to say both sides. i would say many sides, is a step in the right direction. this is a issue of our time. i want to say to folks who have fears about construction and jobs and workforce opportunities, that to the extent that this resolution urges and that the p.u.c. is moving into the 21st century about alternatives, it is going to create plenty of job opportunities. these things, the notion of increased flows, and the kinds of other measures, whether it's measures about stopping or enhancing habitat, all of those will require investment and plenty of job opportunities in this and many other counties. having said those things, i want to, again, thank chair tang for scheduled this not once but twice. we were quite willing last week to create that time and space to

have the discussions, productive discussions wet in the intervening week. i want to thank the three co sponsors, supervisor kim, supervisor mandelman and supervisor brown. i would respectfully that one of you move to accept the consensual language that is before you that i previously described and just send this as a committee report to the full board with recommendation. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. of course, thank you to everyone who came out on this important issue. i've certainly learned a lot in the last week. there's still so much more to learn. i appreciate everyone shedding light on this issue. we share co common goals. maybe we disagree about how we'll get there. unfortunately, and again, i'm not an expert that can jump in and say i think this is the best way to do it. with that said i am glad that

there has been some finessing of this language. it's important that the p.u.c. is able to remain as part of the these negotiations and you would what is best for the city as well as all the people and our animals as well. and so, i'm glad there's change to the resolution to reflect on this complicated of this situation. colleagues, is there a motion on the amendments. >> i'll make a motion to adopt the amendments as articulated by supervisor peskin. >> we'll do that without objec objection. a committee report? >> so moved. >> ok. we will do that without objection. >> thank you, very much. >> all right colleagues. items 11-15 together, please.

>> or ordinance with the general plan by adding central south of market area plan making conforming amendments and appropriate findings. item number 12 the zoning map of the planning code to create the central south of market special use district and making appropriate findings. item number 13, is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations and planning codes to create the central south of market housing sustainability district to provide a streamline administerral approvalling projects within the district. and item 14 is an ordinance with the planning codes to give effect to the central south of market plan and making appropriate findings and item number 15 is an ordinance amending the add minute code special tax financing law of certain facilities and services related to the central soma plan. >> thank you, very much. i'll turn it over to supervisor

kim now. >> thank you, chair tang. this is the last set of amendments that we'll be introducing, although there will be one or two stragglers next week. when i said set, i mean more than two or three amendments that i'll be introducing for the central soma plan. there will be time to clean up any language if we do find any other necessary changes for it next week's land use committee on november 5th. i have also spoken now at several land use committees on this item. i don't know if chair tang, do you want me to go through my proposed amendments today or go to straight to public comment? >> i think it would be good to have a high level overview of the amendments you are proposing today. i think last week you had mentioned there would be four and i think there's more than that today. i just want to make sure we're

all on the same page. >> yes. so i am introducing 11 amendments today at the land use committee. many of these have been discussed previously. at other committee meetings. some have come through requests of community groups for the central soma plan. one we will be eliminating the incentive for privately-owned public open spaces to provide playgrounds, sports clubs and dog runs. this was an incentive that provided a 33% reduction in the space required that they provide one of the above. the community felt that the private developers should provide this without the incentive so we have removed the incentive. this does of course mean the community needs to work really hard with project sponsors so they provide it to families and dogs and such needs.

there's qualifying language on how portable water is provided within the popos many of there's technical changes that the planning department has requested in regarding to approvals of project driveway loading and operation plans. this plan will now prohibit single-room occupancy units except in units that consist of 100% affordable housing and we will prohibit group housing unless it's housing for persons with disabilities or transitional and buildings again providing 100% affordable housing. the community felt strongly we need to encourage larger units, three and three bedroom units to encourage families to stay here in the south of market. i'm also introducing amendments to hire key sites to provide on site childcare facilities in satisfaction of their fee requirements. it will specify that the planning commission shall review the proposed project for

compliance. there was something that was included last week that mandated that this on-site childcare be free of rent or rented to a non-profit facility. we're now making that something the planning commission can -- will not require as long as a certain percentage of the childcare provider is set aside for below market rates. for families that make between, i believe, under 110% of average median income. so, the planning commission may wave this exception, provided that a percentage of the slots are set aside for families at 110% of average median income and below. it was not my intent to require childcare facilities that would be rent free for the life of the

building. so we want to clarify that in the amendment. i may secretary city attorney to just clarify that again, for members of the public, because that is not my intent. >> just to clarify, it's just giving the planning commission the discretion to grant an exception based on those factors? >> yes. thank you, chair tang. there's another technical amendment for one of the key sites to allow an exception. the ground floor be open to the sky and this again was just an oversight by the planning commission staff and they noticed it and we're fixing that. we're also providing a waiver to allow for credit for a public park which will be deeded to the county of san francisco against their various fees. we're also making an amendment to lot 014 which is the address

816folsom street which was the original proposal by the planning department. we had then, i had then set the zoning to m.u.r. because we want to build as much housing as possible, however, this site has worked very closely with our community and with our office to move forward with their proposal as they had submitted their p.p.a. to the planning department last year. next is an amendment to rezone a portion of the flower mart. it's 150 along sixth street as measured from the intersection of sixth and brandon. the remainder of the lot would remain cmuo and the final amendment was one that i had introduced last week. i had given a one-week continuance to allow supervisors to meet with the project sponsor and this would just allow the project to provide a minimum of

14 feet floor to floor p.d.r. ground floor height and reduce the mass reduction controls as long as the project dedicates land for affordable housing. >> thank you, very much for the summary. going back to, i guess the fourth amendment, the s.r.o.1, i just wanted to understand the rational behind that one. i know you stated that community members wanted more family-size units and so fourth, it sounded like we had heard from a project sponsor who mentioned they were going to provide a large amount of affordable units and so i again i wanted to understand, i guess is the preference for family-size units versus affordability or is it mutual exclusive. >> that was a discussion last week. that particular project is not within the boundary lines of the central soma plants. it would not be impacted by this prohibition. >> i mean in general, moving forward within central soma. >> the community felt strongly

even with a larger commitment to affordable housing and that one particular project is committing to 50% they felt this was a type of housing they did not want to encourage in the central soma plan. >> ok. also, that is one that is missing from here and i know there had been some time that you were going to spend between or the community was going to spend between last week and now. regarding the mint site. the $5 million that had been taken from that pot. i was wondering if you could speak to that? if there's been any development since the last week? >> so, after discussing with the community last week, there's still not supportive of increasing the funding by $5 million, however, there was support for an amendment that we asked the city attorney to draft today but is not ready for today. it would provide an additional $5 million to the old mint but it would be dedicated to b.m.r.

usage at the old mint site for community groups and cultural organizations. >> ok. and -- i mean, i would like to discuss that a little bit more in a bit. i wanted to go through some of the amendments. this flower mart project site, can you talk more about what that will entail? >> so, this particular part of the parcel is a stand-alone building that does not contain any of the flower mart vendors. and so, in the spirit of requiring our key sites to provide some housing and this being the only key site with an actual proposal that is not providing any housing, it would be rezoning the site to ensure housing would be built along with the office. we know there is a tremendous jobs housing gap within the central soma plan and the city over all. in my effort to build as much housing as possible, i have rezoned all of the zones outside

of the key sites to housing. i have asked all the key sites dedicate a portion of their parcel to housing. affordable or market rate. there's seven key sites. six with plans before the commission and staff in our office. one that has not decided at all what they will do with their key site. this is the only site of the six that currently does not have housing included in their plan and every key site should be providing some housing to contribute. i think there's already a tremendous a lot of linkage and nextus that is discussed about the need to build more housing as we create more jobs within the city and county of san francisco. >> i understand the goal here. i'm just wondering, because we had heard about this project, i got briefed on it many years ago. and so, at this point in time, is that something that the project sponsors are going to be able to do?

given that we're now just making this amendment and again, they've been planning for this for quite a while without housing? >> i just have to say to all of our developers and project sponsors that there's no guarantee of a project until the zoning is first approved by the board of supervisors and the project is later approved by either the planning commission or the board of supervisors. no one should have any expectation that whatever design they have for their projects is the one that's going to be finally passed by the planning commission or by the board of supervisors that is the risk that you take when you embark on a project and i think that over the last couple of months, both members of the public and elected officials have made very clear that they are trying to address the jobs-housing gap within this plan and city wide, to the best of their abilities. that is why we have rezoned all the parcels outside of the key site to either m.u.g. or i believe m.u.o. south of bryant

or south of the freeway. it's also why we're asking the key sites to contribute some housing to our over all city's need. this is a reasonable change. again, we're not requiring housing along the buildings where the flower mart may relocate to. only to the stand-alone site that does not have any flower mart vendors on their site. >> supervisor safai. >> i'm going to hold my comments. i have a whole series on number of the things and i have questions. i'll just do it after public comment. >> ok. >> we have more discussion after public comment. any members of the public who wish to comment on items 11-15. please, come on up. hello supervisors, my name is leanne and i am a curator and organizer who works on art history, community planning and community engagement.

as you have said in previous hearings, the city must update its jobs, housing fee and must immediately release the most recent jobs, housing linkage fee study that has been completed. the last time the study was done was in 1997. this is completely outdated. please stand by.

>> as a result the goal of the plan of maintaining the diversity of residents here in terms of socioeconomic makeup appears empty. cities across the u.s. and even canada are learning that developers are not placing housing units to be used for housing people. many cities are fully realizing the negative impacts of the push to build, build, build an ideology fully embraced by the central soma plan. they show it later -- it is later developed as a commodity and it is corporatized. often new condos are not being occupied by local residents are any people at all. without adequate patrols and -- controls and things in place,

they will continue to not be used as open and accessible affordable housing options. new condos will be affordable only as high-end luxury housing or city -- are staying vacant because they are owned by investors who have no intention of living in these units. new condos will be used as commercial short-term rentals instead of as residential use. condos will be used as corporate rentals instead of as residential use and other buildings will be used as student housing instead of residential use. we strongly support the amendment to ban s.r.o. units except for 100% affordable s.r.o. developments and is part of this exception, not allowing developments that have 2-3 bedroom units. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. a good job for all. thank you for having this meeting. i want to thank supervisor kim for all of her very, very hard work on this huge project that is going forward. it is a huge development and it

could always be back here. all the amendment says supervisor kim is putting forward represent meaning of our comments that we have given to her. we appreciate that. in order to make this, i agree with the comments have been stated with this job language. it is $26 and it has not been raised for a decade. we heard the study has been done it has not been released. if it will not be released, just double the fee and let the city prove that that is not the right amount. we need more funds to make this 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