>> good afternoon. i am the executive director of livable city. we wanted to thank supervisor kim for bringing this forward. it is long overdue. parking requirements were imposed in the city in 1955 and based on a piece of junk science can't predict and provide which said parking is inevitable and if you provide enough parking to meet a demand, you will meet a pre-existing demand. demand is fixed. if you do not provide parking, people will drive around in circles all day. we know and understand a lot more about transportation. we understand induced demand. we understand that if you build more parking and require everyone to build more parking, you get more cars and you get more traffic. it also does a lot of other awful things, as you have heard over the years. parking tribes of the cost of housing and makes it impossible to build certain types of housing like a.d.u. a lot of you have voted. thank you to relax parking

requirements in the interest of making housing more affordable in this city. parking destroys our streetscapes and replaces front gardens and replaces storefronts with garages and driveways. it really erodes the walk ability and the character of our city. if someone was inventing parking requirements today and if one of you had proposed this, we would take all the information that we know and say this is a disaster. it will increase greenhouse gas emissions and increase pollution and congestion. it will make housing more expensive and make housing less affordable and available. it is going to endanger pedestrians and cyclists and slow down transit use. why would we do this? the only reason we have this is because we had it for a long time. so we hope that you will act today in supporting this legislation and let's get rid of minimum parking requirements. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am alice rogers and i'm here as an individual strongly

supports the better streets legislation but also for walk san francisco. i am a director there and walk san francisco, not only participated in developing this legislation, but very strongly supports it. you have heard a litany of all the reasons why you should support this and i second and third and fourth all of those. walk san francisco has just completed or is completing a strategic plan process and along with our very strong and focused focus on safety, equity is right there as well. so this is an important move towards that. there are no losers to this recommendation. the inverse is true. should you keep the minimum parking requirements, you have just heard that there will be losers so we encourage you, like the previous legislation, that

you are considering on changing the flexible retail. this legislation recommends trends that are already happening. people have already shifted to share mobility options. let's do away with a minimum parking. thank you. >> good afternoon. we want to add our voice to the litany of people who think that it is time to do away with minimum parking requirements. i want to say that when this came up, i called a bunch of our members to ask them what is going on in multifamily housing with parking garages? every single person i spoke to said that there garages are about less than 70% full. that this parking -- private parking with housing is something that is an old policy that no longer needs to be done. i also want to acknowledge that

we are mostly talking about multifamily housing. that the outer supervisorial districts, perhaps it is much more geared toward single-family homes and i'm not sure that this legislation would strongly affect what is going on in the districts. we are talking about places that are building much of the multifamily housing and that there is rich transit in those areas. there really is no need to have a minimum requirement. there are needs for parking and it is available. on parking, they need better public transit but that could be a conversation for another day. so thank you for bringing this forward. we are very happy to be supportive. it is about time we see this legislation. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from spur. i'm also here to echo the supportive remarks or supervisor

kim's proposal to eliminate parking requirements. it is all in the right spirit of changing the way we use our streets and allocate our space both on the streets and within the block and this will help to provide more housing for people as opposed to cars and be in the right spirit of the things we have already been doing and plans in terms of getting rid of parking minimums and expanding parking maximums. thank you, very much. >> any other members of the public who wish to speak on item five? public comment is closed. supervisor? >> i don't necessarily disagree with some of the things that were talked about today. i just think, for something like this, it may be a no-brainer for the pot just all the planners in the room and the people that are concerned about being transit first and being able to walk the city and a healthy way.

i don't know if the public has had time to weigh in on this. i don't know if there has been a conversation where people really understand what that means. whether it is development of community, community groups, whether it is the transit corridor. i will not get into any philosophical difference. i get it. people want to remove parking. i will tell you, in practice, what ends up happening consistently when you have conversations with the planning department and the planning department says they have never seen a situation where they don't -- where they ever ask for more, that might be in the last decade and a half. i can show you, being in multiple conversations over the last decade and a half, when you start talking to them about reaching a maximum threshold, if that is what the developer wants or the community wants in a particular area, there is significant pushback. i understand that sometimes these minimums are there to provide a little bit of balance in the conversation.

i understand in certain parts of the city and i see your point. in your district and other districts that might make more sense. i represent a very residential part of san francisco. i also represent a part of the city that has the highest concentration of children under the age of 18. there's probably a very strong correlation with that. doesn't mean that you can't bite your children across the city or take take -- or take public transportation across the city. the families that i work with and represent have cars because they have to have cars. not because they want to cars. but to be able to get from the presidio at 11:00 am and then turn right around and get to the sunset at 1:00 pm, given soccer game schedules, whatever activities you are doing with your children, that is on a saturday. there is absolutely no way i could get to my children's soccer game without a car. that is just the truth. because of the proximity of the

way the schedules work. that is the absolute truth. i wish there were a way i could do that. that doesn't mean that minimum parking requirements have anything to do with that. i understand you would say that having less cars would provide for less traffic and then you could -- but the point is, the people i represented my part of town have cars. you're having a parking summit this thursday because we are going to forward the conversation about limiting the number of -- we want to have residential permits and have a real open conversation about that and we want to talk about limiting the number of cars per household. because people can't park and people want to have at least one or two spots for their households. they don't even have that option there is a lot built into this conversation. i just personally don't feel like it has been vetted enough. it doesn't mean we wouldn't end up where we still are right now, but i don't feel comfortable voting on this today without

having more community process and a conversation about it so people can be informed about what it really means and how it would impact their community. >> supervisor kim? >> the one thing that i would note about the legislation is again, it does not stand -- band cars and new developments. my guess that developers in the outlying districts will continue to build parking as allowed to the maximum or under. because the market demands for it. i do think that the issue should come up in individual projects. as it goes through the planning commission process or if they come to the board of supervisors this ordinance merely provides additional flexibility to developers who want to build less than minimum or who feel that they don't need to build parking at all in their new projects and then they are able to build housing more quickly and more affordably because they don't have this requirement before them. i do think that there will still be a great deal of conversation

about parking and its need as each individual project moves through without this entire ordinance having to have a citywide discussion. again, we are not banning parking. we are not prohibiting parking or cars. that conversation will still continue as we continue to plan for our neighborhoods. i do hope that this committee will consider forwarding this out to the full board with recommendations. i do want to quickly thank all of the planners that did come today. i don't remember the last time i have seen so many city staff members come out to speak at public comment. i do appreciate the planning nerds coming from sfmta to speak on support of this ordinance. i did forget to thank alice rogers and others who did work on the underlying ordinance to improve and clean up our better streets ordinance and for their support of this amendment that is before us today. i also want to thank members of

the audience that voted today. i see you with your stickers. i don't think this ends the discussion. each individual project will still continue to do a ton of neighborhood outreach around the amount of parking that is appropriate for that development and that conversation will continue. this ordinance merely removes the mandate for minimum parking to be included in projects. >> thank you. this is one of those issues where is very challenging for me on a professional basis and also a personal. on a personal level, i have no problem with what you are doing today. i think, especially in neighborhoods and districts like yours, it makes absolute sense. i hear you well and clear it is not a ban on removal -- it is not removing all parking. there will still be those conversations per specific developments. that is -- on a personal level, i absolutely am someone who wants to create more affordable housing.

i am wearing my professional hat is a supervisor representing a district with a lot of families and children. with the highest number of seniors is in our district, one of the top districts for children as well. a lot of our families do need cars, unfortunately. there is not a day that goes by where i don't get massive numbers of e-mails or complaints about munimobile services, unfortunately. i wish it were better. we even have a project being developed great by judas street. accord or that is transit. and the number 1 issue there is around parking. and even though we are trying to develop housing for educators, it is being overshadowed by the fact that people don't feel that there is enough parking there which is unfortunate. i think that, again, we would love to really change the conversation and that tone. but perhaps we do need to have more of that dialogue with the community.

the other note i would make is that i know that alarm corridors like taraval and others, that planning would most likely not allow for one for one parking. the effect of this ordinance, i see is it probably won't be as scary as most residents think but perhaps we need to have conversation with them. a lot of our merchants, residents have already struggled with a lot of the parking removals that have happened as a result of the transit improvements that have been coming. so they are very wary of whenever there are changes to these kinds of things. even having that dialogue with some of these resident groups or merchant associations will help a little bit. on a personal and professional level, i understand what you are doing and how it will not

actually ban the ability for a project sponsor to grant parking with new developments. with that said, i would be ok, especially with the parking summit, that perhaps you can float the idea with them first and may be we can continue this conversation. >> the other thing i would say, and i think this feeds into one of the biggest criticisms that we get about the sfmta. i know this is not an sfmta proposal. but it is a parking issue related to land use. i believe that one of the shortcomings of this is it is a community process. that is one of the biggest criticisms would get about the sfmta when decisions are made. the planning department, i think does a better job. i think for there to be a larger conversation about this, we

shouldn't shy away from it. this is as easy as a no-brainer and we should have that conversation in the community and get feedback and have people understand. the worst thing i would want people to do is to say that this was decided and rushed and it was expedited and there wasn't input and there wasn't a full vetting. there is a whole host of neighborhood organizations that we have that we can access and have conversations with that will allow for input. at the end of the date we end on the same results. great. but at least we have had that opportunity to have a full vetting with the community it citywide. i don't think that this is a conversation that should be rushed. >> thank you. i think we were just discussing perhaps reaching out to the planning staff in terms of some of the community groups that we would love for you to have a discussion with. may be understanding what it actually means will help alleviate some of the concerns around this. certainly i think i, and other

supervisors are getting flooded with e-mails. both in support but also showing concerns. may be we can share that with you and continue that conversation on another date at land use. if that's ok. so while i would love to pass this out at committee today, i will respect my colleagues in asking for more outreach to be done in their districts. i do wants the committee members to be as specific as possible about what the outreach that needs to be done would look like i would hate for us to come back on november 26th. we don't have a land use committee on the 19th. and then have done some outreach and then hear from community members that they still didn't feel comfortable with moving forward with the ordinance because this particular outreach had not been done or something else. so if the committee could provide a specific directive to our office and to the planning

department on what we can do to make sure that there was an appropriate conversation that occurred in the neighborhood, than i would feel comfortable with the continuance. >> thank you. i would be happy to provide that information to planning and your office. >> ok. we will also? what some of the other offices to see what outreach or notification they would like to see happen within their neighborhood. again, i hope the committee will eventually feel comfortable with moving this forward. we have largely done away with a minimum parking requirements throughout the city. i actually thought we had eliminated minimum parking requirements until the planning commission recommended that we do so a couple weeks ago because they don't exist in the district that i represent because of a number of ways that we have cut at the parking requirements through section 161 and t.d.m. and home s.f. and a.d.u. i do think that this is important for us to do.

and may be in some way symbolic. i think as a major city it is important for us to lead on this issue and talk about what it means to plan without minimum parking requirements. i think that that should come with deep investment into the public transit system and our bike network so that alternative to driving,. i do want to say it is possible for families to live without cars. i grew up as a child in a family without a car. families do get around in urban cities without cars. it is possible. i also understand the calls for increased public transit and of course, the safer protected bike lanes so families feel comfortable with other modes of transportation as well. i want to thank all the members of the public that came out today. i hope we can pass this out on

the 26 to the full board. our office will work with the planning department as well as the two offices here to ensure the outreach that is being requested is done before monday, november 25th. >> thank you for understanding. i think this conversation goes hand-in-hand with the need for improved public transportation. that is number 1 thing that comes up when we talk about proposed development in our district. even if it is few and far in between compared to other districts. that is the number 1 thing. so if we can couple these changes together, which i know is hard, but other wise, i think we will continue to feel that resistance from families. i totally get it. in any case. >> yes. a point of clarification. i wasn't saying you couldn't live in the city has a family. i grew up in the city on the east coast like you did that had a world-class transportation system and i rode transportation from the time i could walk.

i am 100% respecting and acknowledging that you can live. my point is that there are certain neighborhoods that are far more isolated than the downtown core that you represent and are much more isolated when it comes to public transportation and the service that is provided. we can have that debate at a later time. all the different modes of transportation that are offered in certain parts of the city and are not operated in other parts of the city. myself and supervisor cohen are in the process of reaching out to the sfmta as it pertains to the scooter permitting process. it was extremely isolating and overlooking for parts of the city where an area of concentration is. it is concentrated in your part of town and isolated and neglecting our part of town. we will continue to push that conversation and yes, you can live in the city without a car. in certain parts of the city

where public transportation is a wanting and needing to be improved, we need to acknowledge that and acknowledge that we need to respect that in a different way. thank you. >> all right. i guess we will have a motion to continue this item to november 26 pending further outreach. >> just, the amendment the supervisor kim was proposing today are substantive and if the committee on the 26th were to adopt those amendments, they would be substantial if then. if you want to come up to committee on the 26th, you should make it committee then and continue it. >> actually thought i did that motion. i would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments today and again, this is one of the challenges of the brown act is that land use committee members cannot discuss these policies prior to the committee hearing. is great to hear from my colleagues about what they would like to say. i went make the motion to adopt

the amendments as i articulated. >> thank you. can we do that without objection >> can you restate the amendments, please? >> the amendment is to eliminate the minimum parking requirements citywide. >> that is the amendments? >> that is the amendment. the reason why i will not read all of it into the record is because we had to rework huge swaths of the planning code to eliminate the minimum parking requirements throughout the planning code. but what the amendment does will illuminate minimum parking requirements. if you would like a member -- >> that's fine. oh, gosh. supervisor tang. >> i'm sorry. we are confirming when the

thanksgiving schedule is. there is supposedly a meeting on the 19th. >> no. that is the week of thanksgiving i will not be here. >> ok. we are having a meeting on the 26th and the clerk will notice to not have a meeting on the 19 th. the week of thanksgiving. >> once again, the schools are shut down. at least public schools are shut down in san francisco for the entire week so i will be with my children that week. >> so, are you ok with adopting the amendments? >> yes. >> we will do that. >> we will do that without objection and we will continue the item until november 26th. all right. ok. moving onto the next item. item six. >> item number 6 is an ordinance amending the division one of the transportation corps to

establish a procedure for board of supervisors review of certain municipal transportation agency divisions related to the rapid transit projects and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have heard from supervisor peskin's office. thank you for hearing this item. by way of background, in 2007, the voters of the city and county of san francisco opposite -- adopted proposition a which consolidated m.t.a. in the department of parking and traffic. within the text of that, was a provision that allowed the board of supervisors to enact an ordinance that would give it review over sfmta decisions regarding various curb space decisions, bicycle lanes, traffic mitigation measures, et cetera. earlier this year over a decade after the past prop eight, they

cosponsored an ordinance to enact that review provision. in doing so, they expressly exempted certain projects from review that were determined to be unequivocally in the public interest. under that existing law, the board of supervisors can review a variety of curved management decisions but it would not be allowed to review the implementation of it really public projects like bike lanes, curb modifications for street sweeping or best traffic transit projects. the latter category of which is before this committee today. and the reason we are discussing if ert today is two fold. there is no definition of bus rapid transit in the code which provides guidance as to the scope of the board's review authority of these projects. second, is a matter of public policy, the proposed amendment would qualify this board's desire to promote ert projects that are genuinely designed and implemented to further public

transportation and to improve public transportation reliability or other vehicles. i have circulated an amendment to the members of this committee i have a few additional copies here which would clarify the policy preference and make sure that the board would not be able to review the projects that are designed for public transportation use but that would allow the board to take review of bart projects to the extent that they are designed for use by private commercial shuttles, tour buses and other modes of transportation that may impede the flow of public transportation. the proposed amendment is on page 2, line four and replaces the words bus rapid transit project with bus rapid transit project that includes transit only areas or in lanes for municipal railway vehicles, taxis, authorized emergency vehicles and/or golden gate transit vehicles. with that, i'm happy to answer

questions but i will conclude my opening comments and i want to thank sfmta for their collaboration on this language. with respectfully requesting the amendment to be made in the file be forwarded to consideration by the full board of supervisors. >> can you -- i'm sorry. can you repeat what you said? >> the amendment before us today would qualify the exemption for bus rapid transit lanes to make sure the board is not taking review of bart projects that are improving public transportation reliability and improving public transportation but it would allow the board to take review of bus rapid transit projects that are designed and permit private transit usage. >> this is an amendment to the legislation? the ordinance that supervisor peskin and i added so we have review over decisions that are embedded in the charter?

>> we add this option. >> now you are amending it in with a limited scope as it relates to private transit vehicles? >> that is correct. >> you talked to my office, right? >> i did. >> i wanted to put that on the records. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you, very much. with that, we will go to public comment on item six. i have a couple of comment cards everyone who submitted, come on up. i only have four here. any members of the public? ok. paul, kyle, latricia, nema. come on up. >> adjectives actually it is filled.

my mistake. i. i am here today representing the hundreds of people who drive for several private commuter services in the program. it is in the best interest of our drivers and passengers that transit only lanes continue to allow large capacity vehicles that are regulated by the m.t.a. our drivers are highly trained and can manage the traffic of buses and are trained to give deference to munimobile. these companies are regulated by the m.t.a. for example. they pay a permit to be of established programs which should allow them to use the lanes and continue to move forward towards the same goals. faster service of these vehicles will continue to encourage people out of the single occupancy vehicles and all the benefits that come with that. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kyle. i am here with transit inc. we are the first and only permitted private transit vehicle operator in the city of san francisco. as a part of that permit, we do have to provide drivers with training including training into -- to give deference to munimobile operators. we have a direct line of communication with the sfmta. any kind of operational concerns that you may have, we are in close communication with them. i would like to say that i do think it would be good to give consideration to those companies and entities that are permitted when considering lane usage for these transit only or bus only lanes. thank you.

>> hello. i am here today representing 665 teamsters who drive for several private commuters. it is in our best interest that they continued to allow the is capacity vehicles that are regulated by the m.t.a. our drivers are highly trained and can manage the traffic and buses. there is an established program which allows them to use these lanes. faster services of these vehicles will continue to encourage people out of single occupancy vehicles. we run an affordable company. we pick up and drop off passengers from designated stops

using a transit only lane is and will be beneficial for the passengers and the company. the drivers are all well trained and the drivers are proud teamsters. it is safer for vehicles to share these neat -- lanes with other buses. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here on behalf of cherry transit inc. this is an important conversation. we appreciate the supervisors having this conversation. currently there are two types in the lanes. they allow both buses and taxis to operate on them. because our vehicles are of the size and capacity that they are, they are defined as buses by the state. they therefore have access to

bus and taxi lanes. i'm here to say that chariot will stay committed to complementing public transit. based on the permit that we have with sfmta, the criteria that we are abiding by that requires this to complement public transit and not compete with it. we do share our data in realtime and this is important for this conversation. we can work with m.t.a. to determine whether our vehicles are getting in the way of public transit and we have moved several of our routes and stops in order to make sure that we are truly complementing and not competing. moreover, we are still committed to taking single occupancy vehicles off the road for every chariot. we are committed to our partnership with the teamsters and committed to investing in drivers. half of whom are san francisco residents. thank you for your time.

>> any other members of the public who wish to comment on public six? public comment is closed. all right. colleagues, can we get a motion on this item? item six. ok. we will make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation. i'm sorry. you have your amendment? >> we would make a motion to accept the amendment. do you have an additional amendment? >> thank you, very much. >> except the amendment as proposed by supervisor peskin's his office. >> can we do that without objection? ok. all right. on the underlying item, as amended, to the full board with a positive recommendation. we will do that without objection. all right. thank you, everyone. told on. next item, item seven. >> item 7-11.

>> 7-11. >> item seven is an ordinance amending the general plan by adding the central south of market or central soma area plan making conforming amendments and making appropriate findings. item number 8 isn't ordinance amending the zoning map to create a central south of market special use district. and make other amendments that are making appropriate findings. item number 10 -- item number 9 is an ordinance amending that business and tax regulations to create the central south of market housing sustainability district to provide a streamlined and ministerial approval process for certain housing projects within the districts. creating a board of appeals process for appeals or projects within the district and making appropriate findings. item ten is an ordinance amending the administrative and planning codes to give effect to the central south of market area plan and making appropriate findings. item number 11 isn't ordinance amending the tax financing law to allow it with facilities and

services for the central south of market plan and make other necessary amendments. >> thank you. i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> thank you. i really want to appreciate the land use committee's patients as they traverse through the central soma plan with me over the next -- over the last three months. i really hope that we will be able to pass the plan out of committee today with recommendation to the full board i only have one final set of amendments to make in regards to the old mint and increasing their c.f.d. revenues to $20 million. thank you for the additional time. this did force the california historical society and community groups to come together and there was a level of agreement which was codified in the amendments that i am presenting here today in regards to the increase of the $20 million and

linking it to a provision of below market rate space -- community serving spaces that may be at least at below market rates to organizations associated with cultural districts established under chapter 107 of the administrative code. the 20 million should be allocated to the restoration of the old mint and 155 million should be allocated to regional transportation capacity enhancement expansions. this one amendment does require a number of amendments to be implemented in the document that we have articulated. i am sorry. and then there were a number of -- six and seven are different amendments that we are making to reflect the prior amendments made to the funding. >> i'm sorry. can you repeat that?

>> number 1 is a new. what did you say? it was confusing. >> amendments two, three and four and five are amendments that need to be made to the implementation document to reflect the change that we are making. >> these are all related to number 1? >> yes. my apologies. six and seven are different. item six is to -- edits to the implementation document to reflect prior amendments made to the planning code administrative code which reduces funding for enhanced stormwater management in complete streets by $4 million and water recycling stormwater management and public spaces by $1 million. the final is another conforming edits based on another prior amendment made at the land use committee to reflect the amendments to the central soma c.f.d. six and seven are technical cleanup amendments to reflect

previous amendments that have already been adopted by this committee. and those are my final amendments that i will be introducing to land use committee today. i do really have to think lisa and josh. along with our city attorney attorney. both peter and victoria for working so closely with our office over the last four months to get the plan to the place it is today and i want to recognize april and bobby who have worked on this plan quite intensely to make sure we can get to the place that it is right now. it is a large plan in a complicated plan. it has a lot of missing parts. both the planning department and the city's attorney his office has dedicated countless hours and basically unlimited resources to our office to make sure we get this plan through before the end of the year. i want to thank everyone that is involved. and the mayor's office.

for helping us think through some of the knots in the plans that we really need to work out. i hope we can move this forward at a land use committee today and give this some daylight at the full board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> i am seeing this for the first time. i want to look at this real quick. i want to make a comments before i'm sorry. >> if i may, deputy city attorney. this may help you as you look through the amendments. the planning department has submitted a new version of the implementation document for the clerk's file and the amendments members two-7 reflect the

changes that the planning department has made to the document. they submitted that the clerk on and those changes reflect decisions that the planning commission and this committee have made in the past. those amendments conform the document to the decisions you have already made. item number 1 is an additional amendment to the ordinance that supervisor kim is proposing today. the committee can only amend the ordinance and then the planning department will change the actual document later. so supervisor kim's amendment, number 1 on the list, addresses the old mint funding and says, we are accepting everything in the document that planning has submitted plus the board intends to fund the old mint, according to supervisor kim's proposal pick one final note that is the

document itself as a guide for the city for future funding and doesn't bind the city. so that in each year, you will appropriate funds and the purpose of this document is to provide guidance for future boards in making those appropriations. >> ok. just to clarify, or amendment number 1, this doesn't really belong in this ordinance. it goes in the implementation documents. >> because the board can't amend -- the document belongs to planning. the board -- the committee isn't amending the documents right now about $15 million to be allocated to the old mint and $160 million should be allocated to regional transit capacity.

basically you are saying we accept everything in the document that planning is proposing except for this one piece which we will do differently. >> ok. as written on page 147, it is ok for us to adopt today. >> that's right. >> ok. ok. it is not my preference, given that i think it is important for the project itself to be able to move forward before even trying to commit future uses, even though i absolutely support having the community space there , if that is what supervisor kim is proposing, it is a compromise. i would be ok with that. >> thank you. what i wanted to say is when i read this, the thing that would make me 100% comfortable would be to add language that says to a competitive process. i don't know how many nonprofit organizations or -- are associated with cultural districts under chapter 107 of

the administrative code. but it talks about -- his says communities serving organizations. would you be amenable to that? we will be doing it through a competitive process. are there multiple organizations that fall under that chapter of the code. >> for what i understand, it is -- i am not sure if compton's is an approved cultural district. ok. >> there are a few others that are in the works that have not yet been approved by the city including the african-american arts and cultural district. >> if i read this correctly, it says if the old mint is developed with this community serving space, then they would get an additional $5 million if

they choose not to have this space than they would stay at $15 million. >> yes. that is the proposal. >> is there somewhere that is clarified later on the amount of space or a set up for negotiations? >> i would add to the language that says through a competitive process. >> ok. >> all right. i am not sure if this would be done through the master tenant or through the city but i do support a competitive process. whoever it might be doing the process. the final decision maker. >> ok. >> they are conforming edits. >> i'm sorry i was a little confusing in my presentation. thank you for clarifying that. >> ok. should i talk about the one amendment that i want to bring back up or should we do it after

public comment? >> it is up to you. why don't we go to public comment and we can continue that conversation. any members of the public would like to comment on item 7-11? please come on up. >> an afternoon members of the board. i am here for kilroy. as you know from our testimony last week, we have been working closely with staff and the planning commission and 60 wholesale flower vendors to deliver a high-quality high quality project on the flower mart site. we have had to thread the needle carefully to design a functional wholesale delivery in a development that is compatible with late-night wholesale operations and capable of subsidizing wholesale rents for an important san francisco institution and one of its most important p.d.r. employers. to minimize conflicts between

late-night operations, the project has been attacked from the outset, and all commercial and p.d.r. project. it contributes its fair share to affordable housing with some 55 million in jobs housing fees. last week, and amendment was proposed to restrict a portion of the site for housing. you heard from the sponsor and vendors that that was a problematic change due to the conflicts i just mentioned. with that said, we immediately started working with leading advocates of affordable housing and representatives to enhance the project's housing benefits. in the past week, we reach an agreement in principle to provide a -- and affordable housing site of 14,000 square feet in the community, contingent on the flower market site being zoned for commercial use within -- without an on-site -- on-site resin but -- on site residential requirement. this would be a win for tenants who do not have to worry about conflict with residential and it would be a win for the city to

have a housing site that would serve the neighborhood populations in need and not in luxury condos with a small inclusionary component. the zoning that was proposed by the -- or recommended to you by the planning commission has been carefully thought out. we urge you to restore that zoning this week when you take action on the amendments before you. the project sponsor and i are here to answer your questions. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is jake and i am a development manager with the real text inc. it is an honour to speak before you today. as i have been following this plan for the last four years. for those of you who aren't familiar, we are a local development firm focused on mixed-use multifamily housing. we have three projects within the central soma plan which total 400 residential units.

i'm speaking today on behalf of the proposed hotel at 305th street. this is the only nonresidential project in the history of our firm. i would like you -- i would like to use my time to explain why we are pursuing a hotel and to ask you to consider what should be built in this location given the site specific restraints. there is a deed, a copy of which i have here which was used to convey title of the land. it does restrict residential uses, particularly in mixed-use multifamily on the site. so it reads, using or improving the premises for residential purposes including multifamily residential uses is prohibited. this prohibit -- this prohibition runs with the land and applies to all successors in interest. october 1st, staff presented the planning commission process recommendations which included grandfathering provisions for

hotels which we submitted in an evaluation. to date, we spent a lot of money and resources. it was submitted in october 2016 and we feel a hotel would be great in this location. in our opinion, the site can't be used for housing or office, what should be used for? is the highest and best use of this site. i'm available for any questions. >> any members of the public who wish to comment on item seven through 11? public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> we went through a couple amendments and i thank you had something else that you wanted to speak about? >> yes. i know we talked about this last time. i thought about it a lot more. i still am not comfortable with the 14-foot floor to ceiling

p.d.r. exemption for the project we looked at the development restraints on the site and believe it is fundamentally a question between more office space and p.d.r. space. at the end of the day, given the office space tap, the amendments we are having to make to that and the idea that ultimately the site i was at a another site that is under threat for p.d.r. space being demolished or displaced or existing the existing tenants. i. i like to make an amendment to put it at 17 feet as supported by the planning department for fourth and harrison project so that was on page 90, line 23. through not line 25 that we would make it the requirement as recommended by the planning department at 17 feet.

>> what page was that? >> page 90 through 91. lines 21 -- 23 through 25. >> this does not get the planning commission even the discretion to consider lowering the ground floor to 14 feet as we had amended back in july. >> i understand. >> i know. i am asking. on my understanding correctly? >> just like every other site in the district has a requirement to have 17 feet. that is what the planning department recommended department recommended on the site. may be we can ask the planning department. >> i am just clarifying what you're amendment is. >> i am verbally saying it out loud. we would be removing the amendment to provide a minimum of 14 feet so we would say minimum of 17 feet. >> just so -- i did also make an amendment in july that gives the

commission the discretion to keep it at 17 feet or allow 14 feet. my question is, are you reverting back to the previous amendment which gives the planning commission the discretion to go either way? or i understand -- >> i understand. i would like to hear through the planning department and then i can clarify that. >> to be clear right now, there are two auto places in the planning code where this site could have less than 17-foot space for p.d.r. it exists both in section 339 and the key sites exemption process, given the provision of certain amenities and additional sections that you are discussing on page 90. it is a section that grants it without discussion, essentially

by rights. striking that out would still leave the planning commission and the discretion under section 329 to provide that exception. >> striking that outwards give the planning commission -- >> it still stays in the planning code. >> all the sites have the discretion? it is essentially -- it is discretion based on the planning department process recommendations and approval. >> it is actually not all of the sites that would have the ability to seek that exception. there were certain exceptions that the commission is being granted for southern -- certain key sites based on the past years of analysis aren't on what the possible range of exceptions could be for each site. there is not a blanket allowance >> how many of the key sites have that flexibility? >> that one. >> so then, no. my amendment would be to remove

the planning department's discretion all together and make it a minimum 17 feet. >> just to be clear, the commission still has the discretion and then have to be justified in the project sponsor would have to make a case. the commission is not obligated to make that. >> and just so it is clear, all of the key sites have this discretionary approval that are only limited to their key sites and so you'd only be singling out this one project. the other key sites will be allowed to keep their discretionary approval. >> i understand. to the chair, it is only the discretionary approval as it pertains to 17 feet. all the other ones don't have that. >> that's true. there are a range of different specialized exceptions that are being provided. >> i am limiting mine. my amendment would be limiting the discretionary approval as it pertains to the florida to ceiling height on the ground floor to a minimum of 17 feet. they can keep all their other

discussions. i am not my removing. that is not what my amendment is is that clear? is that clear? that would be what my amendment would be. >> so, we will take the motion. we will do a roll call vote on that one. >> ok. >> on the motion to amend the legislation as stated by supervisor. [roll call] >> the amendment passes. >> i would like to make a motion to adopt the amendment as i articulated previously to public comment on page 147, line 6-18. >> are we adding in the language about a competitive process as well?

>> yes. we can add in that language. do we need a vote on that when? >> we will do that without objection. colleagues, i would like to make a motion to remove this item -- move this item with a recommendation recommendation to the full board. >> we need. >> thank you for the reminder. i do want to strike. let me pull up the section code. >> then i have another one. >> while you are doing that, can i make another comment? supervisor kim? >> go ahead. >> i am curious, after hearing public comment, it sounded like -- the reason i am waiting is

because i want to ask supervisor kim this question. sorry. this is not related to the other thing. this is specifically to the flower mart site. >> what i heard from the presenters was in the one week that we have had this conversation, they have made significant steps to having an m.o.u. signed that would talk about dedicating another site for affordable housing. so if that is the case, i would be in favor of removing the amendment that you proposed last week given the fact that they have made significant progress in the conversation with regard to affordable housing. i wanted to see what you had to say about that.

>> kilroy did sit down with the community groups and are looking at another alternative to dedicating affordable housing within the central soma plan. we still have to continue conversations with all stakeholders and i have made a commitment to kilroy to do that before november 13th. i don't feel comfortable at this time striking that amendment. i will not be making that motion today. but i will make a motion to strike 249.78 g. s. was placed in the ordinance last week. am i doing that correctly? >> i thank you are meaning to strike a section six, the unquantified section on page 236 of the ordinance. >> you are a mindreader.

>> ok. i don't know why it is listed under that section but that is correct. we would be striking section six lines 11-25 on page 236. >> say that one more time? >> section six what? what did you say? >> 11-25. i apologize. we have so many different versions here. >> that is what i have. >> there are a lot of versions with different edits on the website. but i believe what the amendment