project more amenable to all of us in san francisco with 40,000 jobs and a thousand housing units being proposed and being reamended and being dealt with. we have work to do to make this project even better. i appreciate the work that supervisor kim and her office are doing with trailing legislation that will help to provide those jobs and help them be good jobs for the surrounding community. there has to be rules and regulations on who will come and who will work and who will be served by these jobs and that is one of the things we did. lastly, i wanted to say that this amount project in a good job. we reached an agreement just this morning with a basis. we approve absolutely this including their project within the plan. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

on behalf of the san francisco housing actual -- coalition. we want to limit our comments to excluding group housing and all levels of portability in this project. we are proud of the project they're putting forward with 50% -- 50% below market rate housing we are really concerned we might move out on future opportunities to provide not only affordable but designed housing and often times, mid to late 20 new resident and new workers to san francisco. whether they are student and an employee in the medical sector or technology sector. these are opportunities for folks to come here and live in san francisco. other cities around the country are doing different things and being very creative in order to incentivize housing at all levels of portability and we realize that no one solution for housing will work for -- we do

not expect families to be living in group housing with two or three children. the more solutions that are out there for people, the more options that are out there for people, it is the better all people will be. anything we can do to incentivize more housing, more housing types and more housing that hits different levels of affordability, we think is a wonderful thing. we respectfully request that you do not restrict any group housing within central soma area thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. i am representing kilroy realty corporation. regarding this proposal to require housing on the flower market side, i want to read some excerpts from a letter you received from the san francisco flower mart from the president and the chief operating operate -- chief operating officer. the flower mart is an industrial business. we are heavily reliant on vehicles to receive and deliver

the products we sell in our wholesale marketplace. many of these vehicles are semi trucks and box trucks. our customers are ripened by our perishable products at 2:00 am. if housing were to be built, it would cause hardship for all of our vendors and wholesale customers to operate effectively i have additional copies of this letter. you have also received e-mails and messages from other flower vendors who were not able to attend. the flower mart and kilroy agree it would be very problematic to a quiet -- require housing on the site. the central soma plan has been contemplated for more than a years and our project within the plan, for more than five. every segment has been contemplated by everyone involved. as a site that prioritizes p.d.r. preservation and improvement as well as office. we have worked very hard to develop and refine our project with respect to suddenly suggest that we graphed housing on this

site at the 11th hour, in a way that creates a permanent conflict with the businesses of the wholesale partners is not good policy and we understand from council at such a change could push the pond back to planning. kilroy would welcome a conversation about how we could assist the city in meeting the housing goals. but we would want to do that in a way that is thoughtful, sustainable and logical. thank you for your consideration we look forward to having that conversation. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is charlie chang. i have been a tenant of the flower mart for over 30 years. i do support the plan as a retail location and a wholesale site. however, i do not support it as a residential site because of our early morning hours in the amount of noise that we will be creating and the conflicts they may create with our new residents. thank you, for your time.

>> good evening, supervisors. my name is john gomez. i am a tenant of the san francisco flower market. i am here to tell you that i don't think it is a good idea to have housing at the san francisco flower markets. it is not just a good fit. we operate too early. we have tracks all over the place coming in and i just don't think it will work i appreciate your time. thank you. >> good evening supervisor kim. i am the owner designer of natalie flowers. i understand supervisor kim that before you make a decision, it is important for you to hear from us. i am a small business owner and i thank you for hearing me today when i came here, i am the only

forest service -- representing the hundreds of thousands of lawyers in the city. i was telling myself, i am like a tiny screw in a dark plane. but that tiny screw is also important for the plane to fly. i am here today, you know, to support the flower market. not to have any housing on the property. i have been in the business 30 a years. i came early and i came late. we need to have freedom of coming in and out and to have delivered to you to deal with our business. i understand that you have small jobs and small business. we are creating small business for san francisco. we don't oppose your housing. you can apply it somewhere strategically, but san francisco market is a very unique market.

so, you know, i know that you want what is best for san francisco and this is the best for san francisco. please hear us because i am one of the voice of the so many florists and small businesses in san francisco thank you, so much >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with ruben junius and rose appearing on behalf of kilroy which is worked closely with the city and flower vendors to deliver a high-quality project on on the flower market site. because a flower market is a busy wholesale operation would tuck -- trucks loading from midnight and on into the early morning, it is not compatible with residential use.

the plan recognize that housing shouldn't be included unless the conflicts between p.d.r. and residential are addressed. now without these conflicts having been resolved, there is an amendment that would change the zoning to mandate residential use of the corner of the site were heavy trucks enter the site in the middle of the night. this change to the ordinance is one that was never considered by the planning commission and by mandating a residential use, when conflict are present, it contradicts the key site guidelines recommended to you by the planning commission. this committee is not empowered to act on the zoning ordinance without a recommendation from the planning commission. the planning commission simply never consider considered the flower market site with zoning that mandates residential uses and that is what this amendment is before you. with the amendments reduced -- introduced in july, the city attorney determined that a minor increase in height from 45 feet to 50 feet with -- was material

amendment that needed to be referred back to the planning commission. similarly, this zoning change upends five years of planning and mandates new uses on the flower market site should also go back to the planning commission to be cleared of delays. it is clearly not a result we desire to delay it. the city has a strong interest in advancing this project which includes the payment of $55 million in fees for affordable housing. we would encourage not to adopt this amendment and move forward with the zoning recommended by the commission. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. during this year after the debates on this major change to the city's future, at the planning commission on the board capped the issues that have come forward as the most important is the overall jobs and housing balance which is very negative on this plan alone, and very terrific practical problem of

building the affordable housing that this plan assumes will be built to meet those impacts in south of market. the reason that the flower mart project corner is so significant to both is that it is a large parcel. it would be 300,000 feet of office space which makes it a balance just makes the balance that much worse where it could be 200 units of housing. if the kilroy company had followed the same practice as three of the other key site developers are doing and commit to donating -- receiving the value of what they paid for it, that parcel could afford affordable housing. to be 200 more units of affordable housing than the plan now contains. clearly that is better outcomes in the big picture. we support that. the hotel site, we support their change that allows the developments because that developer has secured west of sixth street in south of market

a site that they are prepared to give to the city, likewise for development of future affordable housing. that project is on a win-win. the flower mart should follow the same path. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items 11- 15? public comment is closed. >> thank you. i did forget to mention a little bit more information about lot -- about the lot on folsom street. there was an agreement that citizen and understood the need for more housing within our city and the plan area and they are currently in negotiations with an option to purchase sally parcel in the south of market which they would deed to the mariposa his office of housing to build 100% affordable housing and they have agreed to pay a fee, voluntarily that would go

to our affordable housing fund or the accelerator fund to ensure that more housing gets built within the plan. understanding that they're preferred use of the parcel hotel did not fit in with their priority that community or our office. they worked on her way to mitigate their usage by purchasing another -- they worked on their way to mitigate and usage by purchasing another housing fund. i want to thank citizen and for being creative with working with our community and finding a way to ensure the project can move through while the priorities of the committee -- community and the city move forward as well. i know they were able to work and negotiate a deal with local labour on the jobs that would be provided on site. i apologize i do not provide details of that in advance but that was the conclusion of weeks of community discussion over the site. >> thank you, very much. >> i have a few things, just in

reaction to some of these amendments that i am seeing for the first time today. first of all, i want some clarity on the childcare proposal. the way i read it is actually that project sponsors would have to -- the law would be applicable in terms of the way it is written that they would have to provide free space, unless they do the following things and you give them -- the commission can grant an exception. at least this is what i'm reading based on the amendments as it was drafted. i want to get clarity. doesn't have to be rented to a nonprofit childcare provider the way it is written? his as the space provided to the proposed childcare provider at below market right map.

is that meaning a nonprofit childcare provider or a childcare provider? >> victoria wong, deputy city attorney. the provision as currently drafted would require the facility, in order to get credit for therefore 14 fee requirement would require the project to comply with 414 unless the commission grants an exception. it does require the no wrench provision that we talked about as well as providing the space to a nonprofit childcare provider. those exceptions can be made to those requirements if these requirements in four a one into are met and those are requirements that the space be

provided to the proposed childcare provider. yes, that would be -- actually -- >> i want to make sure. the office of early childhood education, in terms of having to waive the fee for their childcare fee does not require it to be a nonprofit provider. requires that 20% of their childcare population be low or moderate income. i want to make sure that this provision -- there are certain childcare providers out there, i know from my own experience having gone through that. >> yes. >> there are certain childcare providers, for instance, language immersion. i know there are only three spanish child -- childcare providers that do spanish immersion in the entire city. they are not nonprofit. they do offer a reduced rate for

low or moderate income providers is a way it is written is has proposed childcare provider would not have to be a nonprofit >> correct. >> the second portion is a proposed childcare provider provide services consistent with the goals of the childcare capital fund which may include activities but not limited to providing childcare, affordable amounts of low or moderate income. is not meant to mirror the 20% as it is written in the office of early childhood education? >> correct. the rules and regulations in place have a percentage -- >> so it mirrors -- ok, good. i'm good with that amendment as long as it is mirroring what is in the office of childhood of early education and the allowable -- the director has some discretion to review and go over those. i am good with that. with regard to the s.r.o.

prohibition, group housing, i am not 100% comfortable with that. i understand where just what supervisor kim is trying to do. in and around childcare,, there's a lot of projects under construction now that are s.r.o. and are not in an identified category. i know use of the community -- i want to hear more about that. the production of those units also helps to take pressure off of the community as well. i wanted to hear a little bit more on that from the supervisors. >> members of the public just spoke to that specific amendment >> i got it. >> so i don't know if i can articulate it better than they did. this is requested specifically from them. it came during the appeals process. it is not the type of housing that they want to allow or encourage on the south of market

believe that housing -- we should be incentivizing as much housing for families as possible and there's a portion of the central soma plan which is part of the youth and family. >> i'm familiar with that. >> which was instituted long before my time. this is just a way to ensure that more larger units are built in the central soma plan. >> i guess my question was not so much about that. i understood what they're saying and the argument about family housing. that is important. what i wanted to know is are there any proposed projects -- because i don't have as much understanding as you do down to the granular level, are there proposed project that would be impacted by this or is this in anticipation? >> there are none currently proposed. more that i am anticipating. there was not a specific project in mind that we were trying to prevent or prohibit. >> ok. all right.

i guess we will just move on. going back to what you said about project sponsors not anticipating -- that is a good segue into the previous one that we talked about with force in harrison on the p.d.r. space. i met with the project sponsors and i got mixed messages from them in one breath they were saying if they didn't get this 14-foot height reduction that they might -- they would have to rethink providing any affordable housing at all. but then the land owner, in the same breath said i don't necessarily agree with that. we are committed to do affordable -- doing affordable housing. i would like to hear more from the planning department. i was not convinced after that meeting that this is a necessary amendment. i had a stead at the end of the day this was simply about the ability to do more office space. so they said clearly that this additional 3 feet in certain

areas of their development would create 51,000 square feet more of office space. i think that we are already at a significant limit. i don't think it inhibits them from doing any affordable housing. i wanted to have the planning department away in. this was a conversation about a maybe in terms of and it always has been. now you have made it a requirement for 17 feet. i. i wanted you to talk more about that. >> i am with planning staff. so the 17 feet has always been in the code. as well, since the package originally arrived at the board, there has also been, as a key site, it could explicitly exceed a -- seek a concession from the commission on the 17-foot requirement. i think the proposed amendment is to provide more certainty on that exception and to write that

>> as i understand correctly, they are getting a significant up zoning. they're getting a significant amount and more ability of square footage and space to do more office space. is that correct? >> yes. >> it sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too. they don't want to preserve this workable and usable p.d.r. space at 17 feet as the planning commission has always contemplated. they want to be able to do more office space. they're trying to get -- from what i got from them today, 51,000 square feet more of office space by reducing the heights in these areas. it is a slow piece of property but in no way, and anything that i got from them today would it inhibit them from doing 17 feet. it would cut into their office space, somewhat. >> i could not vouch to the specifics on the project. the way the key site framework is set up in the exceptions that have been allowed and the hate scheme in there, for the key

sites that are dedicating land such as for affordable housing or public parks, the whole framework is intended to provide a shifting of that square footage that otherwise would have been allowed on that portion of the site to a different part so we could -- >> we have a stated goal and i know supervisor kim put forward a ballot measure about the preservation of p.d.r. space. we have competing interest in this plan. won his affordable housing. it sounds like supervisor kim has run a hard line on this and i think it is a good thing. we want to promote as much housing and affordable housing. it sounds like the owners of the site are dedicated to do that. we are trying to preserve space and it would create for an awkward space to have these multiple types of ceilings in the space. i think that that is awkward. i am inclined to support this amendment. i think we should have uniformity in the plan in that regard. thank you.

secondly, the other thing that i want to -- and i just know this from experience. i understand what supervisor kim is saying and what you're trying to do at the flower mart site. i know that there has been a significant amount of conversations over years about the preservation of this particular p.d.r. space. and the amount of deliveries and the amount of truck noise -- that is a real thing. i know in my district, even when we are talking about some of the schools that are adjacent to people's properties that have trash bins and large trucks coming at 3:00 am, we get a lot of complaints. i can't imagine the amount of complaints you get in your district with the level of p.d.r. and trucks. i understand -- the spirit of what you're trying to do. it could be achieved differently may be we could ask for the project sponsor could consider

to contributing what would be the equivalent of or something similar to the amount of affordable housing for a small site acquisition rather than doing the construction of affordable housing right on site to have this use next to one another that will have significant impacts. the trucks going at 1:00 am to 4:00 am in the morning will have a significant amount of complaints. i wonder if there is a way we could achieve what you are trying to do rather than having them work on site. >> that can be achieved through the development agreement. that conversation has begun as far as i understand. i have not been part of this discussion but my understanding is that the project sponsor is looking at sights to acquire as -- similar to what we saw with citizen m. so, that can be negotiated through the final development agreement.

>> on that same amendment or that same site. >> may be we can ask the project sponsors here and ask them to respond to that point or one of the points. i'm sorry. go ahead. i did not mean to cut you off. >> i had a question that given during public comment the project sponsor mentioned they would have to be referred back to planning. can someone confirm whether that is the case with this amendment? >> is that the whole plan? >> this amendment would not trigger a throwback to planning. planning did not consider this specifics on this designation. it is within the scope of what planning considered. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> yeah. can i hear the question again? >> my question was, there is a proposal on the table to rezone certain portions of your lot for housing. i wonder if there is a way to

achieve what supervisor kim is talking about. not -- looking at an additional site not on this area and a contribution to -- we did this recently, supervisor kim. we all negotiated on the india basin site where there was some type of contribution for small sites acquisition. that is something that is very important to this community, stabilizing existing housing and existing housing to ensure that that housing remains affordable in perpetuity. wanted to see what your thoughts might be to that. >> absolutely. that has not been proposed to us and we have not had discussions about that. we heard this proposal from the supervisor ten days ago and that is what we are responding to. we would be open to the discussion of doing an off site solution. >> can you identify yourself with a record. >> i'm sorry. mike rizzo from kilroy realty

corporation. >> thank you. i would say that would be -- that would be my preference because i can anticipate this being a long and drawn out issue and a battle and anticipating the amount of conflict in the land use and the amount of complaints and concerns and issues that people would have that would be living next to constant noise from delivery trucks. that does not, you know, fabricate it. that is real. that is just the nature of the site that we know going. ♪ if i can respond to that. we have a lot of new construction in the district. i don't feel a lot -- i don't field a lot of complaints about the loading and unloading of trucks around the flower mart today. there is housing on six straight across the street from the flower mart. again, if there is an agreement between the project sponsor and many of the different stakeholders, there may be an

option for through the development agreement where the project sponsor can deed land to mohcd as was down by citizen m. today or potentially provide dedicated funding for a small site acquisition as well. none of that is off the table with this amendment. >> ok. to the chair, just so i don't know, what stage in the process is the development agreement? >> that will come after the plan >> the developed agreement meets the zoning to move forward. before the development agreement can come before the board of supervisors. >> i understand that. i know they are anticipating and so they are at a certain stage in their agreement. i wanted to hear from the project sponsor if you can speak to that. >> supervisors, we are

absolutely willing to have that discussion. but if this amendment is approved, it would require that the board rezone the site before the develop mentor agreement is negotiated. i do think it takes it off the table, technically. frankly the solution that you're proposing supervisors. what we would like to do is have those discussions about off site acquisition and small sight -- small site acquisitions and not have this go forward. if it does go forward it will need to be changed before any developed agreement can be approved and that is a delay and a significant process that our project would have to go through like i said, we have spent five years on this and if that is the direction that the board wants to go, let's do that. this amendment would make it harder to do that. >> so my preference after hearing that would be to do something similar that we did on the last time. may be given additional time and not accept this amendment to allow the parties to continue

conversations and come up with a new proposal. >> that will take weeks and weeks. that will not happen in the space of the approval of the central soma plan. if we don't pass this amendment, there will be no guarantee of any housing. so you can look at it from the project sponsor's perspective or the community perspective. i would prefer to give the community a guarantee that there will be some housing that would be included with the project, either because of the rezoning or because it will finally be negotiated through the development agreement. the other provides a benefit to the project sponsor and i don't think that that leverage is needed for the project sponsor in this case. there is no way within a week's time that he developed agreement will be hammered out between the community and the project sponsor to ensure that there is some type of housing that is a part of this key site proposal. again, all of this -- this is the only key site proposal that is duly developed agreement. all of this will get hammered out in the months that will follow the passage of the

central soma plan. >> just so i am clear, does the agreement have to come back before the board of supervisors? >> yes, it does the mac wouldn't it make more sense to wait to allow for the developer his agreement to go forward and if there is no agreement reached with the community on this particular issue then we would not be finalizing the agreement? >> one provides a guarantee to the project sponsor in my amendment provides a guaranteed to the community. i would prefer to move forward with some type of commitment to guarantee the community that there will be housing. if the board should choose to do the other way around, which is to provide some type of guarantee for the sponsor, that will be the will of the board. i will be moving forward to amend this at land use or the full board of supervisors. >> i was curious. was this brought up early on in the process? i am curious as to why, now at this moment this additional change. >> i did bring this up. not 15 days ago but at the full

board of supervisors, everyone here in this chamber hurt me on september 25th. it was made very clear by the members of the public and the community groups that there is not enough housing built in this plan. and we have been hearing about it for least a year. i have made a very strong commitment from over a year ago to ensure that amendments would be made to the central soma plan to include as much housing and affordable housing as i could conceivably squeeze out of this plan. there's only a number of ways to do it. one is the amendment that i introduced with the support of the land use committee in july where we rezoned all of the parcels outside of the key site to be housing oriented. rezoning everything north of the freeway and south of the freeway and the second is to ask all of the key sights to do their part in building housing either by

contributing land for affordable housing or building housing themselves. this is the only key site of the seven that is not committed to any type of housing. again, i should say of the sex. there is a seventh key site without a proposal currently. it is waiting for the approval before it moves forward with some type of proposal to the planning commission. so this is my commitments. again, there is a wide diversity of community groups. when groups agree, i really think i need to move forward with the greatest amount of housing as possible. i heard that loud and clear at the planning commission in may and at the land use committee in the summer and again very clearly on september 25th at the board of supervisors appeal. that is why i had been doing everything that i can to move as much housing into this plan before the board of supervisors. i think that i have been fairly clear along the process. you can see my quotes in the san

francisco business times from january or february where i committed to putting as much housing into this plan as possible. that is allowable within the e.i.r. i have really fulfilled that commitments with these amendments that i've introduced. >> i have some additional questions. thank you. how does this impact overall -- i know this particular site, even before i was on the board of supervisors was an issue that was going to the ballots. it didn't go to the ballot and was about preserving people that had been operating in this location for decades? there has been conversations about swapping land to ensure that there is temporary site his during construction. there has been a significant amount of conversation about this. i wonder how this impacts the overall negotiations and conversations. part of this is about preserving a special piece of san francisco i wonder how that impacts the

overall conversations. that is something that i'm considering. i hear what you are saying, supervisor, and i respect the fact that the communities pushing and want something. as you said, this is one project out of the entire site that are being apps owned that has a developed agreement. >> this is the only key site that has committed to development agreements. i would love for all of them to do development agreements but i cannot mandate that. >> i get it. >> this is the only key site moving forward with the agreement that would come before the board of supervisors. >> i think because of that, i think it gives the community and everyone that much more assurance. i don't understand. i have not heard the argument as to why we need this amendment now. i understand why you are doing it, but if there was no development agreement to, i would say yes, i am with you because you need the leverage and you need the ability to ensure that you are going to get some form of affordable housing. by the fact that this will be

coming back to the board for a development agreement approval, it seems to me like that is a strong assurance that you will have the ability to negotiate affordable housing, whether it is on site or off site. >> you can look at it either way from the project sponsor perspective, you can say because there is a developed agreement later on that will become -- that will come before the board of supervisors, there will be flexibility for the board of supervisors to rezone this parcel back to allow for office space. so you could also make that argument as well. >> or you could -- i mean, -- >> you could argue either way. >> india basin, they had to have a final approval. we were able to get much more than was on the table before their final agreements. i think that approval gives us the authority to ensure that we will get the appropriate -- we can go back and forth all day. i don't think, at this time, i'm not supportive of this amendment i think the fact there is a developed agreement ensures

there will be an ability to negotiate something and i think probably what needs to be negotiated is the ability for there to be a fund for acquisition of small sights. it sounds like something that would make more sense on this site rather than putting conflicting use as. it is one thing to be across the street from loading and unloading and another thing to be right next to or above. i think that is what concerns me for those who would be living there. i would not want to live next to trucks going in at 1:00 am or 3:00 am or on top of -- actually , i did that in college and had to move my dorm room because i couldn't sleep. anyway. side note. >> thank you. ok. thank you, very much for that dialogue. i wanted to go back to the mint issue. i know that we had talked about giving a week span of time. i know this has been an ongoing conversation.

i am wondering if maybe oewd staff are working on the mint and can speak to this project and where the status is of things. whether it is negotiation or the project in general. >> thank you. i'm the project manager. i'm here today with others from the historical society. as i understood from prior conversations, there was a discussion of potentially a full restoration of the planning commission recommended amount of funding of $20 million. that is what we came prepared to talk about today. this notion of additional funding, be a tide to additional parameters or detail is news to us on a project team.

is something we can be happy to work with you on but as of today , that is new information. i would love, throw out quick clarifying points on where we are in the hopes of focusing the conversation. firstly, the only thing related to the mint that is part of the central soma packet that is in front of the committee is the recommended planning commission recommendation of a 20 million-dollar allocation to the capital project. so there's no other print preapprovals are rezoning related actions as part of the plan. all of which would have to come before you at a future date. we are not planning on rezoning but for their project approvals would all come before the board for review. second quick thing, as currently constructed, the proposed

allocation of the c.f.d. revenue futures would go to the fiscal rehabilitation of the mint. city dollars going to a city infrastructure project. we are not intending to make those available or otherwise re grant to specific community groups, including the current -- the perp -- or even our long-term partner. i wanted to clarify that. maybe there was confusion around the $20 million going to particular neighbourhood groups. city dollars for a city infrastructure project investments. and then lastly, both the proposed interim lease, which is a separate item at a separate board file, the intention is to activate and steward the mint for the next few years until such time as we are ready to proceed with the fiscal restoration project. both as proposed with the interim leased and -- lease and

the long-term restoration project. they are built around this concept of public access and community activation. and with the chair's permission i was going to ask to share a few words on the long-term project this notion of a cultural community commons which is really core to -- there has been some conversation about how we will partner in the future with community groups and what kind of access and activation of the space they would have in that model. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is great to see you. on behalf of the california historical society, we are honoured to be working in partnership with the city and county to revitalize and bring back the old u.s. mint into a vibrant and sustainable plays for history and culture for all of us. one of the key tenants of this

exploration, which i think he remembered, we received a million dollars grant from the state and then the city is also matching that. we are deep into the planning process. we are midway through and hope to bring back to you next year, may be before this time, let's say before halloween, a full -- fully proposed a fully developed project. the cultural commons is a key idea with chs and for many of our community -- community partners with whom we have worked. we look forward to exploring this over the next 6-a months. as we work with our full team of architects and museum designers on this. what we do know after our initial community meetings and our initial capital campaign feasibility study is that this commitment by the city for the city's owned own resource is a key component to kick off the project in ways that are meaningful, those two donors and other agencies who would be willing to invest in this

project. i look forward to speaking and we have been honored to speak with many of our community members and partners since i have come to c.h.s. years ago. we have worked about 250 different partners in the bay area. sometimes that is for an evening program and sometimes that is for a much longer and sustained set of efforts. we believe deeply in the community partners response. i'm happy to answer any questions. i deeply appreciate your incredible deliberations on this and i know the mint is a very small part of this. i appreciate the attention that you have paid to it its. thank you. >> thank you. i do look forward to future conversations around the community cultural commons concept. i think that is exactly what supervisor kim was looking for in terms of partnership with the mint. the point i made last week was that of course, i want to support that effort but i also want to make sure that the project can -- its rehabilitation and so forth can be kicked off, which is quite

expensive. it will be beyond this 20 million-dollar pot for 15 million-dollar pots that we are allocating through the central soma plan. i think, again, there are probably negotiations underway, but i want to make sure the project can move forward on its own. with that said, i know that supervisor kim has additional amendments that are currently being drafted. but as i have stated in previous meetings, i would like to add back the 5 million into that pot that was suggested by planning commission from the regional transportation fund. >> ok. at this time, do we have any other comments or questions? >> i do. >> what i would propose is that we move forward amendments that perhaps are not controversial with this committee. so if we can move forward with amendments -- actually, i am

looking at last week's. i have so many. if we can look move forward all of the amendments except for the tenth amendment and we can take a roll call on that. we will move forward with those amendments first and then i will make two more amendments and then supervisor tang, you have an amendments. i may be amending that next monday with the additional language of linking the $5 million to below-market rate space for other nonprofits and cultural organizations in the south of market. i just want to confirm, is the 14-foot p.d.r. height included as part of your list? >> no. >> hold off on the flower march 1.

>> so amendments of 1-9 and then i will make two more amendments and then supervisor tang, i believe you have a an amendment. >> is that all right. >> yes. >> there is a motion to amend as was stated by supervisor kim and we will do that without objection. >> great. i would like to move forward with the tenth amendment which is to rezone a portion of block 377 a lot 0052 m. you are. >> i'm sorry. i thought -- we are not holding back on that one for next week? >> no. >> there is nothing that will happen between now and next week this agreement will take weeks, if not months to negotiate. so there is not going to be a commitment that will be made in a week's time for education or a fee. it will take some time. >> i would like to move forward this amendment today.

>> for the supervisor his consideration, you are considered to doing this m.u.r. would you be willing to postpone this and allow parties to talk with you? may be you can get some form of commitment in writing that would talk about small sites acquisition or land dedication and then we can have a better -- >> this project is so big. >> i understand. it would be a very complicated amendment. >> there may be major changes through the agreements that have nothing to do with this housing portion. i'm happy to talk to outside of committee about that. >> know , know , i get it. >> i really need to move central soma out of land use next monday so if making that amendment next monday requires a continuance, then i am not open to waiting on this amendment. >> deputy city attorney?

>> yes, if you make the amendment today and continue it you can pass it out next week or remove it next week. if you make it next week, it will trigger another continuance inland use. it is a subjective amendment. >> i guess what we could do is what we did when you asked me at rules, to leave it in for the process of moving things forward but allow for the option to remove it. i would think that we would encourage the parties, both the flower march representative and community members to talk with one another and talk with the supervisors' office and you can get some form of commitment in writing. you may not be enough for the development agreement but it may be enough to satisfy the needs of the community and the supervisors' office to make a commitment in some form of small sites acquisition or contribution to land or in lieu

fee or whatever it may be. i think that is where the. we can go ahead and move forward with the amendment with the knowledge that i reserve the right to make a motion to remove it next week. >> would you like a roll call vote on that particular one? >> no, that is fine. we can roll call it next week. again, i think that may be -- the project sponsor is here and their representatives are here. may be they can talk and talk with supervisor's office. that is fine. we can do that. >> all right. item ten, this is regarding assessors block 377 a lot five. we will take that amendment without objection. >> that's fine. >> ok. the second amendment was the amendment that i was asked to weighed a week. to bring forward the land use committee. it was amendment date last week. this is to allow the project on

fourth and harrison to provide a minimum of 14 feet floor to floor p.d.r. ground floor height and reduce the mass reduction controls on harrison street and on fourth street with contention on the project providing land for affordable housing, currently this is a discretionary approval and i understand that the planning commission would be very likely to support this as a discretionary approval by the project sponsor did ask for certainty in moving forward with the project as they have proposed. we can take a roll call on that. >> ok. to the city's attorney his office, his is also one of those new amendments that if we, i know we talked about it, but we have not taken action. >> there is a question if this is a substantive amendment.

[indiscernible] >> go ahead. >> basically, same situation. it is substantive. if you made it next week, it would trigger another continuance. >> ok. roll call vote on this one. >> yes, please. >> on the motion to amend the legislation by stated by supervisor kim. [roll call] >> there are two aye. >> this amendment passes. i will make a motion to restore the $5 million to the mint

project from the regional transportation fund as was recommended by the planning commission. roll call vote. we will do that without objection. sorry. deputy city attorney? >> just a clarification because there has been confusion about how this piece works. the committee can certainly make that amendment. we would reflect that amendment in the ordinance itself as in section 434. just referencing the plan that was adopted by planning and the change. but the committee is not amending the implementation. >> thank you. that -- thank you for that clarification. we are ok with doing that without objection at this time. ok. colleagues, any other further questions or comments or discussion? >> i just want to thank the land

use committee but i will thank you next monday. >> with that, we are going to continue items 11-15 to the next land use committee meeting of november fifth. we will do that without objection. are there any other items before us today? >> there is no further business. >> thank you. we are adjourned. women's netwo sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and

puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way

meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do

and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program

that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org

>> good morning and welcome to the special government audit and oversight committee for thursday , october 25th. i would like to acknowledge our vice vice chair, supervisor erin peskin and. committee member, supervisor valley brown and recognize our clerk. i would like to recognize staff at san francisco government t.v. michael and samuel for ensuring our meetings are available to the public on line. do you have any announcements? >> and cherry of silence your cell phones and electronic devices. your completed speaker cards and copies of documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk items acted upon today will appear onhe