pricing of the unit and the regulation and the developer and margaret of overseeing unit to help people to fall within the budgets the complication about the supervisor peskin supervisor kim legislation is that the fees are different based on the construction and - excuse-me. so >> so sorry i didn't want to

make you talk. >> the circulation is the feeds are calculated based on the construction type and calculate the fee based on the cost of construction for that particular construction does and have to utilities those fees or construction of the same construction type whereas in the current program the feeds flow into the affordable housing and fund the projects where they maybe in a neighborhood fund a wood frame over other building or find an 85 point building we don't often find the high-rise building; right? that's the circulation of you know of things that can be resolved through the

modifications of the legislation in the future there is - what i've tried to avoid is low money for specific very, very specific - whether construction types of or small geographic areas so having you know money for new construction of a high-rise building means i'll have to save of money up to the point i can fully finance a high-rise building how long will it take me to garter the fees for this purpose i mean, i would have to go obviously buy the appropriate site it reduces the responsibility and increases the complication of you know doing the calculation and the identifying and looking at the buckets and it is different how

the current program is run in terms of the fees and how i used the fees to finance the affordable housing. >> thank you mr. lee sorry to make you talk. >> i was going somewhere else to calculate the fees and mix with the density bonus program but you bring up an excellent point we definitely need to maintain the flexibility you know there are a type of funding of the pipeline and anything that complicate that is not good for the city thanks very much. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards i feel i'll come back to the density bonus program hearing just the oz things are concurring concurring concurring and interesting enough the proposals that to the the confirmation study the end point but different ways of getting interest that's why we're close but far apart

each one has points i like and don't like the recommendation we think a cafe is good we can do this and that and this is like for short-term rentals with that said, some of the questions those are rhetorical the first two and get into bigger questions with time points but what kind of a city do we want to have this is what that is trying to answer we go about it in different ways and two where is the sweet spot which one gets the sweet spot what we're trying to do through polly think the next thing i asked which we have the briefly of for the executive committee i'd like to see those ab over time 3 or 5 or 7 or 10

years what will they look like the production and i challenge staff the mayor's office of economic workforce development and laura clashgs mentions this with all of this we're not looking at the bigger picture one the status was the 40 thousand units entitle but not built we have there treasure island and elizabeth how many units are we entitle and the bmr unit held housing shortage hostage you add up the totaled existing units in the city someone mentioned the housing production and the housing balance and talked about illegal eviction and increases and decreases in the population that is a big model if you do that in 3 or 5 or seven years you get a

picture of how it fits into that that is a mind-blowing exercise what do you want the city to look like we want to point to this one a, b, c, or d the interesting thing - the other one a dropped housing linkage be informational that is in the mix so here we are creating jobs at the same rate for the past 15 or 20 years it is something you need to consider when i say and don't say this lighting that is part of a large solution we need more we need this to be part of something bigger i do worry - on the modeling what strikes me this discussions of is it low or moderate boom, boom, boom this one or that one the director's report has one and ti percent production over the above moderate we're on the

okay job arena on the mooefrts but moderate and low 13 point low moderate and 15.8 below not that good 23 percent if you add treasure island that is 19 we're still got two people fighting over 4 or 5 hundred unit to be products it is crazy we're arguing over that we need to get those both way, way out and how will we do that and we're relying on the developers to do the job we know that and we have 4 hundred units in the mix 14 hundred thousand it is 5 percent i'm a little bit tired not much i do the state density bonus is like the bad employee i have to keep on changing people's jobs because they'll perform better

the state density bonus needs to change i'm sorry it is from 1979 clearly the world passed away and some communities have it we clearly have but all the things about how to get around that bad employee that don't want to do their job we're trying to make it to neutralize it right so my criteria which one are gets the most coverage and the highest rate which one gets the most value captured what is the easiest to implement and the unintended consequences we talked about and the close to public policy and now i had a question mark prop c will prop c said it will change prop e and u

didn't win but - i think from a most coverage and discrepancy i have a question so many things back and forth the averaging i'm having a hard time getting can anyone explain that we have to make a certain amount don't armenian have a bigger if i'm in the lottery and have 606060 does that leave room for 40. >> i did not mean to have you speak. >> i'll try to speak if i can't i have staff that will fill in so i think the question about you throw out the number 60 what we have done in the past is to have the income limited and the

maximum but maximum income and a maximum rent at the same level and basically people who are below that level didn't you know or probably had a harder time qualifying for those units and people that are one dollar over so i think one of the goals of the changes in the inclusionary program to set the 3 tiers again more circulations of proposals have tiers but to look at the questions of averages so you allow someone to be a little bit over arrest under the average and qualify for that unit we don't have the hard income cap thirty or 60 percent maybe a little bit over or under and part of that goes to the whole

question of implementation so that you don't house somebody to dream that thirty or 60 percent only rent to people that are at thirty or 60 area medium income and 59 area medium income that you allow to go lower based on the and what we'll encourage up to 50 percent of their income goss towards the rent so in this case potentially we're looking at someone in the so 50 to 45 percent rank being able to afford that lower in addition to someone above that obviously we have to establish some sort of minimum contribution to the rent. >> go ahead sorry. >> that -- excuse me.

that would avoid the cliffs for the household you know regardless you know it is a - sort of mechanism to implement regardless of which proposals he choose we hear the stories of how individuals who are you know not dollar $500 over and not constitutionally different than the people in qualifying for 5 hundred and one dollars less right. >> i like the flexibility the thing that scares me someone that will be paying 50 percent of income to have a roof over their head because something will pop up a car or medical experience boom they're out.

>> we committed strildz to think about i'm doing the cough drop to water what we asked do developers to look at the payment what payment history as one the forefront things that he look at if they're paying they don't obviously most developers love to have people paying the lowest percentages of their income retried very, very hard to see who the program serves and push the community to look at rent payment history and paying 50 percent of their income towards rent but consistent for the past 5 years at a higher rent who is

to say that again they'll not be able to make it we push the development community on those issues and that's what we do throughout our marking plan and this whole notion of an average rent you know has the flexibility with it will be implemented through the procedures manual this commission will see in the future. >> great thanks. >> i'm very uncomfortable with the requirement for that forces the state density bonus to be taken on my development period the reason we've sat there this the neighbors came in with pinch forecloses and they'll rather have a - i don't think people it is weird to hear people in those h bp saying we don't want

one we're and this hearing we're requiring it it makes my head spin i want the neighbors to understand what that looks like it will impact the neighborhood character and the affect on all the neighbors behind it and all that stuff we not through with the h pb and allow them to buy out but make sure there is some type of when the development happens so that will be online requiring it to be on a base project it is the higher fee just i don't know i'd like to have more flexibility not as flexibility e flexible the other question i have the density bonus program there was a law that mad it as of right around no review process no, i thought they strengthened there was like

no review you got it. >> locally or the state level. >> state. >> at the state level the governor proposed that but you know didn't happen last year there were pending bills this year. >> do very a development on 24th street to say hey you want to take the density bonus program but i'm looking at our base project we have the ability to say to the developer we don't want the base project undercover officer therefore density bonus program we don't want to give you the shorter building we'll pay a smaller fee and kate connor the base project no flexibility or discretion as far as you like it or guidelines to have people code compliant.

>> there are competitions and you things like that. >> so especially for bigger projects harder to achieve. >> it starbucks the base and the bonus can take advantage of the waiver. >> thank you. >> a couple of more things this issue about commissioner johnson talked about skyscrapers you know somebody said rh-1 zoning is consideration segregation i think the skyscrapers will be that wave of the future you know we want to put affluent people in the skyscrapers and people can be pay the homeowner association dues and rich people living in the skyscraper i had a question i forgot it sorry. >> i have a couple of more here i'm weirded out on the

initiative for 33 percent fee over the 27 onsite i get the gap should be closed - i'm also a little bit concerned with to things on proposal b the smaller projects are the gift away to developers we had someone saying the cost of land and higher margin yet we're going to go back for a higher level of ami having a higher i saw shawn get up and absolved himself okay. that's how you wanted to be treated like everything else the large project gets closer to prop c a delta within ab on page

33 it seems like why is there a difference i want to - see the average served of 75 percent on prop b or 80 percent i don't know what is that supposed to get them to - get them to change behavior or we are trying to achieve with the higher walk away values on prop b and large project for prop a where prop c landed at the end of time it will meet the prop c? >> yeah. with the proposed annual scheduled increases proposal b is cutting 25 percent onsite for condo and 25 percent is prop c. >> will serve on the ami.

>> the average was 73 percent total for a like a. >> the supervisor kim, supervisor peskin proposal. >> and tow percent on the b. >> the ownership was further apart. >> is there a public policy seems like to again, we're trying to get moderate income so we're talking about the different confirmations for the ownership the ownership has the higher ami. >> just the yield to the developer that's what i'm questioning there's a big difference over one or the other so maybe narrow the gap. >> i'm almost done. >> on page 36 proposal b natural to conduct the affordable units that is the supervisor safai are mayor

proposal with or without tax credits. >> we have people think this is cheaper they leverage the ability to get tax credits so proposal b the net of tax credits it is okay on construction type 1 for proposal a with the thirty different things and construction types if i'm going to buy a secret in a high-rise on the 36 floor with a great view or 6 floor on a wood building my yield is higher on the high-rise is there a modeling why it would be a good way to go. >> why the square footage fee would be better. >> the construction. >> not the construction but tracking the consideration that emerges when you set the fee of a three bedrooms it can be whatever 4 hundred whatever but

charging for the square footage is directly prosperal. >> that's proposal b i like that and open a how does that work. >> we heard. >> it is complicated it is important to. >> 55 feet 80 feet one plus feet. >> those are for the mayor's office to build those. >> notify build i'm building on a high-rise i pay a different set of fees. >> exactly the way it is written you would assess the fee on a per unit basis and look at the or 85 above. >> we have to have pools of money. >> we can commit that money. >> this goes against the ability to building market-rate.

>> the policy and the community context he highlighted it for points so people can not come with knives and pitch forecloses and the state density bonus proposal a for the property owner to achieve was from that is commissioner johnson mentioned has to be fixed or otherwise shoot yourselves in a foot some made a comment who found that data point that says that's the case. >> we are doing a lot of work to understand the housing stock that was provided to the boards on tuesday and actually have the slide from that report here is our best guess from the acs data. >> that's okay that's okay it is coming from and 50 percent

of three bedrooms families and 50 percent didn't and 40 percent hat families. >> that is amazing we are creating housing for families and two or three families is for the majority. >> remember that figure as we see that figure handed to us thank you a lot of work can't wait for the hearing some good things and bad things i've proposed. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you it is late and i think we're all tired and hunger i'm not going to residency somethe commissioners made i will just is that you know philanthropical we're dealing with a tool state density bonus but that's what we have and folks are going to be in terms of density what

we all own it should be for folks at the lower income spectrum i see a good idea in both proposals we have to work out things and i'll say that having worked at the regular tar of ththis i'm weary of making things complicated you have unintended consequences that are at the extension of the low income people and that is in terms of requirements you know for verification of income and sometimes all the ideas sound good but operational wise things get funky i'm looking forward to the

discourse in having both proposals and hopefully get to something better with that said, i have to say and i've said this before i don't think that being worked out more housing the only tool we have i want to stop preventing this is the universe of schools that will solve the housing crisis it will not and in fact, when you go higher on the income prejudice more choices in terms of how to get to that gap anything from providing capital for 0 construction i believe that the accelerator will provide us with more tools and more ways to incentivize housing especially for people because i don't think that the restricted bmr housing is a

restricted tool people have a little bit higher income have more choices including outside of san francisco and not just the equity that are strings attached foe in turn of assets when you passed away and want to leave our real estate to our kids there are restrictions who you get a mortgage from and what kind of families have that and how many bedrooms i think that if we're going to be serious about middle-income housing i am very proponent of middle-income housing we should stop open this is the only tool and perhaps you know work on other tools and that are outside of inclusionary housing and you know use the tool we have for the folks that is most appropriate for and you know that need that the most so thank

you. >> thanks commissioner moore. >> thank you to all commissioners for the discussions having sat here a long time the focus over the last 10 years has on, on affordability and low income ami that was the largest things we've done and while i strongly building that middle-income has moved to the bracket of consideration for housing in a major way protecting apparent just in the last 2 years and notably only after we took on prop c that was primarily to support low income housing in the more acceptable way in a nexus study that guided us to where we are toy the introduction of

inclusionary housing is necessary and desirable, however, for the time being worked out makes pie in front of us significantly smaller the reason i'm saying that is that the two proposals police car the supervisor kim supervisor peskin proposal grows out of the struggle of last 10 years and via supervisor kim fighting toothed and nail if projects which myself speaking as one who's been here the longtime and seeing what it took for affordability with and not hidden attempt for developers to increase the density and became a discussion that basically you'll get more and more aa simple formula and take 5 m and one 60 folsom by

which that scale was fight project by project and that commission supported it didn't create the results but all the strong acknowledgement of affordable housing on much of it further lefrngd to the successful full hands of those go to a narrative around doing that that is represented across the united states the one big question i don't understand it and none has told me what prop b supervisor breed and supervisor safai shifting the increasing the income articulate that is the one thing i did

not understand by doing so actually there is a subtle i assume shallowness to bring bmr on the market what do you mean what is the money in that move going in a way i have to sense then we're getting less on that particular end of the spectrum that has been the most important part of how this discussion this is to say low income housing is for me the most important thing to abld there is a balance struck in the supervisor kim supervisor peskin legislation i do like the range of to 80 with an average at 55 i'm concerned when that particular

focus is shifted upward to a single number a number that is a large number of uncertainty i hope the parties we are only making comments today they'll come closer in the end we're responsible to what i believe are the position of c which is all ever us the problem is not smaller but large and it is not an action the market will is passed the site to realize any of incomes thank you. >> one more question really on fees i apologize on the if you're paying the fee in lui fee and we've had to debate we're trying to encourage onsite in lui fees we can't necessarily dictate one or the other but set the fee for an

envelope for onsite in lui fee without going on into the details dot proposals do that set the levels that kind of encourage onsite? >> we had both proposals in terms of financial incentives the equivalent impact the 50/50 and in the case of ownership units under supervisor kim and supervisor peskin proposal a slight vantage to paying the fees for the condo units for providing onsite based on the ordinance. >> for me i'd like to see that fee set at a level in trying to encourage onsite i think that is a policy but told we can't say make that requirement and then when the city does get the fee is the use of that fee split

smith and wesson moderate income and low income how is that fee used. >> it split in the percentages. >> paramount fees for the units at the 55 percent. >> okay. >> that's why i think this - i don't mind skewing the inclusionary housing to do more moderate obviously we need both but there are not the tools commissioner melgar said find the tools a pile of cash land in our agency we'll want to skuskew it you get more bang for your buck but here if you set the rates at the right amount as is burden on the developer we can do

this. >> excuse me - >> it is really you know for households at 60 percent and below as i said in the opening presentation there are other source of bonds that are trying to take into account that level of affordability and so our money gets leveraged you know 2, 3, 4 in the case of rental system in the program leveraged 20 times not one city dollars that's great but the level nia fee no leverage on the funds so that's a question of putting the burden on the developers so you know to basically subsidies something that is more difficult to us no denying that. >> how about we talked about multiple perplex. >> if it is a small program

and the affordability range like the range this is proposed now it has an average ever 80 percent of area medium income and the program is applying to the existing rent-controlled units for the people in those units today if they vacate with the rents and affordability levels the average gets to that is a building it is sustainable over time we've had you know we had the the half press conference we had a woman that lived in that unit for 20 something years less than 40 percent of area medium income and stayed there we're able to do this mix of incomes so balance but the economics of that building and that range is very, very similar to the ranges people are proposing here we even have

market-rate for the individuals that is who's in there who is there and basically, we don't want to displace anybody even is a market-rate person but utilities to represent to balance out the knowledge to sustain the rents that are available for the lowest individuals that is the one program you know the one program we have been able to use the cross between the market-rate to balance out the operations of that and with the capital we're doing that it is just not us and the sustainable first mortgage and xhertsdz to middle-income housing it is sustainable for small projects. >> thank you seeing no other comments thanks to the folks that was enlightening and thanks to the

staff policy this information and it is extremely complicated and the supervisors commissioner fong said things seem to be close every body got the right intention so thank you very much we'll take a break about

good evening and welcome to the san francisco planning commission i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record.

commissioners, we left off thank you. and informational presentation claudia planning department staff today an office to conversion within the latter cords or c-3 last november the planning commission held had had project on 22 stewart street the project requested a conditional use authorization to convert approximately 12 in house square feet at the third floor into office space after deliberation the dimension continued and to work the mayor's office of economic workforce development to return with an informational presentation to help guide the review o of those conversions plaques i'm joined by the

mayor's office of economic workforce development will walk you through through the findings of their research. >> good evening hello commissioners i'm lisa direction of policy and planning at the office of economic workforce development and thank you for including oewd no retail to officer commissioners within is union square that claudia go references on the past decade oewd i've been the liaison to the hospitality district for the department and ♪ capacity worked or worked an visitor and hospitality inches and many public realm and property owners and shareholders including i worked on the

important expansion of the union square business improvement district from 10 to 27 blocks in 2008, this is my colleague will join in the presentation and share the presentation with me he's a policy analytical in the department and led the analysis we're going to present to you today and also be able to stay longer than i might, i have to after the presentation catch a flight he did did analysis for the department if you have any with that - so union square amazing world-class retail beloved by all of us has incredibly walking and shopping and dining it is very assessable by transit and an amazing hospitality district one of a

small how often of urban shopping district in the country and it is a very oh, excuse me - a very sponsor part of our economy union square generates 37 percent of san francisco gentle consumers goods tax and all the sales taxes dollars extremely important this is the area our focus was on our study focused on the union square zones c-3 r and over the past month we analyzed data sources and information from studies articles the planning code and interviews with experts and stakeholders you are study area is locked on the map it is within the union square downtown area in parts of chinatown and

yerba buena the boundaries as you can see with on the north side and east side and south of market and west street and powell and we'll review the findings with you and provide you where a background information on the union square c-2 r zoning and about national retail and local retail trends local markets trends and review the role of what we're calling retail complimentary resources and provide information so the downtown area plan was passed in 1985 a series of zoning district what was union square what received the c-3 r distinction and per the planning code it is a regional center for shoppers realtime and direct

services within the district continuity of retail and consumer services is enthused with the pedestrian amenities the district zoning emphasize preserving union square retail sales over office space and the cu is required a cu for blow ground for non-retail services on retail and now i'll get into the continuance it trends it is growing at a faster point than brick-and-mortar amazon the number two, apparel retailer in the country and openly online is consumers having online other peoples money for the same produced through the technology the department stores and large format are cross-out do if

competition nationally and locally retailers are able to survive now and pro per under the climate including a smaller inform footprint and smaller that floor blatancy for the convenience of their customers and convenience to shop on 12 levels with a consumer experience with fair share better and now this in storing online hybrid in retail and increasing they serve as a portal to the selection found online and if you don't find 0 something within the brick-and-mortar the marrow can order to hurry house this is the direction it is heading other pressures nation wide also include easy assess for customers now a disease to many

options in regional retail malls or outlet about couldn't offerings lots of choices for the customers the other pressure we considered and looked at it was you know the strengthen dollar what impact the designates like union square which rely an international tourist to con assume to purchase retail goods and from the dollar strong they'll have less consideration fund to buy goods what their traveling to san francisco for example, >> so my colleague bryan will present the next slide that goes into the detail about the data we analyzed. >> good evening, commissioners this is my first time in front

of of the planning commission an honor to be here per so as the slides show union square is a special place in san francisco you'll expect it to equip with properties are special when we see here is union square is will retail historically sfeetd e and we did encounters and over the last two years the retail rents in union square out pace their citywide enclosure parts a couple of things happening less activity and volume available in some cases we'll talk about advantage but the average size on the combination bargraphy on your right will show you that while the rates are up and lease rates are up the footprint is

low in many ways lower people have paying anymore to get less they'll leveraging all the technologies that was mentions to maximize what has been there let me go ahead forward vacant is low in the region overall but if you look at the trends recently, there is a little bit of concern brewing in our discussions would be stakeholders across the city we are hearing some of the same stories and we'll share those but union square vacancies were two percent that is microscopic in 2014 they've committed to 9

percent that is slow important a nation wide vacancy number but stop and ask why this trend is growing and the consensus when we speaking with shareholders a pressure on the local retail market it is harder to say harder to do business as their businesses are configured in large misrepresent retail and some pressure there in fact, in 2013, the budget analyst calm with in conjunction are oewd and found factors that effect vacancies and just wanted to put those out for consideration normal turnover

and disability assess and failing for building owners to market their vacancies and also some change from family type of owners to institutional buyers that purchase those retail properties at high prices and one can remarkably infer they'll resist lowering their lease rates they're going to not bum in the short time after they've paid the dollars and more properties in the c-3 r that fit that profile and a couple of other factors this report will be refreshed in the future we'll see when that happens i think one of the takeaways that is for the final citywide retail remains amongst the lowest vacancy rates in the

country this has new york and chicago and la and moses and the numbers from san francisco are just consistently beating all those parts this is really something to show there is still a confidence in the market that even some other markets that are hyper hot like los angeles not as hot so - one the ways we in our study measured the success of the retail financed in the yard we look at want sales tax data as mentioned one to 3 sales tax comes from union square one in 6 delores overall in sales tax receipts comes from union square you know that small footprint is

generates a lot and that share has diminished a little bit over time but really not diminished much the last few year the data shakespeare accounted for 6.6 percent of receipts a slight dip but still pretty strong the up shot while it grows not growing as fast as the city as a whole is growing the city's sales tax is growing at a robust rate since 2010 since the one of the someone of the things of the recession the consumer goods are 4.2 hers and he chavez yard is

3.9 is good indexes r indexed begins the rest of the country but notable one the economic immunes of city is somehow a little bit slower than the city morality on line outside of union square there is a very it is walkable within the area and allocate thing not discount the construction on the subway that come mentioned and not finished until 2019 has effects shifting that are not robust and open at the moment it is reasonable to infer the storefront will not be open for a little bit while with that said i think that the short term and long term

definition distinction so pressure it is after considering the data in whole i think that really needs to be reinforced at the fundamental strength of the san francisco retail economy are strong and as strong as anywhere and with the regional and international designation for shopping, restaurant, hospitality and i think that some of the options that we've presented in our memo and lisa will take over to keep that going in the future. >> so this slide talks about what we looked at we looked at the business opening and closing

data and we're going looking at you know what are some of the retail district environmenty uses that might be compatible with above ground floor one thing we believe that it is possible for a district to maintain an eco system of environmenty a variety of use that support and reinforce union square as a retail center and we say complimentary business types those are uphold the downtown area plan for the first and foremost to provide consumer services with encouragement of pedestrian interest and amenities and these types of uses include the retail sales but include you know jewelry repair, production,

public serving, permanent are administrative and entertainment and art addressed restaurant and hotels amongst another uses not just traditional retail that helps the district bring in people to do errands and do office space shopping other floors are challenging for retail it is difficult to get a consumer to make a multi floor the ground floor generates a type of pedestrian volume the next highest is the second floor or the lower level and stores want fewer floor plates for the convenience of their shoppers that is easier to shop at the two or three levels we understand the concerns of the traditional large floor plate

retailers third floor is commend a lower lease rate because they don't have the same assess with that said, the compatible uses including public services that don't need a ground floor that is traditional to university floors many of the uses can't support the traditional office rents many of those firms can join to occupy a large space by sharing floors or splitting a floor plate into two or more for retailers if there were space available to move into the union square the retail complimentary firms has doubled from seven hundred and 78, 15.4 have closed during the

same period this is interest in businesses of those types opening we believe that the spirit of downtown area is the upper level capable level in a c-2 r with the smaller retailers and fabrication and public special and administration services art and entertainment and restaurant hospitality uses and still relevant and alive could i vacancies in the c-3 r should be prevented their problematic for attracting the consumers and others retailers to the retail district when they are clustered within a single block and sitting entry for expended periods of time is problematic for the retail district as a whole so we're very cognizant of the

concerns of property owners not who want their properties to be vacant not only for financial reasons but not good for the district the reason can vary they're often out of the property owners. >> am i out of time. >> that's okay. go ahead and the projects to convert retail sales and services to non-public serving office use and the following recommendations so the first recommendation is compatibility with the planning code and downtown area plan the second recommendation considering the building location itself footprint the floor plate ate the current uses including do number of levels

and square footage of levels to be retained alternative used for the blow ground floor level and looting the services we've talked about earlier since of the business and the use in the union square retail mix and the proposed use on neighboring zoning district as explained that integrity goes to the adjacent neighborhood so you know the folks in the adjacent neighborhoods are concerned about what is going on and how it effects them we also recommend that one look at the local real estate and retail interferences we've tried to explain has pressure it is real but the ground is not falling out of the san francisco we have a thriving union square and so, yes it is not doing as

well as two years but compared to national you know similar districts it is still doing well so i think we need to put into context for the concern with the market reality we need to look at vacancy rates and clustering if there are multiple vacancies in a block that creates a feeling there is a problem with the block and then defers people move on in and the construction like entry and other public infrastructure go projects you know what kind of impacts with happening the good thing to bring more visitors to the district we this we need an uptick once in terms

of sales knew in the meantime, i'm sensitive to the challenges the small businesses have been facing during the construction process and we've met with them in many, many times i understand the concerns the other recommendation we have is to look at the national retail dynamics like consumer preferences and policy on data as much as possible and with that, we're here or brannan is here to answer technical questions as claudine and i'm sure public comment. >> okay. thank you lisa and bryan as mentioned reviewing an application for non-retail and service it is the planning code requires the commission to find the proposed use not dethat's a great question as an area. comparison shopping and retailers at the hearing in november the department proposed

policy for which will jefferson maintain at the third floor and below while the department recognizes a bright line like the planning code provides guidance - the department building the protection by the downtown area plan continues to be relevant in today's economy recommends other conversion applications on a case by case basis the planning department staff will welcome guidance from the commission in order to enhance and act in consistency to the review of the fort coming applications thank you and i'm here for questions >> thank you open this up to public comment two speaker cards tom and claude sorry if i screwed up your name. >> good evening, commissioners i'm tom of reuben, junius & rose

as you recall it 22 stewart's u sutter thank you to address the commission. >> thank you to the commission and city staffing staff and oewd staff to your careful consideration and the example hard work for this decision today we will feel the oewd report race thoroughly researched and carefully analyzed as you recall in connection with our cu application we submitted a market study considering today is economy at union square that oewd report comes to the same conclusions the retail economy is changing to driving fundamental changes in the real estate needs retailer no longer need or want large multiple

floor spaces never mind to keep union square a world-class designation city zoning district and policies need to rehabilitate those in realtime needs one of the facility issues discussed in the oewd report and brought that up there's this idea of complimentary business types in the upper market floors as the report states to solve the problem of stranded upper floors those uses are listed in table 3 of the report and among them is graphic design and architectural firms we appreciate a discussion by the commission about had this aspect of the report and ideally have you show how you view those in instances that would be

helpful at it 222 sutter. >> thank you for conducting hearing i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you one more speaker. >> i don't think i know claude he had to leave he is the representative from the union square bid. >> thank you they'll submit a short letter and that would be great please mention that to him. >> good evening, commissioners thank you for staff for scheduling this item and oewd for a thoughtful report a couple of antidotes before i'll take the points of letter i have too young children was walking down polk street and getting out of the house and letting my wife have time alone towards union square and into one of my old fascists talked to

a gentleman there had h a shirt he was visiting the city from walnut creek one of the things i love about this northeast part of city institutions like this and you know we've lost a lot of places but we'll not lose lefties and fast forward a couple of months and lefty is gone gold dust lounge gone the issue becomes one of greed and one of when institutional real estate investment trusts buy corporate properties in san francisco at the simply say well, we can't rent it to a formula retail we can't rent to a super high passerby tenant so

the retail is dead amazon as taken over we must have office that mite my friends is not the reality the reality is this year my wife and i celebrate 5 years she was shopping for they are wedding be dress went to a so-called strarnd floors to it an independent minority owned wedding gotten retail that can afford to be in union square because they had one of the businesses and she shopped for a wedding dress i don't remember if she bought it there when my sister in law we can figure out as scott mentioned building a billions of of infrastructure

project you think that is probably going to cause a disruption the world is not failing office developers have plenty of room in the financial district we granted bayview hunters point an open up for public comment from prop m have plenty of room i'm happy to show vacant spaces on van ness we have let's not throw out world class scale designation to satisfy corporate greed of international are corporate investors thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> sue hester it is fun going over moe he agree with him so much my

pursued examples in the - that reflect my experience i have had my office in the cpr on 345sh9 since 1980 i've gotten my hair cut and when you walk out of elevator those kinds of uses acquit in the upper floors my building a flood building used be the consul general every consulate was in my building and gradually moved out and passports and clothing alterations we have offices like mine but we have everything under the sun and flood building is not that unusual i went through 5 years on the downtown area plan started by the guiding downtown development

and he at the end we had rezoned the entire area south of market if industrial south of market street was industrial until the downtown area plan was adopted and beyond and out of that came a really conscious decision by the planning commission and the communities that are around downtown chinatown the tenderloin and south of market they had to pay attention and mr. chair from incursion of office into their district so the chinatown is revisited for 27 on our calendar and south of market you got do release has been taken over by office space and tech big time and van ness avenue similarly has been up

escalated tenderloin is fighting a valiant battle you have a hearing before i was watching that and you spent a lot of time dealing with people feeling extremely not as frustrated not the right word but vulnerable once you on the floodgates to the retail district being worked out changed it go majorly impacts everyone one of the things i have done a lot is traveled around i used to travel a lot. >> and san francisco has a strong tourist attraction because a rightly rail presence that is very unusual we're a big international city and that is one of the reasons why the cpr needs to be protected as the

written retail district thank you. >> any other speaks for the item seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i really appreciate staffs reaffirmation of downtown area plan one of the best pieces i congratulate and thank you all the most important thing to remember the importance ever union square as the most visible expression of the importance as a city of international designation there is the bay the unusual location on the west side of the united states there is all the strong attraction for international travelers to experience the history as a multi cultural city dreaded e created by the people that came from somewhere else the pattern with retail not being worked out in shopping centers but

basically remnant of european and south american cities make the city more than see than my other city from the u.s. with that said, what is the market realty the reality it large-scale retail formula retail is dying or revisiting itself we hear the there's amount of reports that shopping centers are dying literally as we speak and suburb is get nervous because enduring depends on large retail centers for their survival with that said, we feel the pinch yes, a technology of online shopping, etc. but the nature of large floor plates is not going to