hear her say that and then to be with her at different places and to search for a straw and to watch her eat again, because she has no arms and her hands extend from the shoulders, the idea of pointing to an image to ask for a straw. that would be my first thought. oh, you could always point to the image, just like we do when we're traveling anywhere, but if you don't have hands at the end of your arms, that can be difficult. that means you have to physically get right up to an image. so i do -- i wanted to share that experience, and to say i hope we do find a way of making not only straws accessible, but also the image so that you can identify what it is you want. so thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to speak on item one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i have a couple of amendments i shared with you on

your desk, so on page one, line three to four, we just want to clarify it wasn't that we are trying to require food vendors to supply single-use plastic straw only upon request. we are allowing them to. we're striking the word require and replacing that with allow. page five, line 18, we are aligning the different requirements that were spoke of around compostable materials and having all the requirements kick in as of january 1, 2020. and on age eight, lines 21 through 22, we are changing the section to say in a self-service area or dispenser except for single-use straws, we're striking the word plastic, shall be made available by request only. so those are the amendments i would like to adopt into this ordinance today. >> make a motion to adopt these amendments. >> supervisor tang: okay, and we'll do that without objection. and then on the underlying item

as amended. >> i'll make a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: okay, thank you, without objection, as well. thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, item two, please. >> clerk: item two is the resolution endorsing the bay-delta air quality management district's diesel free by '33 statement of purpose to cut diesel use to zero by the end of 2033. >> thank you very much. we have amy binart here from supervisor ronan's office. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much. supervisor ronan introduced this earlier in september. this is a resolution that would endorse the bay area management quality district's diesel free by '33 effort. through this resolution, we'd be joining other cities and counties across california, including many members in the

bay area, in setting a clear goal to reduce diesel emissions for the catastrophic and long-term public health and environmental damage. diesel emissions are highly toxic, causing immediate health impacts on residents who live in areas where these emissions are most concentrated, and diesel emissions are responsible for more than half of our state's black carbon, which is a significant contributor to global climate change. supervisor ronan is a member of the board of directors of the bay area air quality management district, and so was sponsoring this legislation, along with supervisor mandelman, who's also on the board of directors. and through that position, she has talked about hearing testimony so regularly from residents and communities who are really looking for protections from this kind of emissions. so happy to answer any questions, but hoping that the land use committee can send this forward with a recommendation to approve. thank you.

>> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any members of the public who wish to speak on item two? please come on up. okay. seeing none, public comment's closed. i guess -- do we have a motion on item two? okay, and we'll do that without objection. i think supervisor kim absent. all right. madam clerk, item three, please. >> clerk: item number three is an ordinance amending various elements in the general plan in amending the central waterfront area plan to address and incorporate the central waterfront dogpatch public realm and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you very much. i wasn't sure if -- i thought supervisor cohen's office was going to be here, so -- and i don't see her yet. i might need to contact her first. so why don't we -- >> clerk: supervisor, we have sophia.

>> supervisor tang: all right. would you like to speak first? okay, great. >> thank you, chair tang, supervisor safai, kim. sophia from the office of mr. cohen. the dogpatch public realm, which was built over the last 18 months, working very closely with district 10 residents and community groups is a model for interagency coordination, new partnerships, and how to serve our residents as our community grows across san francisco. growth projections in the central waterfront could see a quadrupling of housing units and five times the number of people living in the area as there are now. however, public asset that is make a complete neighborhood, such as adequate open space, safe streets, that serve the industrial and residential demands have not kept up with all of the growth. this plan is a fantastic overview for the future of the dogpatch, reflecting the rich history of the neighborhood and

planning for the monumental growth that is coming. notably, this plan considers much-needed infrastructure investments, creating a comprehensive plan to connect pier 70 and other large-scale projects coming online. retaining and supporting p.d.r. businesses as the dogpatch likes to say, we are p.d.r. and investing importantly and significantly in our open space and parks to keep up with the growing population. this plan includes design for the complete streets and open space, has been developed in partnership with the ports and parks and rec. i want to in particular thank the residents of district 10 for being incredibly committed and engaged on this issue. with over five community workshops, dozen of stakeholder work meetings, focus groups, and several surveys, i would like to thank in particular the dogpatch neighbors association, the green benefit association, and a

number of committed individuals. i would also like to thank you for the tremendous hard work on this legislation. we hope you'll approve this plan, and i'll turn it over to staff. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> thank you. robin abad with the san francisco planning department, the plan manager for the public realm plan here with my colleague to deliver a few words and images related to the plan amendment, which is before you. sophia already recognized the tremendous interagency work and partnership that we undertook in order to deliver this plan to the neighborhood. i also just wanted to recognize some of the consultants that worked with us on our team. fletcher studio and neighbor

land, who helped us really get into some innovative public engagement for this effort. at this time we are proposing a proposal for a general plan amendment before you. we are not proposing any planning code amendments at this time. this plan looks at the public realm of dogpatch. it is a complement, you might say an exponent of the area plan, which was adopted in 2008. this looks specifically at complete street and open space infrastructure for the neighborhood, which as sophia mentioned, has not kept up with the pace of development and growth that we're seeing in the neighborhood. most critically, the plan isn't just a visionary document, but contains an implementation strategy that we worked very closely with the implementing departments, public works, m.t.a., the port, and recreation and parks to put together, and it gives the departments a real solid guide and strategy for

making investment decisions for our capital improvement program over the next two, five, and ten years. with that i'll turn it over to talk about the plan's background and development. >> hi, i will go through it briefly over the slides, and you can ask questions later. so, why doing the public realm plan for this area? in 2018 as part of the eastern neighborhood planning, the central waterfront area plan was adopted. since then the neighborhood has continued to grow and now we are looking at about a quadruple increase in population. public realm improvements have not kept up with the growth. realizing that we needed a clear framework and interagency coordination to actually carry out the vision and policies that was contained as part of the area plan. so in 2018, an interagency team

was formed, and we set the primary boundary that are a little bit bigger than the area plan boundary to address connections to adjacent neighborhoods. in the beginning we had aimed for six key outcomes, which is setting up establishing holistic vision, committee priorities, and also for the public realm improvements. it has a lot of overlapping city jurisdictions, so the plan aimed for providing platforms for interagency coordination. also we wanted to celebrate the neighborhood's unique characteristics, so we integrated the design into neighborhood characteristics and aimed for higher design standards. and also since this area has been an industrial neighborhood, it was important to plan for pedestrian infrastructure, especially there are some areas

that are missing sidewalks and key and basic infrastructure. and lastly, but most importantly, this plan isn't just to create a plan. it was actually create an implementation tool that can be carried out by other city agencies. and, in fact, at the end of the process we were able to deliver some of the projects that are now under way, which robin will talk about a little more later. this vision diagram is based on community input and also existing planning efforts, and we've looked at future growth areas and key destinations and make sure all the networks are connected and that the vision diagram provides a priority network of the public realm. and this became the basis of the implementation guidelines in the future. the next two slides show our community engagement process, which started in 2015 and concluded early 2018 when we

released the public review draft of the plan. we engaged the community neighborhood groups. as mentioned, there are a list of neighborhood groups and institutions. also we had innovative survey efforts and ways to engage the community. and with the input and also feedback, we came up with recommendations for implementation, which robin will talk about now. >> thank you. so in the interest of time, i'll just go very quickly through the remaining slides. the general plan amendment recommends policy language in these three areas, complete streets and mobility, open space and recreation, as well as maintaining the unique history and heritage of dogpatch. the implementation strategy goes into some very specific recommendations for where in the dogpatch we should be making improvements, and the kinds of

interventions that make sense, given the land use mosaic throughout dogpatch, which has a varied set of land uses as you move from north to south. we also, as mentioned, did in-depth polling around public spaces to try and identify those which the neighborhood and the implementing departments felt should be up for renovation most soon and should be prioritized. there was some in-depth cost estimating that was also done as part of this process based on conceptual designs we developed with the community, and those are also part of the implementation strategy that the implementing departments can take forward. and so with that we're available to take any questions from the committee. thank you. >> thank you very much. all right. this is exciting project. any members of the public have any public comment on item three? please come on up. okay, seeing none, public comment's closed. do we have any questions or

comments here from the committee? no? okay. all right. well, i noted that there is a recommendation to send this forth to the full board as a committee report, given the timing. and so can we get a motion to send this forth with positive recommendation with the committee report? okay, we'll do that without objection. all right. item four and five together, please. >> clerk: item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow the use of affordable housing credits for a proposed development at 1629 market street and making appropriate findings. item five is an ordinance amending a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and strada brady llc and making anticipate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i'd like to turn these items over to supervisor kim now.

>> supervisor kim: thank you so much, supervisor -- chair tang and supervisor safai. the ordinance that is before us today is a rewrite of our development agreement on 1629 market street. if you remember, this is the plumber's union site that is owned by the plumbers' union and included both 100% affordable housing, as well as market-rate development and park as part of the development agreement. this is, i guess, a renegotiation of this development agreement. it allows florida, the florida state board of administration pension fund, which is the majority owner of the south beach marina apartments, to come in as a partner with this project and apply their affordable housing credits to the project. for those of you that remember the south beach marina apartments, this was an expiring

below-market rate project in the south beach area as part of the former redevelopment agency, where a percentage of those units were set aside for a number of years for middle-class residents. those units' affordability were set to expire about two years ago. we were able to establish the permanent affordability of these units, beyond the covenant years, and are currently maintaining these units as permanently affordable, as long as by allowing the project sponsor to apply these affordable housing credits into the future for a different project. they have decided to partner with strada and community housing partnership on their project, and it matches the preservation of the moderate income of below-market rate apartments with the b.m.r. units at 1629 market street. so they will not be used as end

fee credits on units, otherwise designated for low or very low-income households. they used the credits on a project with significant on-site below market rate component with approximately 17% affordability for very low-income levels, and this project will be managed by community housing partnership. i just want to recognize gayle gilman, the executive director, michael cohen, the cofounder of strada, and larry madala jr., and i am very excited for the development of this parcel. it is very neateded on this corr of market street and south of market. here to present on this item is rich from the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i will keep my comments brief. on october 11, 2018, the planning commission reviewed the ordinances introduced by supervisor kim, and they recommended approval of the planning code text amendments to

modify the 1629 market street special use district, as well as to amend the approval of the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and strada brady. i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have on the project or the planning commission's comments, and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. all right, i guess we'll go to public comment on these items. any members of the public who wish to speak on items four and five? okay. >> good evening, supervisors. i'm from the u.c.f. school of pharmacy. >> and i'm michelle -- >> clerk: i apologize. you get two minutes each. >> that's fine, that's fine. just two minutes total is fine. >> clerk: okay, well you can speak first and she can go next. >> sure.

yeah, along with the topic at hand here, we're in support of the affordable use housing because as pharmacy students, we understand how homelessness and poor health quality is duly related, especially with our current opioid crisis at hand, limiting homelessness is critical to release of the opioid epidemic. >> and, again, thank you, my name is michelle, student at u.c.f. school of pharmacy. i'm also here in support of utilizing funds for the restriction of opioid use, as well as the promotion of opioid overdose treatments. as karan was mentioning, the opioid crisis is currently a huge issue for our entire community, and any negative impacts can trickle down to everything in our community, from our personal interactions,

to public damage, so we want to support the use of funds in order to help patients who are experiencing opioid overdose or addiction. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james tracy from community housing partnerships, speaking on behalf of gayle gilman. we are overjoyed to be partners in this project on colton street. we have partnered with strada to actually provide more housing than they are actually requiring as far as replacement for the demolished civic center, and we are also very happy that the south beach marina preservation is also part of this deal. it's taken a lot of hard work, but i'm glad we're finally here, and thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items four and five? okay, seeing none, public

comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you, i did just want to clarify the last comment by a member of the public. the preservation already exists, so that was locked in in a previous deal. this is just the second part, where they'd like to implement where the credits go, so south beach marina harbor, that preservation has already occurred. >> supervisor tang: house has changed again, supervisor safai is not here, so we'll do that without objection. okay, madam clerk, next item, please, item six. >> clerk: item six is an ordinance amending the planning code to modify the date by which projects that are eligible for the temporary inclusionary housing requirements must obtain a building or site permit and acquire appropriate findings.

>> supervisor tang: thank you so much. commissioner chang from the mayor's office. >> good afternoon, on behalf of the mayor's office, legislative sponsor of the ordinance before you. this ordinance applies a 30-month timeline for all projects that were grandfathered into prop "c." right now the 33 odd projects have until december 7, 2018, to have their site permits issued. we propose this ordinance because we're concerned many projects will not be able to make this deadline, and we're committed to getting the projects built. over 4,000 units, 600 on-site b.m.r.s are at risk. we propose 30 months, because that's the current standard. 30 months from entitlement to have site permits issued. last week there was a lot of discussion about why this deadline was not raised as an issue before. in may 2015, the legislation passed, going into effect based on the outcome of the june election. this is the legislation that established the december 7, 2018 expiration date for the

grandfathered projects. the planning commission was not supportive of a fixed date and recommended 36 months from entitlement. the issues around the december 7th rate were raised at that time. another housing ordinance passed on august 28, 2017. this established the 30-month use it or lose it clause, applying to all projects except for the grandfathered ones. last week we also heard you say that 30 months was too long, that projects shouldn't take that long to get through the process. most of the projects left on this list are stragglers, because they are small developers inexperienced with processes and requirements. we hope that today you'll consider amendments that we believe are fair and will give all projects that have been diligently pursuing site permits the opportunities to secure them. giving these projects that are entitled 18 months from entitlement to secure site permits is fair and reasonable. we know that some projects will had not make it through, but we offer this as a compromise. thank you for working with us on this. for the projects not yet entitled, really there are only

three. we'd like to see 18 months from the december 7, 2018, deadline. if these projects are given 18 months, they'll also have a fair chance of securing entitlement and site permits. in closing, i'd like to go through the three untitled projects. one filed in october 2015, three years ago. this project has been stuck in historic review while the department was developing the lgbt historic district context statement. this is something the project has no control over. the 7th street project also had an environmental application that was filed in october 2015, three years ago. they are still receiving comments from planning. they completed all the required affidavits december 2017 in anticipation of a hearing, but continued to receive comments. that design negotiation took months to overcome and the design changes have impacts on the shadow study, requiring more technical analysis.

the stevens street project, the environmental was filed nearly three years ago. this project is proposing the first small enterprise workplace. these are small units occupied by p.d.r., office, retail, and arts uses. something this board has supported through legislation. knowing this project would be unlikely to meet the deadline, it has converted to state density bonus using a 16.4 on-site inclusionary housing rate. together these projects will create 227 units, at least 33 of which are b.m.r.s. you'll hear more individual project stories today, and i hope you'll consider our compromised amendments and spending additional time for projects not entitled. we want to do everything we can to give all projects a fair amount of time to get through the process. while we do everything we can to improve this process. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for sharing that information, and we are now joined by supervisor peskin. did you want to comment on this item, as well? not yet, okay. supervisor kim?

>> supervisor kim: first of all, i just want to thank the mayor's office for working with my office and supervisor peskin on coming to compromise that we can all agree with, that would ensure that these development projects that were grandfathered in have a chance or opportunity to build the housing that our city sorely needs, but ensuring that we're putting a leash of sorts to ensure that these projects move forward in a timely manner to seek their building or site permit, so that they can be built as quickly as possible. our goal is to ensure that we are building housing and that we do not give an extended timeline for projects to dillydally, as i would say, but that we incentivize them to go and seek these site and building permits as quickly as possible. and so i think the 18-month compromise from the entitlement will allow these projects and give them enough time to get their building or site permit,

and ensure that they get built. and in exchange, we will maintain them at the significantly lower requirement of affordable housing, then projects that are moving through the entitlement process today. and so i'm happy to support this change at the board of supervisors. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: supervisor peskin, did you want to say something first, or do you want me to go and then you can talk? >> i would associate myself with the comments made by my colleague from district 6. >> supervisor safai: i just have some questions. i just want for clarification maybe you can answer these. 18 months from entitlement. can you explain that on the record what that means in clear terms? this is for everyone involved. >> sure. so, there was a bucket of projects that were grandfathered into prop "c," and they are all currently given until december 7, 2018, to get entitled and

secure their site permits. they took various amounts of time to get through the process, and so we have a group of projects that are already entitled that are pursuing their site permits. >> supervisor safai: that's what i'm trying to clarify. i'm sorry, so entitled, they've gone through the planning commission approval and they've pulled their -- what? >> no, entitlement means the planning commission or department has approved the project. the next step is to apply for the site permit. so these projects are all in the process of getting their site permits issued through d.b.i. >> supervisor safai: so by the time -- as long as they've pulled their first site permit 18 months after their planning commission approval, then they would fall under the -- and how many of these, as you've negotiated this new time, less than 30 months, have you spoken to all the different project sponsors? and how many of these do you think will be able to meet the

18-month deadline? >> we have not looked into all the sponsors since coming up with this 18-month compromise, but in our analysis, we think there are four to six projects that will not make the 18-month deadline. >> supervisor safai: do you know which ones those are? >> sure, i believe it's 651 geary street, 1515 south van ness, 519 ellis street, 2140 market, and then possibly 524 howard and 430 main. >> supervisor safai: can you say that again slower? 430 main, i got it. >> 430 main, 524 howard. >> supervisor safai: wait a second, please. >> sure. >> supervisor safai: 524 -- okay. >> 2140 market.

>> supervisor safai: okay. >> 519 ellis. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> 1515 south van ness. >> supervisor tang: i keep debating, but they committed to 25% affordable housing. >> they did, but that's not in their conditions of approval, so we're just going into what's grandfathered for them. >> supervisor tang: i see. >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry, 15 -- >> 1515 south van ness. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> and 651 geary. >> supervisor safai: and you feel like these will -- what are the reasons why you don't believe they will meet the 18-month deadline? is it because these were all --

>> based on their entitlement dates, we project 18 months out from that, so i believe in the spreadsheet you have before you, you can see 651 geary was entitled on july 7th of 2016, so they only have until january 7th of 2018, but we'd do december 7th or 18 months, whatever is later, to get their site permit. so for them it's really december 7th that would be their deadline, and we don't believe that they'll make it. similar case for 1515 south van ness. they are just not as far in the site permit process as we would expect for them to have their permit issued by the deadline. same case for the other projects i mentioned. >> one project you mentioned, 140 main just got entitled may 24, 2018, so the 18 months will be a significant -- >> you're right. perhaps one of my colleagues

from planning has more information why that project is in our question mark column. >> supervisor safai: you also said 524 howard, which was entitled may 17, 2018. >> i think those are both unique scenarios, if carle could share more. >> 430 main is under appeal, i believe, and 524 howard -- >> supervisor tang: 430 main is not under appeal. we settled appeal. in fact, we didn't even hear it. >> okay, we'll update the dates on that. the 18 months would help 430 main. >> that should be off the risk list. >> 524 howard after seeking with the assigned planner, they are pursuing their site permit. it's just taking a little longer. i think they were exploring a couple different things they also needed to wait for the transbay amendment that was trailing the overhaul. >> supervisor safai: do you think that one would also be off

the list? >> if 524 howard should be fine, then they just got entitled in may. it should just be the first four projects i mentioned that we think are not going to make the 18 months, so 651 geary, south van ness, 519 ellis, and 2140 market. >> supervisor safai: and if i may -- >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor safai: as to 1515, the fact that somebody messed up and did not include those in the conditions of approval is, as i understand it, being cured. so because that was a representation that was made repeatedly, it was an oversight, in public, it was an oversight that it was not included in the conditions, so for all intents and purposes, that is not on the list either as far as the supervisor is concerned. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. so, 2140 market, 519 ellis, 1515

you're saying, supervisor, you think that one is not impacted? >> correct. it is above the current inclusionary rate. >> 2140 market is 27 units. then what's the last one? >> 651 geary. i can't find that one. >> there's no information on the entitlement process. they got entitled actually back july 7th of 2016, so they are very close to even losing their 30 month. so there must be some other challenges or obstacles with that project is my assumption. even if we extend them a full 30 month, they'd not likely get their site or building permit.

>> i was on the team with the planner when she was working on this. if it was my recollection, they were -- the entitlement process was lengthy because it was in addition to an historic structure, but to your point, they are -- their 30-month deadline would be january of next year. january 7th of next year, so they'd actually only benefit from one month, if the deadline was extended 30 months. >> supervisor tang: if we had extended it as the mayor had originally proposed, one additional month beyond the 7th. so only two projects. >> supervisor safai: might have been the magical month. yeah, so that's what i was trying to wiggle it down to. that's 55 units out of the entire universe, other than the four that are not yet entitled. to i want to ask you about those. are we assuming that 10 south van ness is off the table? >> 10 south van ness is pursuing

an s.u.d. that will have them produce a higher rate. >> supervisor safai: that's the honda dealership. so then 111, 260 and 344 14th street -- i'm sorry. what i was going to say is, and this is what i brought up last time, and i think i heard you say this in your presentation, the application dates that they submitted are all pre-date -- i mean they are three years or older. specific circumstances, i know you said historic. i know you said that each one was working through a series of amendments, and when i look at the math, and then the last one you gave, which was 344 14th street, you said that in the meantime they were applying for the state density bonus, which would increase them up to almost 16.5%. >> that's right. >> 111 turk and 262 7th street.

the difference between the grandfathered rate and today would be three or four units. i'd be interested to hear from the project sponsors. >> i believe they are here. >> supervisor safai: as to how that factors into their overall pro forma and their ability to meet the requirement. maybe there's a different negotiated rate and that would allow them some more time. >> i also want to point out the stevenson street project invoking density bonus, they need to preserve that rate, because that's the rate they are using to invoke density bonus. so if we take them out of the grandfathered bucket, they have to use the current rates to use density bonus. is that correct? yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. supervisor kim, i'm sorry. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i was going to answer any questions on that. >> supervisor safai: no, my only point was that the difference is

three units on that project from today's rate to the rate that i see that was negotiated based on the previous, so i was interested to hear from the project sponsors, if that would -- how that would impact their pro forma, and if there was a different counterproposal. and same with 262 7th street. i understand why you would initially say or you would want necessarily that they have had had -- they have not even received their planning commission hearing. it sounds like for 111 turk that they have been caught up in some historic preservation issues, which can add significant amount of time. that seems like a legitimate request, but then to then have the clock run out on them based on the planning and environmental review seems a little bit harsh. sounds like you know about that project. >> new owners of the site?

>> so they are committing to 50%. >> 111 turk? >> no, that's a different project. >> sorry. >> there's a star city project -- >> i don't believe that project -- >> it's a different address. >> sorry, we cannot have this -- sorry about that. okay, so the project sponsors are here. we'll let them answer the questions. >> supervisor safai: i would be interested to hear about that, because if we're talking about two projects, which is about 150 units, plus the last one, couple hundred units, maybe there's a compromise in there rather than just throwing the baby out with the bath water. i'm just curious to see what the response is from the -- because it could be a matter of zero or an additional 300 units, 250 units. >> supervisor tang: please state your name for the record and limit your comments. >> absolutely. >> supervisor safai: okay, go ahead. >> open up for public comment,

is that okay? >> supervisor safai: i wanted to drill down on these two, and through the chair, if that's okay. >> thank you, supervisor safai. john kevlon on behalf of all three projects, we represent all three. i'm not going to sit here today and say i have a pro forma that this is the make or break between any of these projects. it's just fairness in terms of these projects were planned to go to commission over the next few months. through no fault of their own, they've been diligent, working on this, in particular 262 7th, we've been ready to go about a year now and have been going in circles with design review with staff, not to throw anybody under the bus, but we've been really pushing that one forward and that one also is a smaller developer. again, i don't have a pro forma, i'm not going to pretend and tell you this is a make or break, but it is a significant impact. >> through the chair, if i could ask a follow-up question to the planning department. sounds like what you said is

based on the timeline of these, there's been significant review or other reasons through the planning department and sounds like you just said that you're on the docket to go in front of the planning commission. maybe the planning department can answer that question. >> of the three projects that are unentitled, my impression of all three is that they are very close. one is actually scheduled for planning commission on november 15th, and that is the 344 14th stevenson site. >> supervisor safai: that would be, just so i'm clear, that would be the date of entitlement and you'd have 18 months after that time? if we were to pass the amendment as proposed by supervisor kim? >> the amendment as it's written right now, and tanisha can correct me if i'm wrong, if the project receives entitlement before december 7th, you have the 18 months from the date of entitlement. if you are entitled after

december 7th, you have until july 7, 2020. >> supervisor safai: say that last part again. so if you're before december 7th, you have 18 months from that time, and if you're not, then -- >> you have 18 months from december 7th, basically. >> what do you mean? >> let's take the stevenson project, for example. if they are entitled on november 15th, they'll have 18 months from november 15th to seek a site permit and obtain a site permit. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> if the project is approved after december 7th, they have until july 20, 2020. >> that's in the language passed around to you right now. >> it was before we -- apologies, supervisors, it includes the 18-month extension for projects that are entitled, as we'd agreed upon, and has the draft of other language, so i highlighted the section we have agreed on. the other section was drafted, but has not been agreed on by

supervisors. >> supervisor tang: so we have two versions here. am i just looking at this last one with the highlight then? >> with the highlight, yes. with our highlight. i don't know what supervisor kim passed out. >> supervisor kim: what i had passed out is what i believed we had agreed upon before the committee. >> i haven't seen that language. >> supervisor safai: i haven't seen anything. i wasn't privy to those conversations. i'm just asking questions as i receive information on the floor. i'm trying to drill down to make a better informed decision. so it sounds like then the stevenson project is going to be entitled prior to december 7th. >> depends on the planning commission, hopefully. has the potential to be. >> supervisor safai: so we're left with turk and 7th street. do you have a timeline when those will be in front of the commission? >> hopefully in the next couple of months. 111 turk is admittedly my project, so i'd like to get it

in front of planning commission as soon as possible, but i think within the next couple of months is the goal. >> supervisor safai: okay. is there a potential for that to get in there before december the 7th, knowing the deadline? i'm just curious. >> i don't think there's a potential to get to december 7th knowing the deadline. it is still in siceqa review. >> supervisor safai: okay. i will have more questions, but i just wanted to kind of pinpoint down. >> supervisor tang: okay, supervisor peskin. >> can we just back up here? walking into this meeting i was under the impression that we had an agreement, and now it looks like you are adding things that were not in that agreement. can you please explain? >> absolutely, supervisor. we are in agreement on 18 months for projects that are entitled. that is the section i highlighted. unfortunately, that was the only language i had drafted from the city attorney, so i highlighted that section and passed it out to your colleagues on the committee.

the other section i completely agree, we have no agreement on. i'm not asking for that amendment today, it's just the language that was drafted was all in one packet. >> you're not asking through the chair for that amendment today means what? >> means i understand that you and supervisor kim do not support that language. >> i'm kind of at a loss, because generally when an administration by and through its liaison to the board of supervisors comes to an agreement with a member or members, one then does not tack on other things. >> i apologize, supervisor, we were not trying to tack anything on. i couldn't get clear language on what we agreed on in time for this meeting today, which is why i highlighted the section we have agreement on, as i understand it. >> supervisor tang: and the amendment, as supervisor peskin and i crafted it, is a little

bit different from the way that yours was crafted. >> i see. >> supervisor tang: i would recommend we go to public comment while we marinate on both of the languages here in the two versions and then we can get back to this conversation. how's that? okay. so i'm going to open up item six to public comment. any members of the public, please, come on up.. >> again, i want to emphasize, this is unfortunate this has fallen through the cracks during this process. i've got an e-mail from 2017 from our planner that said we're in the final design comments of

this project, as has been stated. we had affidavits on file in december of last year to get this project to the planning commission at the beginning of this year. we've literally gone around two or three more times and designed comments on this specific project. again, this is a smaller developer. we've been pushing this forward. it should be done at the planning commission within a couple of months, and we're going to push this immediately through the site permit process. so i really want to just emphasize that, that one really stands out as a real fairness issue, but i think with respect to the rest of the compromise, the entitled project at 18 months, totally appropriate, we'll get them through if they actually want to get them through. one correction for the record, too, there was some discussion, 519 ellis, it's less than 25 units, and, therefore, is not impacted by this legislation. it's 21 units. i just want to make absolutely clear, 519 ellis, below 25. 12% currently.

>> supervisor peskin: that's what i thought, but planning department's numbers are just terrible. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin, all right. >> supervisor peskin: said 28, but it's 21. >> supervisor tang: let's continue with public comment. >> hello, supervisors. david woo with the south of market community action network. this piece of legislation directly undermines prop "c" passed in 2016 and directly undermines the will of the voters. and directly undermines people like me who voted yes on prop "c" in 2016. the voters of san francisco said loud and clear, development projects in the city must provide a higher percentage of affordable housing. prop "c" already contains a grandfathering provision of 30 months to obtain permits for developers that already had projects with the city, allowing additional time for grandfathering is a complete giveaway and further a snub to the voters of san francisco by

city hall and by the mayor. rather than disregarding and working against the will of the voters, the mayor and city hall need to do what the voters said and uphold the existing piece of legislation as-is. san franciscans want affordability, not developer giveaways. thank you. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i'm a resident of district 6, and i also voted yes on proposition "c" in 2016, because i want more affordable housing in san francisco. we're in a housing crisis, and we need developers to build more affordable housing because of the lack of affordable housing that's being built, period, and grandfathering in these projects does nothing to address the issue of a lack of affordable housing. it is simply a giveaway to developers that directly undermines the will of the voters. i encourage you to not pass this legislation and to uphold the existing legislation passed by voters in 2016. thanks.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm victor quan. i have a project that is probably going to be affected by this proposed change, because we got approved i think in may of '17. there was a variance hearing at the time, and by the time all the other agencies went through their approval process, we still don't have a site permit, and we're short maybe another month or so. so the 18-month extension wouldn't help us, because if i'm counting right, the date that the 18 months would start for me would be the may of '17 date. >> supervisor tang: what is your address again? >> 198 valencia. >> supervisor tang: the clock is still running. answer your questions after.

>> okay, so we're currently -- the last thing that we need at this point is a -- an archaeological plan for some mitigation measures, and from my understanding, we have the plan -- actually, i don't have the plan in hand. we're supposed to get it today, but still a 30-day review process, i'm told. so we would probably miss that december 7th deadline. >> supervisor tang: thank you. are you done with your public comment? >> yes. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim, did you have a question? >> supervisor kim: he answered my question. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm john goldman of goldman architects. i'm here to talk about 980 folsom street and tell you a little story kafka may have

written, but it's nonfiction. i submitted for my environmental evaluation august 1st, 2014, my site permit december 29, 2014. no environmental planner was even assigned until february 2015, and a regular planner was first assigned in august 2015, but he didn't look at the drawings until early in 2016. then he slowly started looking at it, but then he was transferred to a different quadrant. a second planner was assigned in 2016. she quit the department. i had a third planner assigned at the end of 2016, who started looking at -- and she was very good, and she started looking at the drawings at the beginning of 2017, so once i had a planner looking at it, two and a half years after i submitted for my site permit, it went well. but, in fact, it was about a year. less than a year, in fact, from the time she started finally looking at it. i got my first notice of

planning department requirements in february of '17, and i got planning commission approval october 5, 2017. so things actually went reasonably well in planning, but i lost almost two years. first environmental evaluation they didn't look at it, three planners in 2016, none of whom actually looked at it, i lost a whole year of 2016, i lost nine months at the beginning, two years in planning. this is why it makes sense the mayor's proposal to put some kind of date from the point you get your planning commission approval, because we as architects and developers can't control what goes on in planning, but what goes on in d.b.i., that's fairly rational and you can kind of push it along. it's a reasonable process, but planning's unpredictable and we have no control on it, and there shouldn't be an arbitrary date. i agree there should be some time set for the time you get your planning commission approval. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> also presenting 980 folsom and some other projects. i'm working closely with a couple developers in the city, and, you know, we believe it's fair to provide more housing, but at the same time it's also, you know, good if, you know, we provide housing at first. you know, take into consideration a lot of the complications that happen through process of permitting and other delays that happens unrationally for some reason. i think we should fix the grace period for 30 months from the date of, you know, december 7th, because most of these projects would not need it, and you have just written this big list, which probably has five or six projects, but from my understanding and my knowledge, i know there are almost ten other projects that are not going to make it, and they are not on that list. and they are -- for some reason,

internal reasons or other reasons, financial or other things. i mean, i understand everybody wants to build in the city and we want to make more units and we want to build a higher amount of residential units, which is affordable, whatever, but i don't think this is the strategy of how we will be successful, by putting deadlines on developers and asking them to abide to it. it's almost like an ultimatum. from my understanding, i know one guy who is a developer here, he's actually giving up on his project. he said if i'm going to put more affordable units, it's not part of my feasibility calculations. i'm out from this. so this is actually triggering an immense negative, you know, impact among developers in the city. and, you know, we urge you to extend the period for another 30 months extra on top of that. because, you know, there's a couple departments in the city, you know, they just delay

things. it's the fact, everybody knows this. we need actually to understand that we are here today -- >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> -- because of one thing, which is we need to adhere and -- >> supervisor tang: thank you the. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition. happy to hear that at least the framework is moving towards an 18-month compromise. appreciate you're kind of going project by project and figuring out what's going on. specifically for the unentitled projects, a speaker before mentioned there's a lot that happens in the planning process, simple staff turnover can delay it months and months and months, you know, and thinking about this, the affordability crisis is such a big deal in the city. and i think we all know it, and we all feel it, and there's a continued goal to get more housing built here in san francisco that we all agree is crucial. each of these projects we absolutely want to maximize the amount of subsidized affordable

housing included. i think we're all in agreement on that. this could be the difference in a few percentage points in your pro forma that will make or break a project. so, i guess our fundamental ask to all of you is let's make sure we do what we can to get these units built, market units, affordability based units for a range of incomes in san francisco, because we desperately need homes for people to live. it helps everybody across the city and across the region. thank you. >> hi, i'm here on behalf of my family, the developers of 2627 street. we have been, you know, going through this permitting process for over three years now, so adding any additional affordable

housing units would create a hardship on our family and all of the time and effort and money we've spent thus far on this project. with that said, we are highly motivated and really want to build this development, you know, we're excited and ready to go. but i did want to point that out, that we've been in this process for over three years. and then this summer i actually contacted supervisor peskin's office, mentioning this. unfortunately, i wouldn't able to speak with anyone directly, but with that said we are, you know, open to compromise and working with the committee. thank you. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is nick abbott. i'm a resident of district 10. i want to wish my support for extending the grace period up to 30 months or longer. a lot of these projects, i work in public service on the city and spent last weekend to

recruit people to work in public service for the city of san francisco and the number one concern among all the recent college graduates i was talking to was lack of affordability in the city, as you know, being one of the biggest issues facing the city. these projects aren't built on the market-rate units, which help contribute to rent citywide and affordable units in the proje projects as they currently are, and creating an unpredictable environment for developers in they can't trust voter initiatives already in the pipeline and further creating instability and creating to greater bureaucracy in the city undermines the ability to produce more housing of all types. i really encourage the board of supervisors to allow projects currently in the pipeline to make it through this process, given the difficulties they face either with bureaucracy or otherwise, given the pressing need for more housing in the city.

thank you. >> hi, laura clark, m.b. action. the 18-month compromise makes a lot of sense. we also have to think about the projects that are still in the permitting process that are not yet entitled. the projects that legislation, you know, that will die without this legislation, are the kinds of projects that this body says that it wants. it is the smaller, not the big-time developers, it's the people doing a 30-unit project for the first time. it's the people who are doing one project and maybe only one project. this is not going to negatively affect the megaprojects, but this is going to mean that mid rise, middle-income housing is not going to get built. and so please, make this process more predictable. planning department, we all know that this process is unpredictable. we all know that this has been historically ridiculous and unfair. we all know that