scattered all over the place so take that into consideration. thank you. >> thank you mr. flores. next speaker, please. >> i'm the executive director of san francisco transit riders and we're the advocate for an always-growing public transit. we've been actively involved in this project. we have concerns the project isn't going far enough. we submitted written comments and first the deir budget meets inappropriate criteria and worsens congestion and costs more to operate. we think it's insulting to transit users and it use the dysfunctional system as the base for comparison. as an organization we recommend the system as the base case up

and running in the 1980s and worked well. the recommended alternative includes the spacing of over half a mile significant to people who use transit on market street. there's no center lane stop at fourth street which is a direct connection for stream subway so we're missing a huge opportunity to connect the city. . lastly, the projected travel times along market street are nothing to write home about. when considering the distance the speed is a sorry 7 miles per hour or less and thank you for taking the time to hear us out. >> any other public comment on this item? with that public comment is now closed. commissioner moore.

>> thank you. >> i believe the deir is complex and is an amazing piece of work and rarely have changes as focussed as this is. i hear concerns i wrote for myself and i heard of safety for pedestrians. i believe the sidewalks is something i would like to see mathematically models. there is indeed a tool which we use to do when we design new communities that allows you to take the desired comfortable pedestrian density and determine result in pedestrian sidewalk width. in this particular case, as she mentioned with 15 feet dedicated to pedestrians only and nine feet potentially with cafes which animate in the long

stretch of streets it would be interesting to see what kind of conflict points we create if we do not have sufficient width because even today when you walk at lunge time in the -- lunch time in market street there's congestion with people wanting to talk and others who have to rush some place else. it's almost like grand central station on every block. i'd like to see that worked out for the safety and enjoyment on revit revital izing market street. the point the commissioner made is important to look at the spacing of boarding islands for many people particularly elderly or movement impaired people taking one or two stops and going back to destination is part of how you move down market street.

by having one comfortable measurement is one way to look at how the islands should be properly spafd. i think there's -- spaced. there's an opportunity to look at existing and future transit gateways. if we look to paris where each transit access is a piece of art on its own, i do think we can use this moment to not only emphasis and simplify how we get into transit but also mark the succession of market street with the portals. there is embarcadero, montgomery, powell and etcetera. i believe the deir should put a mark en having that addressed in a way that anticipates the design and rhythm about what happens in the gateways. i'm not saying they all need to

be immediately redesigned but we have to anticipate what they should mean in the future. i would agree with mr. haas. i would personally like to see a brief recap of the history of market street in visual and mayor tif -- narrative form and there's no image or anything which speaks about the design ideas by which he transformed market street at the time of 1976 it was opened. thumbed the book back and forth and i like to see additional visual material really anchoring the project to civic access and 1800 to today. i think we can pad ourselves a

little bit on the shoulder and give sufficient background to get their teeth to not just comment on transportation and i would agree with thoughtful comments made by historic preservation and potential of materials and strong support for the retention of granite curbs for the capital g and capital c and the diminished of granite groups creates serious maintenance over the long haul and i had granite crews that have disappeared and i hope we maintain that as a major commitment to quality and quality is what i also hope will be addressed in more detail much and a.d.a. compliant materials

and i hope we step up what needs to be done to revitalize the civic corridor. there should be some recall for the pass of live standards in their alignment and visibility and refurbishing are important. and zu mi as a legacy business that means a lot to all of us and those are my comments.

>> thank you, commissioner moore. you think that's it for commissioner comments. >> very good. commissioners that place us on item 11.

melgar >> it lives in planning code sections 320 to 325 if you ever want to take on some light reading one night. it is a city wide program and it is not specific to any particular zoning district. it doesn't only applies downtown but throughout the entire city and to any office development of 25,000 square feet or more. and so each year the program

receives 950,000 square feet that becomes available to allocate to office projects. 75,000 of that has to go to what we call the small cap for smaller projects between 25,000 and 50,000 and 875,000 square feet goes to large cap for larger office projects. to give you history, the program did not have a small cap program own the 50,000 square feet threshold and allowed 2.8 million square feet of new office space and only after a three-year period and the program was set to expired in 1988. the included exceptions for certain types of projects and that was adopted and could be

modified by the board of supervisors. the following year in 1996 proposition 6 was adopted primarily on concerns to development on transit, housing and neighborhood character. the version adopted under prop m was different than the program originally adopted under the downtown plan. so with prop m the program became an annual limit program with no expiration and no three-year expiration and applies in perpetuity. it did reduce the total annual limit to 245,000 and designed to go back to 900,000 square feet we earlier discussed. it required we accommodate the smaurl projects between 25,000 and 50,000 square feet and did a couple things we still use today that aren't necessarily related to office allocations.

and it provided approvals to protect neighborhood character and placement program and because it was adopted by the voters can generally only be modified by the voters. how does the annual limit program work? it applies to all projects of 25,000 square feet or more and they must come to the planning commission to receive an office allegation approval. any unallocated portion rolls to the next year. if we get 875,000 in the large cap this year and there's no allocations this year, it rolls over to the next year and so on. and approved projects can be revoked by the planning commission. the two most common reasons is if the performance period expires which promotes projects

of 18 months except in transbay the planning commission has the authority to pre -- revoke the project and if it shrinks in size or something the planning commission can come back and revoke all or a portion of the office space allocated. and any square feetage revoked returns to the appropriate cap where small or large. and again a regular office project in the city would have to come to the planning commission and receive an office allocation approval. for regional, state and federal office buildings, those do not have to come to the planning commission for authorization but must be taken out of the cap. we have to account for that by pulling the cap but it doesn't come before the planning commission for review. similar for report and redevelopment projects.

they do not require the allocation and a lot of them come before for review but don't receive an allocation pursuant to prop m. but we have to account for the projects coming out of the caps at different types. the regional, state and federal office projects come out once construction commences. and then lastly, office buildings for the city and county of san francisco are completely exempt from the program. there's been considerations for office space in certain parts of the city including mission bay, hunters point and treasure island. additionally, back in 2016 which seems like so long ago now prop o passed.

what that did was take the hunt ter -- hunter's bay and they're not taken out of the cap if office space is built there over time. there's some that must be considered for each project. stla to consider the that i have to consider the pace of growth and what that may impact that may have and consistency with the general plan. the overall quality of design. the suitability of the proposal for that specific location. the anticipated type of office space, if it is known at the

time. the extent to which it's single owner or occupant and whether or not it's using t.d.r., transfer development right. and it states the planning commission can't consider specifically as by projects when they're reviewing whether or not an allocation should be granted other than those payments that are required through the coat or authorized by the code otherwise. specifically, the planning commission may and have over the years, adopted when and how to review cases an criteria. prop m gives the planning commission the authority to adopt their own policies an procedures for how to implement the program.

there was a slow start in the '80s and '90s and it rolled over year to year. during the dot-com booth -- boom we had a rise in allocation and 2.2 million square feet allocate had year and a lull in the '80s and '90s and coming out of the recession in 2017 you see the big spike where by far the largest allocation we had at 3.6 million and the second largest at 2.2 million and 2016 also had over 1 million square feet.

we have filed an office allocation application and those separate from that so maybe an environmental evaluation application or preliminary project assessment. can the pipeline of available numbers and how much we have available and everything we know in the pipeline. and when you do that it's over 500,000 square feet. for the large cap we have a slightly different story. we have 2.9 million square feet available and nearly 9 million square feet pending. and about 600,000 pre-applications. as of now, we have a pipeline

long term of negative 6.6 million. there are some caveats. this doesn't account for future projects through general office demand or other federal state. each year we get more space in the cap not reflected in our numbers on october 17. the tracking sheet included in the memo for today is the most current tracking sheet we have we produced october 18 after we received last year's allotment. and there's the max proposal and they usually propose what they think will be the maximum amount. it often shrinks a little bit. sometimes it goes up but

generally not the case. many projects in the pipeline are at a point to move forward and they are recently received significant rezoning and project areas like 5m and they're in a different place than the last time we talked about. that's a quick overview of the history and mechanics and current number. i'm available for any other questions later on but now i'll turn it over. >> we wanted to frame the prop m discussion in the context of the major office products under

review. it was adopted by the board of supervisors in september 2018. the plan identified sites defined as large under utilized opportunities with lot areas from 30,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet. in total eight key sites were adopted in the area plan. currently two of the sites the fifth and howard and fourth and townsend site are residential and the remaining six are identified as needing large cap office. of the six i'll briefly present the five projects and they include the fourth and harrison and 598 brannon and second and harrison known as 1 ambassador

and the tennis club. in general keep in mind they're complex projects and i'm describing them in a few paragraphs and i gave you the presentation a copy of the slides to make it more digestible. in most cases all the central soma sites will have a key set of benefits and will include jobs housing linkage fees which goes to the mayor's office of housing and development and infrastructure impact fees and the central soma facility fee and the sustainability fee. it will have robust management and street scape improvements, paying their 1% of public art and childcare providing by on-site or paying a fee or some combination of the two. the first project is the fourth and harrison which is also known

as the 725 harrison street project. the property consists of six blocks and harrison street, fourth street and i-80 freeway and has an office development with ground floor pdr and retail and a site dedicated for affordable housing and would demolish six buildings and construct an office complex with 760,000 gross square feet of office and 30,000 square feet of p.d.r. and 4,000 square feet of retail and some childcare and includes a podium with two eight-stories mid rise volume and total would be 180 feet and park spaces an six loading spaces, all access from perry and 167 bicycle parking space

and provide publicly owned private space including a 600,000 mid block pase jo and a portion of -- pa paseo and a part of the eastern most portion of the property approximately 15,000 square feet in size is proposed as a land dedication given to the mayor's office of community and development for future development much affordable housing. based on estimates it will accommodate about 160 dwelling units. the second block at 598 brennan street is a site comprised of three privately owned parcel. and there's four build

structures, two office buildings about 160 feet and 185 feet respectively. a new 150 foot tall office building and 7 story housing building along the park. it would include 922,000 square feet of office. 48,000 square feet of p.d.r. 6,000 square feet of retail and 5500 square feet of childcare and 200 parking spaces and 513 bicycle parking spaces. it would construct a new owned city park with public owned space. it will feature a doing run and community living room designed for maximum next to host community events.

the park will be maintained in perpetuity by the project sponsor. in addition the 19,000 facility creates the opportunity to allow for new pedestrian connections on the site and it will be opened to connect know -- new subway station and connect to the mayor's plan of housing depending on the final design and the contract is under contract as of august of last year to swap a 7.5 acre site in exchange for another site and it will expand the public agency's space to grow the water and power enterprises and the sponsor will construct new facilities to replace the existing ones at 639 bryant

where p.u.c. will move. the flower mart project is located on the north side founded by brannon, fifth and sixth street. the san francisco flower mart would include the parking lot and additional vacant building and construct three new buildings. an 8 story office building with retail space. the blocks building and the gateway building. the flower mart would include $2 million gross square feet of office space and 83,000 gross square feet of retail and 10,000

square feet of space and rentable square feet of flower vendor space and above grade and below grade vending area. it will provide a home for the flower mart operated at various locations in san francisco since the 1800s. consistent with the agreement between the flower market and management and project spaonsor it will be lead at below market rate and all tenants will be able to return when construction is complete. currently the flower market houses approximately 60 vendors with 250 employees. it would 145,000 square feet of open space of it 30,000 square feet will be provided at the street level and 8,000 square feet. and the project willed include a network -- will include a way to

link fifth, sixth and brannon street and the project sponsor will improve a 5,000 square foot parcel and parking will be in the basement for about 185 parking spaces including 59 tall van parking spaces. and the project sponsor will implement and enhance workforce program including working with contract monitoring division of the city's administrator office to implement a local business enterprise design for design and construction contracts related to the development and to a p m permanent workforce program and finally it will be pay the childcare fee or provide a smaller first half -- facility

and/ and/or a combination. >> and the next project is along the i-80 freeway. it would be a 33-story 500 unit residential building a 27-story, office building, and a 19 story 200 foot tall 500-foot room hotel. this say -- is a mixed use project and including a market hall and childcare and additional 6,000 square feet of retail. the project includes parking spaces and common open space and there's the childcare space. the project would provide 110%

of required inclusionary requirements and provide land to improve circulation connecting perry street to second street and hospitality related service jobs and a hotel and preserve about 33,000 gross square feet of p.d.r. preservation and add 11,000 square feet of new p.d.r. it would provide public art and art screening and along the street scape and pedestrian improvements. the last project on the list, 88 buxom known as the tennis club is located on the southeast corner of fifth and brannon street. the project includes the demolition of the existing bay club tennis building and one large office structure with the east office midrise and low-rise

community center and affordable housing site and approximately 225 feet in height and the mid office 140 feet tall or 185 feet and height and affordable housing and 106,000 of the future affordable housing and community recreation and 16,000 square feet of p.d.r. and 8,000 square feet -- there'll be about 163 off-street parking spaces and six loading spaces all accessed off buxom and 381 parking spaces. on a portion of the site that's

approximately 85 feet wide there'll be a 30,000 square feet community recreation center with a dedicated elevator shuttle linking the parking spaces. the aquatic center includes two pools, a children's pool and six-lane pool and multi-purpose flex area at the ground floor suitable for rec and park programming. between the facilities are two mezzanine levels of tennis club facilities that overlook the tennis court play areas and the parcel above the community center will be dedicated the mayor's office plan for affordable housing. and they will construct the project extending up to 85 feet in fight. they'll construction the -- up to 85 feet in height. and they'll have dwelling units

all 100% affordable would be developed under the direction and has open space amenities and privately owned public open space and through the development of a new public park running the length of the street and includes a 13,000 square feet public park on the full length block from fourth to fifth street. these currently confident -- constitutes the projects under review and in most cases the projects are undergoing environmental review and have not scheduled hearings on the projects. in addition to the five projects, we have a number of other large office projects i've put up on the slide over here just to provide further reference for the amount of office space currently in demand in the city. at this point i'll turn over my presentation to director ram.

>> thank you we felt it was national to review the projects in central soma which sets the stage to explain my recommendation. i probably don't need to explain the basics but i'll start by giving you some of the reasoning for that. we're not recommending further consideration of other criteria and i'll explain our reasoning and then get into the specifics. there are three reasons why we're recommending this approach. one is that all the projects that you have seen here that

rich described have been planned in parallel with the central soma plan. that plan has the most robust package of requirements of any area you have approved to date partially because of the upzoning. we think it's different pan the past when -- than the past when they were approved without the package of benefits embedded in the code. all the projects are on an even playing field and that's a great advantage of the plan in place to move forward. secondly, the language discourages a pay to play model. you heard the quote cory mentioned which is payments may not be considered by the planning commission when jfth the project for prop m allocation. it seems the intent is clear and

while public benefits are part of the plan, there's many you recall from the central soma plan that total over $2 million and those were considered of the plan area not on a project basis it. seems clear the language was discouraging the model of pay to play. that's another concern we had. thirdly, even if we were to base our consideration on a package of public benefits it's not possible to judge the merits of one set of public benefits against the other. you'll hear things that rebut that but i don't think we want to be in the position to do that and i don't think it's how we should do land use approval or consider those types of public benefits against each other.

author -- they're unique and using the package identified is it the way to look at those not in a one-off approach to each project. we're recommending you phase the project and consider them in the order in the order they're ready to be approved. for now, it means the first project ready would be three projects we think would be the first cluster to come forward. one would be the phase 1 of 598 brennan which would be about 700,000 square feet out of 920,000. second would be phase 1 of 88 buxom which is 470,000 square feet of 840,000 and the third is the flower mart site to constitute a portion of the 1.1

million. the market site say -- is a big number and it's based on the desire for the flower mart to remain in the city and the nature of the flower mart is it as a large footprint and it would build it at the base of a new office tower which constitutes about 1.4 million square feet. that's the reason for the large phase one recommendation. i remember our recommendation is not a popular one. and if everyone dislikes what we do, maybe we've done the right thing and community members believe you should compare one to the other. i would say a -- attaching a numerical value is a way of playing favorites.

i also find it curious an entity suing the city is making recommendations how to implement the plan. developers are unhappy because many won't get the full project approved or will have to wait many years. i point out this is not new news. we've known we'd come to this point and know there's winners and losers in the game and that's the nature of prop m. this is the second time in the city's history we've had to face this situation. i think it's important to recognize that's where we are. and in the past as you know, we called this a beauty contest. i have been avoiding that term many years. it's not appropriate to judge one project against the other. when you approved the trans bay

you didn't compare two. you looked at each project on its merits. i believe that's what we should be doing here. the fact that everyone dislikes what we're doing i feel strikes the right balance. you cannot approve all the projects under prop m. you can't. you have two choices. one is to approve in phases as we're proposing or approve some and not others. in any case, there's unhappy people who are not getting what they want. i believe what we're proposing is the fairest approach given the central soma plan and the work done to plan these projects in parallel with the plan. with that, i'll leave you to close the presentation and we're here for questions. thank you. >> thank you. so with that i have four speaker

cards for public comment. i think there may be more. if i call your name come up and anyone what wishes to speak come up. [reading names] >> thank you, commissioners.

we're sponsors of trans bay par parcel f. i'd like to introduce you to the project seeking 275,000 square feet of office allocation. it's located at 542 howard street. the sponsor acquired the property in 2016 who used the $165 million of proceeds to complete the construction of the transit center. it includes residences in the upper tower and public pedestrian passageway and the new transit center. it provides a direct public access to sales force park by way of public elevator up to a pedestrian street at level 5 and the reason the project requests

275,000 square feet of office space. that's less than 10% of the currently available prop m allocation. the project is shovel-ready in the sense it's exempt from further review under ceqa in reliance of the studies and they're complete and there's no significant environmental impacts. the site application is actively under parallel review by d.b.i. and we're ready to begin work as soon as the project is entitled. the sponsors committed for union labor for the hotel and the office portion has been pre-leased by sales force and a local hotel operator. one truly unique and hugely

beneficial aspect of parcel f, if approved it will subsidize the development of a separate mixed-income unit at the site of the temporary trans bay terminal. a portion of the blocks will be permanently affordable. we believe it meets the prop criteria and ready to go and delivers benefit in exchange for a modest office allocation. thank you for your time and we look forward to formally present hopefully this year in 2019 to stay on track to break ground. i have additional materials i can leave. just let me know.

>> i represent park and open space. i'm on the board of the mid market community business direct and live in mid market. i don't really have a strong preference from one project to another and i agree weighing one against the other isn't effective. virtually no housing of any affordable level will be built. same for open space. most will be used for the office workers themselves. very little will be available to the people that live in the

area. building a park is like a plaza in the middle of the market. that's great for the market but it didn't do anything for the people in the neighborhood. 598 brannon is build park and maybe eventually a residential building at the edge but it doesn't offer anything to the residents in the neighborhood. my objection as someone who lives in the neighborhood is this just doesn't serve us at all. in the meantime, we continue to densify mid market with all income levels with no green space or open space and we aren't serving the needs of the people who live in soma. this is unacceptable. we need more than this.

all this office space is dwraetd f great for the developers and not for the people and i plead with you to look at houfrgs at housing and green space. thank you. >> next speaker, please. [audio difficulties] i don't know the last speak but mercy housing is a combination for trans bay block 4 the companion project to parcel f. part and parcel of the plan is an example of requirements embedded in a plan opposed to a beauty contest as the director

raised. as part of the project, homes and 377 are below market rate and none of them require subsidy. it's subsidized by the market rate development of f and block 4. and i think it illustrates moving forward projects for whom the public benefits are thoroughly embedded in the plan and as the last speaker said it does what i don't think any other project on the list does which is provides a huge amount of affordable housing, 192 units are traditional affordable housing serving people earning under $100,000 and 45 modern income units. i don't know of any other project in the pipeline whether part of this discussion or any other that will deliver that much affordable housing without public subsidy.

i don't envy the decision making project you have and i'm sure i can understand the community recommendations. regardless of what discretion you -- direction you go, i think it looks to advancing the project. >> thank you. next speaker, please.looks to a. >> thank you. next speaker, please.advancing . >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to lay facts on the table. the 5m project is finally going to start construction later this year after being held up for over three years by ceqa litigation. as you know the central soma plan is subject to four lawsuits, one by my organization

challenging the environmental impact report. and i think you should be aware if you aren't already during litigation there won't be any of these office buildings starting construction while the cases are pending nor housing development that loads to zoning or hotel or the mta's street scape project. it's in the interest of all concerned to resolve the issues so all these things can go ahead for the sake of all concerned. we have proposed to the city that a prioritization process based on how much community benefit provide be considered first and looking to the pen ten he is club and flower part and affordable housing space and park and rec facilities,

everything. take that into consideration and build first what provides the most benefits for the community. we think this is a rational process. for the department to say some kind of readiness is criteria while we're all in dispute in court, nothing can be built is an irrelevant criteria. ready for what to have a piece of paper and wait indefinitely. it's kind of a preposterous idea in the face of reality. we are trying to get this department to talk to us. they have rejected our proposal summarily. there's other variants how to prioritize. we propose square footage or benefits. there's different ways to do it. we're not locked into one. we want to solve the problem.

given the department is not willing to talk to us we're preparing a ballot measure for prop m. we can solve the technical issues with the ballot measure. we're putting one together to run for default ballot if we have to. as you see it's an overwhelming winner with 73% support. can't beat it but i hope you can involve it together. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm aaron fenont and employed by boston properties. by way of background, we're the developers of this sales force tourer and -- tower and a

sponsor for one of the central sites in sow -- soma and we understand our project is not being considered though it will be ready for entitlement but until the lawsuit settled nobody will be ready to break ground. we spent the last five years work on the project and invested significant capital to design a best in class mixed-use element. the community benefits package is among one of the strongest and includes a dedication of 15,000 square feet of onsite land to construction up to 160 housing units and ground feel of p.d.r. space to be available for local users and an on-site

childcare facility and it will have some of the most unique and engaging public open spaces in san francisco. given the majority of the sites ready for entitlement we're puzzled at to the rational that would leave boston properties out of a first round entitlement and allocation. it thud -- should be based on the merits and the benefit it's offering. and the de llapidated space bris nothing to the community. we're hoping the planning commission will consider our project when it comes time to grant the entitles -- entitlements and we can deliver significant community benefits at the soonest time possible. thank you. >> any other public comment on

this item? public comment is now closed. >> director, if i can ask you a couple questions. timing wise, how's it work. will we here projects at the same time? how are you proposing? we have timing issues on some of these too, right? >> the current schedule is assuming all this would move forward as we propose to bring the three projects in a june, july time frame probably not the same day but within a few weeks

of each other. >> one big factor to me is housing. i think all the projects have a component to them. including some that aren't being proposed kind of in the first phase for a housing component whether it's market rate or an affordable housing component. in instances where the project may be phased, how is the housing phased? you take the flower market, for instance, if only a certain amount of square foot anglecation -- square footage allocation do we look at the dedicated site?

>> because of the nature of the flower market it will require an agreement and some specifics can be worked out on the site. >> okay. >> in tock ber there's a new -- >> in october there's a new allocation. we'll look at the projects and trans bay parcel f during that period or folks from boston properties who are next. >> that would be the next tranche we'd look at. >> i think it's interesting.

are the other projects listed? the other large office listed in the pipeline put up at the end are they all in central soma? >> no. >> he's pulling the slide up. >> i'd like to make sure where we phase projects or if there's way to get the affordable housing sites delivered and

built in a timely manner we heard from the public. what assurances do we have or have you talked to the mayor's office of housing the affordable housing components built in the three instances you're recommending we move forward get built in a timely fashion. >> these are sites for affordable housing. not the actual housing yet. we need to work out the specifics with the mayor's delivery on the timing. >> to me that's one of the most important public ben fits the housing component so the projects are deliver in a timely fashion. i know it's not necessarily the responsibility of the developer but they're dedicating a parcel and paying a fee. it's interesting as we see the projects come forward, is there anything we can do to