kilr . >> you know really, we're afraid of losing our customers if it's hard to get to the embarcadero, and if we lose them, and they start going someplace else, we've lost the flower market even when we come back to our location, you know, if they've got other locations or they've got other places to buy flowers, and it's coming directly from 3w ogo-- bogota, columbia, to buy flowers, we're done. we hope you consider the 2000 marin site. it's easy to get to, and it is he a great location. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is eileen tillman,

and i'm an almost 50 year resident of central soma. i'm excited by the opportunity for the central soma park to bring more green space and activity to our neighborhood, and i look forward to working with the design team and the city to make sure that it's well taken care of and managed, and that it stays a clean, safe, and inviting space. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you, miss tillman. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. scott feeney. i am a volunteer with the yimby action. and so i wanted to first commend the planning department for amending the central soma plan to try to get more housing in there as much as possible without doing a new eir. that said, even with the revisions, we still have a plan that's going to introduce i think the latest estimate is 35,000 jobs and 8300 new homes,

so that's about a 4:1 ratio which is still like where are the other 20,000 workers going to live? i know there's a lot of other good things in this plan, like the park, ands aa bicyclist, i'm looking forward to better bike lanes. so i know there's like, like, a lot of people that don't want this plan to get completely thrown away and start over to get a new eir. however, what i would like to see is some seriousness to how's the workers that are being added by this plan. if we're going to be adding a lot of jobs, we have to be adding a lot of housing, and there's really nothing going on citywide to makeup for this deficit right now. so one thing that would be not enough but beneficial is definitely the housing sustainability district that's been talked about so we can at least make sure the housing in central soma gets built faster. i would hope that the delay

would have the silver liningsp.

>> hello, commissioners. my name is andrew, and i'm speaking on behalf of the we are soma coalition. for housing under the central soma plan, the coalition demands that the city purchase existing affordable housing and land bank future affordable housing sites; that the plan achieve 50% affordable housing for all new housing development, that the plan maximize resident neighborhood housing preference for new

affordable housing requirements to the highest extent possible; that the plan expand ami requirements for affordable housing to include lower income and middle income people, that the plan support the council's community housing organization or position on the job's housing balance as presented by chuchu to the commission on march 1st, and lastly that the city engage in inside acquisition and land education before the plan is passed. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is david wu, and i'm with the south of market community action effort. we are very concerned that the public still needs more time for input and conversation on that plan that will impact not just the south of market but the entire city of san francisco. on march 28th, the response to comments to the central soma plan eir was released with the

adoption hearing scheduled for just two weeks later, on april 12th. even though numerous hearings have been held on this plan, the plan cannot and should not be rushed because of the serious impact it will have on the south of market and the rest of san francisco. the plan is nowhere near where it needs to be for it to take into account and seriously address gentrification and displacement that will come with the plan. the gentrification and displacement will occur will not just not in the south of market but across the entire city. the planning department itself admits that the plan will have a citywide impact. the planning department has repeatedly said that the housing needs produced by the plan will be met by new development across the rest of the city, citing developments such as treasure island and mark merced. however these developments are just proposed. they ever he not yet built. this lacks a did he tailed strategy of existing impacts on citizens both in the south of

market and rest of the city. further the planning department and the city are already operating as though the plan has been passed and certified when no vote has yet been taken. planning department public hearing notices are already including the central soma plan as an existing area plan that new developments are subject to while the reality is that the plan has not even been passed. as you can see in the overview, this is extremely problematic and further shows how the city and the planning department are promotioning promo promoting a predefined plan that is not in existence at the expense of the community south of market. there seems to be interest in getting the plan approved as soon as possible to satisfy development needs rather than take the time to seriously address the gentrification and displacement aspects in a neighborhood and see wide context. in order to minimize displacement now, some can

demands the following actions be taken before the plan is passed, including acquisition of rent controlled buildings, aggressive action for affordable housing. and instituting a moratorium on the existing sale of rent controlled building, the sale for private or for profit development and on new market rate housing construction for projects not included in the existing plan. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. my name is -- there we go. hi. my name is brook ray rivera. i'm the executive director of place lab. we're a nonprofit here in san francisco that empowers communities to sustain great public paces. we've been working for the past six months on the community engagement component of the new

central soma park, and i'm pleased to report we have amassed a pretty strong breadth of diverse interest in the park. we've held numerous workshops, and two gathers for youth, and held over 27 one-on-one stakeholders meetings with constituents in the central soma neighborhood. we've heard this park is a critical opportunity to bring more green space to the neighborhood as well as community gathering and cultural celebration space, so we're actively working with all of these different stakeholders on an ongoing basis. we have some more community meetings ahead. like to commend the planning department for their hard work on this plan throughout the many years, and we hope that the plan's public benefit funding includes adequate ongoing funding for operations and programming of this new program to make sure that it

succeeds as a clean, safe and welcoming community space for the long-term. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's anisha stoles. i'm a florist here in san francisco. i'm excited about the 2000 marin site. i'm here to support that, as well as the coalition of florist 1flori florists that support that move and think that it will help a large part of san francisco. thank you for protecting us and keeping us flowing and going in the city for the next 100 years. thank you so much. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm going to continue the-those good thoughts. my name is laurel winslow. i'm a floral designer. i've spoken in front of you several times on the issue of the temporary site for the flower market. after the last meeting on the

29th. i sent you two items of documentary evidence erconcerng the feelings of the players on the pier location and its unsuitability of the flower market during the interim while the new market is constructed. it is heartening to hear that 2000 marin is a clear possibility at this point, and all i want to say is that whatever can be done by this body to make that come to pass would be much appreciated by our floral community, all the vendors, all the florists, and all our customers who rely on us for beautiful flowers. thank you so much. >> vice president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. very good to see the timer's working. so two points that i wanted to make on behalf of local 2 and also on behalf of the we are soma coalition, of which local

2 has been a part since its inception. from we are soma, you've heard some of what we are soma is asking for in terms of mitigation and impacts of the plan. in particular what i wanted to plastic bag for all of you is that the coalition has been spending a lot of time thinking through proposals and a plan for how to spend and allocate the community benefits money that was proposed to come as part of the plan and we'll be sending a finalized version of that shortly, and also want to ask that the planning staff and department work closely with the city attorney and there's a really strong concern that the money gets spent on community services, and that those go to benefit the people of soma. as far as local 2, we have -- i heard conversation the last time that this plan was discussed about something such as a policy statement or something else that would sort of guide with -- guide a lot of the -- of the criteria with regard especially to large commercial projects, so i'll

briefly read what we're proposing be added or amended to the plan as it exists now. so for all residential developments greater than 25 units and all commercial development, which would include hotels, greater than 50,000 square feet, require the developer to provide a community good jobs employment plan for public review and comment prior to consideration of project approval by the planning department. it would detail the goals for all the permanent jobs within that proposed development for hiring disadvantages community members, especially south of market and central soma residents, at living wages with good benefits and workers' rights, and it should detail how those requests will be met by details concerns of community, civic, and labor organizations. so that's what we're preparing and submitting for your comment and inclusion in the plan. again, this is a fairly major,

major plan. there are probably literally billions of dollars of additional value being created by the plan, and we really want to make sure when that is being proposed, that it goes towards jobs that are good family sustaining jobs that will allow people to remain in this community with dignity. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, andrew juneus with reuben, juneus and rose, and i'm glad we're getting close to the finish line. 900 market rate units, 270 offsite affordable units i'm here to talk about a technical issue as some of my associates are from the firm. i want to call your attention to the transportation to management program that you guys enacted last year, and specifically the grandfathering provision that was in that piece of legislation that we have on the books right now.

of the adopted last year that took care of the projects that were in the pipeline. unfortunately, the legislation that you have before you takes that grandfathering out, and we're not sure why. it's really critical that that grandfather stay in for large projects like the creamery. you know it's really tough. it's a new program. we really haven't seen it applied to virtually any project, much less a large project, and it doesn't scale well with a large project. we've had these conversations with the staff, as the director knows. but let me back up a little bit again. it's new. we were he table, the developers were at the table talking about this, which is why the grandfather's in there in the first place. the idea started back in 2015. in 2016, you had several hearings, 2017, the board adopted it. but again, we're at the table. the grandfather is not perfect, but it works for the large projects that have been in the pipeline for quite sometime, and the staff has already acknowledged this.

when cory teague sent a letter to the land use committee rite back before the adoption of the ordinance, it was clear there was a simple fairness issue like all grandfathering provisions raised. you can't pull out the rug out from big developers, lots of commitments, lots of decisions made, and then, you can't change the rules. of course at the same time the tdm was rolling in track one, central soma was rolling in track two, and we're not quite sure why the two tracks weren't talking together, because you know frankly, at the same time when cory wrote the letter and basically talked about the big projects that we're going to have problems with this and why the grandfather was needed, many of those big projects are in central soma. we're not sure how this happened. i think it might just be an oversight. we're very sure that this is a simple fix. we're looking to the staff to

redirect the grandfather that's basically in the code. in other words, in central soma, let these large projects be treated like any other large projects in the city. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. melinda sargepour, reuben, june juneus, and rose. we are strongly supportive of central soma moving forward and appreciate the staff's efforts in preparing this extremely detailed zoning package that is before you and will be considered over the coming weeks. however, one area that needs attention is usable open space for residential towers in the area. the plan is applying traditional eastern neighborhood requirements to central soma, which are 80 square feet for dwelling unit private or 50 square feet if publicly accessible. this requirement works in the eastern neighborhoods, which

typically contain lower rise development on larnler parcels. it gives you more space to accommodate them. however central soma is going to have some towers on up to 40 400 feet, and on that scale with many hundreds of units, those height requirements don't work. the downtown, which is scaled for commercial c-3 districts, has a high comment. that's achievable for towers, and should apply for central soma. the high area here is hard to achieve due to the plan's proposal to impose an in lieu fee that's about double the fee that applies in other eastern neighborhood districts. to illustrate the issue, a 900 unit project in central soma would have a 72,000 square foot requirement for open space, which is a very large figure. with a high end lieu fee, it would end up triggering a

$9.5 million fee, so very high. this was an informative impact fee that was intended to generate revenue under the plan. came as a surprise to developers under the package, and it wasn't in the financial analysis. this is an important issue, given the desire to maximize housi housing in central soma. unless it's corrected, this could make it infeasible for key sites to provide the residential towers that we're counting on, so this would impact projects like the creamery, which is currently anticipated to create up to 1200 units of housing in the plan area and nearly 30% bmr's. to help residential development move forward, we're asking the commission and the department to amend the residential open space requirements for central soma tower development so that they're consistent with c-3 standards and allow the developers to meet some portion of that by providing popos. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. tear asullivan from reuben, juneus, and rose. first, i want to thank steve and staff with all the effort he's put into the plan. he's taken many calls on the minushae of the code, so thank you. we've gone through the code that was introduced on march 1st line by line and all the proposed changes. in your packet, exhibit 3.6 as well as letters from our firm have some details of code specific issues that we hope you will take a look at over the next few weeks. i just want to raise two issues specifically. the first one is regarding tower separation in sections 132.4, and this is on pages 23 and 24 of the code legislation that you have in front of you. the tower separation controls establish the minimum distance that towers can be from one another. for projects in the central soma s.u.d., they have to have a separation of 115 feet from one another. if a project's unable to meet these distances, they can seek

an exemption through a large project exemption from the planning commission, however for projects in the central soma s.u.-d the planning commission can only grant this if all four criteria are met. these are very difficult four the large development sites to meet. if you recall there are eight key development sites in the plan, and these are large assemblages that are clustered together. most are going to have to ask fore an exception. however the exceptions themselves are very strict. you have to have a minimum of 85 feet from another tower, a floor area of a tower can't exceed 10,000 square feet, there must be a difference of 50 feet in height between the towers, and that's including those that are on the same site, so most developments will not be able to meet this, and they will not be able to get the exception, so we ask that there be an exception or language be added to section 329(a) that would allow the

eight development sites to seek exemption under that section. and the second issue i wanted to raise is on page 85 to 89 of your packet. section 329 generally for every other site in eastern neighborhoods neighborhoods as well as the central soma s.u.d. has a list of recommendations that they can ask the development for. the way it is drafted, only those eight exceptions apply to the large sites, so for example, open space, exposure, rear yard, all of those are in the one through 11 and are not enumerated or allowed to be sought by the key development sites. so maybe just a very simple draft clause in addition to the

exceptions one through 11, one through 12, above the key -- the above eight available to the key development sites. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. skbr good afternoon, commissioners. chloe angeles, also from reuben juneus and rose. thank you for taking the time to hear all our comments today. i first want to say that we're strongly supportive of the plan overall and really appreciate the tremendous staff effort to put forth this really detailed plan. i first want to echo the comments made about andrew juneus about the grandfathering clause. second, i'd encourage staff and the commission to take another look at maximum parking provisions for wholesale and distribution uses. if the plan is going to encourage p.d.r. uses, particularly large scale wholesale uses like the flower market, we need to ensure that

the plan provides adequate parking to serve those kinds of uses, and as currently written, it doesn't. i also want to address the see kites exceptions that tara mentioned. the plan identified eight key sites with the intention of providing greater flexibility for those sites, but the provision only asked the key sites to ask for a specifically limited number of exceptions. this means that the biggest projects cannot pursue the pud exceptions normally available to the eastern neighborhoods through the pud process. the only way for them to obtain flexibility is through a variance or by amending the code on a project by project basis. the central soma plan encourages a novel mix of uses, requiring or encouraging a mix of pdr, office, retail and residential while striving for dense, walkable and transit oriented neighborhood. to achieve these goals, staff has proposed a detailed design and use regulations. central soma needs the same

flexibility -- central soma projects need the same flexibility to ask for other minor construction standards including all the others that projects in the eastern neighbored are eligible for. it is crucial that the commission be given greater discretion to modify standards as it considers the unique needs of large sites with complicated mixes of users, like the flower mart project. that said, we ask that section 329(d) be amended to allow the planning commission to retain its discretion to grant pud type exceptions to the central soma project, including the key sites. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david. i am not with reuben, juneus, and rose, but i'm always looking for a job. so just wanted to talk really

broadly about central soma. you know, and i think this isn't just central -- what i was going to say it's not just central soma. this is just a reminder because we think about it a lot, we talk about a lot, the basket of costs that's going into building things in central soma. and so we have, as we've said before, right, the raw material cost of construction, labor cost, you know, financing cost. we have impact -- you know, large impact fees and -- that are great because they're going to give a lot of community benefits. and we have a fairly high inclusionary, so those are the baskets, something that we need to think about. the other thing that i think unfortunately we're going to see in central soma, we're going to see some abuses in soma, ceqa, lawsuits, we already know that residents and buildings that are already complaining about views and things like that. so it's just one of those things that once again, this is a process that i believe is

eight years in the making, and, you know, when -- i don't know when we're going to have first shovel in the ground, but all of these things, it would be great if we could figure outweighs to move these forward in a little bit of a quicker fashion and maybe discourage some of the abuses that perhaps an eight-year process should be able to have dealt with along in the eight years. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. laura clark here for another informational hearing. so i just want to say once again, this plan is signing us up for a lot of jobs growth, and it doesn't seem that we have any plans in the pipeline for corresponding housing growth. the planning department does not have any plans -- area plans in the pipeline, and that is not a failure of the planning department, that is a

failure of the planning commission to not direct them to prioritize this. additionally, the neighborhoods that were put up by the planning department as potential neighbored ahoods art equity. they're just talking about doing more development in the bayview, talking about doing more development in the excelsior? where is the west side in this conversation? where is glen park in this conversation? where is quite frankly st. francis wood? the market is indicating to us that we should be putting housing there because their property values are very high. we should listen to that. wherever there are high property values and good transit, we should be up zoning, and there is no reason not to be doing that. we can't just keep asking low income communities and the former industrial zones where obviously there are toxic waste problems to be taking on all of the density that this city

needs to do. we need to be doing more on the west side. we need to up zone noe valley. many more apartments could go in there, and i wouldn't have had to leave. we can't just be pointing the finger at the south bay which has historically been just like us in adding a lot more jobs and not corresponding housing. we cannot just be comrepplicit this jobs housing. minneapolis, they're considering fourplex housing citywide. there is no reason for us not to. i understand this plan is moving forward quickly, there are things we can do to mitigate it, to make the housing be built faster, but additionally, we should all be worried about the blue condo owners. it seems to be one guy who has the penthouse who doesn't want to lose his view, who is going to be doing a ceqa lawsuit of

some kind. we need to be thinking about how even the housing that is accounted for in this plan is at risk. thanks. >> mr. elberling. >> good afternoon, commissioners. richard elberling. the assumption of the central soma plan is that the city job programs are good enough. they're not. they are really not. they're strong on construction but when it comes to the permanent jobs, they really do not get much results. and especially here where you are intending this to be a technology industry district with all the office buildings. the permanent jobs are in -- in the tech industry are crucial

to have a really effective job program for city residents and community residents. the twitter tax break programs of central market were a miserable failure, just admit it. we have to do better this time. second, i want to make sure you're aware of the great importance to we are soma, and the community advocates that we have a broad based wide ranging purview citizens advisory committee for the south of market including the central soma, but all the eastern neighborhoods south of market that will essentially replace the very inadequate eastern neighborhood cac with regard to soma. this is a top priority for us. it's not in the package of measures that you continued today. it will be a separate administrative code amendment. the department has not proposed anything to the community, nothing, no specifics.

and it's loanguishing. but believe me, this is equal importance with everything else you're doing because we know very well that promises are one thing when you all vote for a plan, but five years, ten years down the road when things actually get done, money actually gets spent, developers actually have to do what they suggested years ago they were going to do, if the community is not watching, and it's not empowered with a genuine advisory process, it fails. it turns out to be b.s. now as you might expect, not seeing that the department is not moving ahead with this, we are now working with supervisor kim's staff to draft that administrative code language. we are going to obviously review it with our community first. we would be glad to talk about the department staff about it, as well, if they're willing. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you.

any additional public comment on this item? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i thought, while i'm wasting my afternoon sitting through another central soma presentation, i think it's my tenth, but actually, i got some information here, and i do have some questions, so actually maybe this was a good waste of my time. mr. wertheim, the missing millions, the $80 million that we talked about last time that was yet unassigned, can we come up with some recommendations on where we go? >> yes. we assigned it out last time i presented to you exactly how the 70 million would be spent, right, so if memory serves me, there was 25 million towards social and cultural programming within the 25 years, basically, to keep funding soma stablization in perpetuity because that's about to run

out, there's 25 million to fill a gap because the yerba buena facility can't figure out how to fund their facility. on the other end, we have about 6 million peryear for bessie carmichael. about 20% of the kids are from homeless families, and 100% are receiving free or subsidized lunches, so we work with the school district to fill that gap. there's about 9 million towards neighborhood cleaning services, that was about maybe 300 or 400,000 peryear that was requested by supervisor kim to help keep the neighborhood clean. and then about 600,000 peryear towards maintenance and upkeep of the new parks and recreation, and that was what we provide, so that's a full preview. >> commissioner richards:

perfect. do we have a sequence of projects that are logical and would meet the allocations that keep coming up in october or i guess the free square footage? >> i can't believe 15 hearings and that's the first time that's come up, but yes, congratulations. >> with we will have that for you. >> commissioner richards: okay. great. i don't need to know, i just wanted to make sure, because i heard validation, but we've got a project that we need to manage through. this tdm issue, was it an oversight or was it real? >> maybe some other answer to those two questions. hey, josh is there. you want to answer this? >> commissioner richards: the reason i ask is when mr. junius said i think this was an over sight, josh went like this. >> this tdi issue falls into the plan of grandfathering generally, and the plan was

taken an approach that projects that are not allowable under the existing zoning regardless of when they are filed should meet the current standards that are in effect when the plan is adopted, at which time these projects can be approved under the zoning at that time, and that if despite the fact that some of these projects submitted applications some time ago in anticipation of the central soma plan coming in, they weren't available at the time, so they haven't avail themselves of the rules that were in effect at the time. >> commissioner richards: okay. so no cherry picking. we want the zoning, but we don't want the requirement -- okay. i get what you're saying. >> yeah. so that's the general approach, and that would apply not just to tdm, but across the board. >> commissioner richards: this tower separation issue, is there anywhere in the city where below 85 feet is allowed? >> i don't think there is a tower separation limit in c-3.

richar >> commissioner richards: okay. >> so there are various rules in the city. there's obviously a limited number of places where we have tower separation rules. in the c-3, the tower separation rules apply just within your own property, and there are set back requirements above a certain height of the street wall, generally about 100 feet, and they start at 15 feet from your property line and increases as it gets taller. >> commissioner richards: that because it's mostly commercial office space? >> those were set in the # 0's during the downtown plan when the area was primarily commercial. and so as we did the subsequent plans where there was much more residential like rincon hill and transbay, after lot lots of study about what makes a living residential neighborhood we settled on 115 feet, and that's what it is in rincon hill and in transbay, it's actually more than that. >> commissioner richards: are there any areas in that plan, rincon hill, etcetera, where it falls below 85 feet? >> 85 feet?

no, that's the minimum rich. >> commissioner richards: so it can go below 115 with special criteria. >> yeah. >> commissioner richards: what about the open space issue that was brought up by the reuben junius people, the 80 some feet by the -- >> so they're correct in the downtown, the open space has 36 square feet perunit, but if i could dive in again to the rincon hill plan, the requirement is 75 square feet perunit, which is very similar to this one, which is 80. and those -- and all the projects in rincon hill, under the plan that came in after the plan was adopted, in sf said 75 square feet perunit requirement, there are creative ways to meet that. it's not all in the form of balconies and roof decks. they're allowed to do off-site

improvements and streetscape requirements, and in rincon hill, we're in satisfaction of the open space irpt kwoos. >> commissioner richards: we also heard some some of the we are soma community around some additional things. i don't know if they'd go through the city attorney because they sounded like they might not actually be legal. we sat here last time and said hey, go engage the community one last time, so can you tell me what the results were there, what happened that one last time around the track was? >> i reached out to the community after putting the packet together because that's where my mind was the last couple weeks after the hearing, the person that directed the hearing, and she directed me to annette gomez from local 2 who you heard the request specifically from labor there. i have not heard another request how the dollars would be apportioned. sounds like we have a couple more weeks. >> commissioner richards: like with the jobs.

>> yeah, you have a jobs piece and we put a policy in the plan specifically to supporting good jobs at your request. >> commissioner richards: and it's in there. >> mm-hmm. >> commissioner richards: okay. the cac as a child of the market octavia plan said hey, you're not going to hoist this plan on us even though we helped write it because after five or ten years, we're all going to be gone. we want a cac to make sure the implementation on what we were supposed to get we actually get. so i do support a cac on the central soma plan. what are your thoughts on that. >> yeah. we brought this idea to you as something we would like to see happen. we thought -- they're already eastern neighborhoods, so you're already in a cac, you would split the three districts and have them split. we aftoffered that deal to supervisor kim's office, and

they said yes, but then one of her staff took a leave of absence and we haven't heard anything since. >> commissioner richards: if i could on that issue, just to clarify, steve, central soma's part of all of -- it's part of the all of eastern neighborhoods. it's the intent to have a cac that's separation from the other eastern neighborhoods and the dogpatch. >> yes, and we took this idea even brought to the eastern neighborhood cac and asked them what do you think, and all the neighborhoods across the cac thought it was a good idea. it would increase their participation and the refgs. if you ask someone in soma about open space in dogpatch, it wasn't as visceral, so there

wasn't that response to create -- richar >> commissioner richards: okay. a lot going on. i think that's it. thanks. i think folks in the community, if there are things that you want us to consider beyond the already declared policy things that you indicated that were important to you, get them to us so that we could in the next round of this actually talk about what they are, make sure if they're questionable along the line of legality, that you make sure they're legal, that we don't waste time talking about they are if they're not legal, but i'm open to them. the other thing, one last closing because we're kind of on the end. the folks from reuben junius had me on saying hey, it's this way, but you've got to do it that way. the cherry's went on in my head and said hey, you're cherry

picking. you didn't want the parts of the eastern neighborhood plan that didn't benefit you, but the other parts, you did. i'm a little confused, mr. junius. it looks like staff has kind of made a lot of decisions on these, but i'm open to more conversations with you folks and with staff. >> if you don't mind, you have a memo. we got a lot of information really right at the end. it was too much to consider the follow out comes of those, so i basically made a document called issues for consideration in your case report such that we can make sure that they're vetted with the presumption that today at the adoption hearing we didn't want them to be considered. now that there's extra time, one of my goals is to vet these considerations and bring them forward so that the packet that you have the next time around will have a lot of these considerations. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you, commissioner richards, mr. wertheim.

commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the eight development sites, that it would be clarified, as well. it's very, very difficult to understand when you first take on the complexity of the project. >> i just wanted to say it's nice to have somebody reading the project besides me. when you write 619 pages of code or whatever it is, mistakes are going to happen. one of the things that they brought up for example is that the key development sites wouldn't be available to avail themselves of the other flexibilities for sites on 329, that's not our intent. the intent is to have sub section(d) still apply and then sub section(a) as e as a wholer flexibility. >> commissioner moore: so we would be able to track these questions are answered. >> sure. we have the action consideration memo today. you know every time we make changes there's a memo that said changes have been made.

my goal would be just to walk everything that's different between the package that you received the first time out and later, and obviously be as transparent as possible, because trying to find the changes in the code is ridiculous, so instead have a memo that says if you want to compare, here's what's different, and the rational. why i always do that in the presentations i gave you is what's changed and why it's changed. >> vice president melgar: commissioner koppel? >>. >> commissioner koppel: if it's 115 feet of separation, what are we looking at as of now? >> tara sullivan, reuben, junius and rose. i'm speaking to one development site, but it also applies to other sites. the key development sites are very unique, almost in the city. they are very large parcels with two to three to four

buildings on them at times, and so often times, it is 75 to 85 feet, give or take, and it's also -- i mean, this is really getting into the weeds but how midrise tower versus a tower is defined, and you want to scale it around, but it's a combination of the heights with the definitions and the tower separation, and those eight particular sites are very unique compared to everything else. thanks. >> commissioner koppel: just in general, i'm open to looking at the more granular details when we hear this next time, and definitely in favor of the good jobs program. really happy to see the sustainability district going forward and really in favor of expediting approvals if developers are willing to commit to what is asked for as far as tenant protections, worker protections, prevailing wage, skilled and trained workforce, but not just intentions to do these -- these commitments instead of

intentions is what i'm getting at, and really looking forward to getting this right the next time. >> vice president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i want to make a comment on tower separation. it is not just first come, first serve, and the second party which would be affected by the ruling basically ends up with nothing. i've always asked department to look at it in a creative way because if tower separation has a reason, and i do believe it does, then i think it is a creative solution looking at both or other sites in context with each other and what is possible, rather than one way or the other. >> vice president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: two points. i think last time when mr. delgado got up and said there is two sites right next to each other, we said we'd kind of like staff to model these out. i think we're open to making things work.

>> thank you. we -- we modelled it out, we just kept it very brief today. we can show you that model next time. i think there's two sites in question with tower separation issues. one is a development with two towers, and so they're worried about the relationship between the towers themselves at a key site and thus would unenabled under our intention that they wou wouldn't have to stick the intentional requirements, but again we'll check with the zoning administrator and make sure that's the case. the other thing you've heard is there's two sites right next to each other, and they're just totally abutting each other and that becomes a real challenge for them to build. they'll basically have 30 feet between the two of them, and that would be a difficult point richard richards i think mr. wu mentioned a lot of things that you mentioned in your

public comment, we would like to see it as well so we can see what it is that you're asking for as policy. >> vice president melgar: yes, somebody needs to make a motion, yes. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: motion to consider certification of the eir until may 10 richards second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners on the issue of the motion to consider certification of the eir until may 10, on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> vice president melgar: that's it. so with that, the meeting is adjourned.

>> supervisor tang: good afternoon. welcome to our land use committee meeting of april 16th. i'm katy tang. we have vice chair supervisor jane kim and supervisor safai. we will be joined by supervisor peskin. we would like to thank jessie larson and mia