>> please silence your mobile devices that might sound off during these proceedings. do state your name for the record if you like to speak before the commission. i would like to take role at this time. [roll call] we expect commissioner fong to be absent today. first on your agenda his consideration of items proposed for continuance.

a large project authorization is proposed for continuance until june 27th 2019. item two at 50 post street, downtown project authorization is proposed for continuance until july 11th, 2019. item three. jackson street, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn further, commissioners, on your regular calendar, item 12 a and 12 b., for 2300 harrison street, a large project authorization and office development authorization. we just received a request from supervisor ronen to continue this out and the proposed date is july 18th, 2019. under your discretionary review calendar, item 17 at one winter

place, discretionary review. we have received a request from supervisor peskin to continue this matter out one month -- one month. we will also propose july 18th i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> does any member of the public wish to speak. >> on behalf of the project sponsor, the last continuance that the commission granted a couple months ago gave the project sponsor good time to make progress with a number of the neighbors. we have some ammo he was being distributed among parties both along with that the woodward street group and with anita as well. this needed to get delayed because there were late changes in the project. we ask that you consider continuance do next week's calendar on the 13th. thank you. >> thank you.

does anybody else have any comment on the items proposed for continuance? >> good afternoon, members of the commission, steve williams, i am representing mitzi johnson who is one of the d.r. requesters on item 17 and we hope the commission will support the continuance. it is just a matter of fairness. you saw my letter. they did not receive the response from the d.r. requesters and did not get an opportunity to meet with the project sponsors. i have been chatting with the project sponsor's representative this morning and we -- they are not agreeing to the continuance, but they understand it wasn't there fault, it wasn't our fault , and the four neighbors would sure like a chance to submit materials to the commission and to meet with them hopefully you will be in support of the continuance. thank you. >> thank you. speaker, please.

>> i am the architect for one winter place. this is my client. we would respectfully like to request that you declined this request for continuance as mr. attorney said, it is not our fault, not their fault, but it doesn't matter. we submitted our materials in a timely matter. we suggested we would be willing to cooperate with the meeting, and the fact that this wasn't communicated wasn't necessarily our fault, and they could've reached out to us directly and they never did. we think it is unfair there have been no changes to the project. it has been a relatively minor project. our response was two pages long, and we feel there was more than adequate time for them to review the information and we are prepared and ready to go at our regular hearing today. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with the united states the mission to speak about the

continuance for 3300 harrison. i would ask you approve this continuance just because we see the offer from the developer less than two days ago, so as a coalition of 16 community organizations, we have not had time to review the offer that was provided to the community and they have been in talks but had not received any plans for the space that they are offering until the same day, as well. they are still reviewing the liability -- viability of whether they can accept the terms offered by the developer and project sponsor, so we asked for enough time to go and review what was provided. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> could i have the overhead, please? i was walking from the department yesterday, and i passed the 14th street site, and on the notices, someone wrote that. and i thought it was a cry from the heart and i just wanted to submit it to you for the continuance.

it wasn't expletive or anything like that, it was just a cry from the heart. can anyone afford it? i'm submitting it to the file for that project that you are hearing in a week or two. thank you. >> thank you. anymore public comment on the items proposed for continuance. commissioner richards? move to continue all items including 12 a to july 18th and 19 -- 17th to july 18th. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner richards, does that include the 55 a burst street which was pointed out by the attorney? he asked for continuance on the item. >> that is correct. >> i believe they were referring to item 1,414th street. >> no, i think he was referring to 14 a and b.

>> number 1. okay. >> okay. are you seconding. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. just to clarify, item one was proposed for continuance to june 27th. very good. on that motion to continue all items as proposed says. [roll call] -- on that motion to continue -- to continue all items as proposed... [roll call]. >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will places under commission matter number 4, consideration of adoption minutes of the may 16th closed session, the may 16th regular session, in may 23rd. i will only note on the may 23 rd minutes in your file that there was a typo on page 5 at

the top, 400 to visit darrow was continue continued to june 13th , not june 27th. we only make that one single amendment. >> move to approve as noted. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve -- or adopt the minutes for may 16th and may 23rd as were amended ... [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes

unanimously 6-0. placing us on item five, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> mishnah richards? >> i saw in my inbox last night, the mayor is requesting an item to be put on their city council to actually prohibit new office and hotel development in the park. i also understand from calling somebody down there that i know that east palo alto and redwood city are also considering a ban on additional offices and hotels so i think, should these things go through, maybe the narrative will start changing about the suburbs that just want to build office space and dump their housing needs on san francisco and surrounding areas. additionally, i met with the director of long-range planning. we talked about bills that are sitting in sacramento, and one that concerned her and concerns me is s.b. 330. i understand there has been analysis already written. i called a few people in

sacramento this morning and the bills on the fast track in the assembly to -- between the 14 th and 20th of june, and i really hope that since we already have the analysis written we could hear the informational on what exactly does and does not do in regards to the san francisco and its processes and timelines. i asked the chair to maybe scheduled that in next week or two. >> that is a good idea. thank you. >> if there is nothing further, we can move on to department matters. item six, director's announcements. >> no new announcements. >> thank you. >> item seven, review of past events of the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> diego sanchez with department staff. aaron starr particularly provides a summary, he is at another hearing at this moment, so i will provide you with the

summary for this week. let's get into it. and monday's land use committee meeting, there were four items of particular interest. the first is a landmark designation of 524 union street. it is a significant landmark as one of the earliest lgbtq bars that is associated with the development of lgbtq communities in san francisco. it is also significant for its association with the owner who became a one of the people on the front lines in the fight for lgbtq rights in the san francisco. the property owner submitted the final landmark designation report in august of 2018. the h.b.c. initiated designation on september 5th, 2018 and unanimously recommended a landmark designation to the board of supervisors on october 17th, 2018. at monday's meeting, the land use committee forwarded the landmark to the full board with a positive recommendation. next on the agenda, they heard

the original and duplicated a.d.u. and new construction ordinance introduced. this would allow new construction to bring our local program into compliance with the state, with state law. this was first heard at land use on may 20th and continued until june 3rd so the proposed amendments could be added. for the original ordinance, the supervisor incorporated the amendments recommended by you, the planning commission. we duplicated and have added the following amendments, for waiver a.d.u., the first one is removing the requirement of an existing rental unit on the property to enter into a regulatory agreement or a costa hawkins agreement. second amendment, removing the reference to the ministration of code's definition of the rental unit. for the no waiver a.d.u., the amendment was new construction, sigel family home shall not be less than 15% of the proposed

primary dwelling unit in size. public comments were in general support of a.d.u., but had interns about protecting tenant services, and support for imposing rent control on a.d.u. and new construction. at the end of the hearing, the ordinance was moved to be heard at the full board on june 11th without objection. the duplicated ordinance would be referred to the planning department for planning commission review. this item is tentatively scheduled for the july 18th, planning commission hearing. next, the land use committee her the regional commercial at full some street arts activities and nighttime entertainment ordinance. commissioners, you heard this ordinance on february 21st two weeks after the h.p.c. heard this on february 6th. this ordinance proposes to allow arts activities at the first and second floors in landmark designated buildings per article ten. certain buildings designated in

article 11, and also located within the extended preservation district, or in buildings listed in or determined as individually determined with the california register of historic places. at the planning commission on february 23rd, you moved to approve the ordinance with the following modifications. first was to allow arts activities within the district, second was to permit nighttime entertainment uses within rcd zoning buildings including those that contribute to historic districts, and they require preservation, reability and, and maintenance planning for use within the full some street and c.t. and the rcd district. on march 5th, the legislative sponsor, supervisor haney, submitted -- substituted the ordinance to include those recommended modifications at monday's land use committee meeting. he also amended the substitute element to perk -- principally

permit nighttime entertainment uses at the property at 1401 howard street at the corner of ninth street. during public comment, members of the public spoke to the benefit of increasing flexibility that the ordinance proposes, after public comment, they voted unanimously to send the ordinance to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation. lastly, the committee considered supervisor peskin's proposed interim moratorium on entertainment uses at one at maritime plaza area. the plaza area is bounded by jackson street to the north, sacramento to the south, drum to the east and samson to the west. the interim moratorium would prohibit the change of use away from a nighttime entertainment used to any other use, as well as prohibit any private clubs in this one maritime plaza area. the interim zoning moratorium only remains in effect for 45 days, unless the board extends it, and the extension cannot last for more than 18 months.

public commenters mentioned that the punchline comedy club, which is within the area is vital to the comedy scene, has served as a town incubator, and hosted comedians of old -- all talent levels. now i am on the last page. in this context, the city should do what it can to keep the punchline comedy club open. after public comment, the committee voted unanimously to recommend the interim zoning moratorium as a committee report to the full board of supervisors commissioners, on tuesday, the full board of supervisors considered two items of particular interest. the first was the first item ordinance amending the administrative code to allow applications for contracts for historic properties to be filed concurrently with applications for designations of the same property. this item passed on its first read, and lastly, the full board

passed by unanimous vote, the interim moratorium on entertainment uses in the one maritime plaza area. that concludes the board activities for the week. >> there is no board of appeals report. unless there are any questions from the commission we can move on to general public comment. members may address the commission on items of interest to the public, except agenda items. with agenda items, you can adjust the commission and it will be afforded when the item is meech -- reached in the meeting. each member of the public can address the commission up to three minutes. i did have a couple of speaker cards. >> anyone else who wants to give general public comment is welcome to step up. >> good afternoon, commissioners there is an article today in the

los angeles times regarding some polling. the headline was six out of ten, californian support eliminating single family home next to transit and job centers. if i could get the overhead, you see this and i have copies of the polling for all of you. specifically, we are calling for governments to change zoning and new development from single to multifamily homes near transit and job centers. as you look to this subsection, it is more popular amongst democrats than republicans. pretty consistent across different regions. people were talking about the up zoning. he responded to one of scott weiner's tweets about micro data that dives into this more. it is much more popular amongst younger folks, renters, most popular amongst people of color, so it is interesting polling that is coming out. for those of us who have

experiences or spent time on next-door, i basically did the exact same thing. i did a poll on next-door in my neighborhood. this copy of one of the polling questions that i have seen, and pretty much shows the exact same thing. and when i printed this out a few years ago -- days ago, it was at 533 votes. so 533 votes, 60 1% support 32% are opposed and if you had no opinion and then i did another one more recently. do you support legalizing apartment buildings across san francisco in the same neighborhood? a bunch of information. pretty much the same results, only this is 170 votes so far. not quite as strong data as we are seeing other places, but

every poll i've seen on this puts the idea at about 60 to 75% support. some pose it, and upwards of 10% don't have an opinion or need to give more information. as the state decided to do nothing this year, what can we do here? what good can we do to serve people to try to fix a problem and control it in our own local way, if that is what needs to be done. we will have a housing bond that will be on the ballot later this year and there might be more money with substantive -- with subsidize affordable housing, and there will be limited land in terms of where we can build it. certainly a proposal that we are looking at, trying to figure out ways to create opportunities to build apartments across the city i appreciate all efforts in that goal. thank you. >> thank you, mr. smith. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, again.

i would like to talk about the linkage between the excavations and the unit numbers and the demo calculation adjustments. over the break, i hope you all had a good break. at the open house at 950 lombard , it still has not sold. $45 million, all those issues with that. the excavation there is supposedly two units, by the article refers to as a residence and mentions the cottage, but it is still a residence as a single family home. there -- i guess because of the way the thing came about, there were no demo calculations for historic preservation. so all those things are linked with that. just to remind you, may i have the overhead, please? that is as it was before. here is a little cottage. the other thing, and a lot is --

the loft is over 15,000 square feet, the two lots. the other thing i want to talk about is with the same item, is this property here, which i will keep anonymous, which is before you before the late summer of 2016, and it was an alteration. you are concerned about the size of it. there is doing the work, that looks like demolition to me. here it is during the work. you can see the little while remaining, and here is the finished building. i think i mentioned this before, i mentioned the b.i.c., but there it is, it is like 5 million -- i don't know. note that there, please. the garage door, one door. when it was before you, the sponsor readily agreed to add a unit, and that was great. these are the plans they showed you and there is the door there.

the finished product is just one door i have been there the open house and the plans don't show a cooktop. there is the unit. that is the wrong way. right there. it has a sink, it has a dishwasher, it has a refrigerator, no cooktop. they put a microwave in, but that was after the first open house. the demo calculations are close, the doors are squishy, it is like you're going through the garage and you can lock the doors. let's get back to my point, my bottom line today. you need to adjust the demo calculations, please. this hasn't excavation.

and somehow, they need to figure out how you can enforce units, making them discrete units to get to the market and become housing, not extra space that is charged a lot of money for. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the policy director for the river trust. we were founded in 1981. the river is what provides our water, and i wanted to talk about water supply assessments, also called show me the water for large developments. for example, commercial over 250,000 square feet. you will be seen a lot of these water supplies coming forward soon. the s.a.p. you see approved five after a lot of discussion a couple of weeks ago, and they have five more coming next tuesday. a little bit of history, in 2009 , the state legislature and

knowledge the bay delta ecosystem was in a state of crisis, collapsing, and passed the delta format, that required updating the bay delta water control quality program which hadn't been updated since 1995. they did a full criteria study that found that 60% of the unimpaired flow on the river and its tributaries would be fully protected of fish and wildlife. there are a lot of other studies and hearings, and in the fall of 2016, they issued an environmental report that recommended 40% unimpaired flow from the river into other rivers and down into the bay delta. the sfpuc immediately took a position of opposition and put out a lot of information that was factually incorrect. they claim it could have tremendous impacts on the economy and real-life experience shows that didn't happen. between 2010 and 2016 in san francisco and san mateo county, which account for two thirds of

the water, jobs grew by 20 7%, and the water views dropped by 23% and that was during the drought. the sfpuc, what we did is we modelled what would happen if the worst drought on record repeated with the bay delta plan in effect? we found that the sfpuc would not run out of water. we share this with them, and they said, you know, you are right, but we are planning for something called the design drought, which takes the two worst droughts of the latter part of the last century, combined them, and they treat every year as if it is the beginning or -- it is -- is this -- as if it is the beginning of the drought. even if the storage is close to full, we have six years of water storage. right now they say if we have a dry year, we have to start kicking and rationing. so they have sued the state water board on december 12. the water board approved the 40% unimpaired flow. it has not been implemented yet.

the sfpuc was sued. to their credit, they are using the same formula when it comes to water supply assessments. what they say is that we don't know if there will be enough water. under this scenario of the bay delta plan being implemented, we could face 50% rationing. one of these issues is coming up later today, 598 brannon, and i will talk more about that. i wanted to leave you with a graph of what the unimpaired flows have been on the river and you get a sense how bad it is for the river. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment? okay. with that, public comment is closed. >> two things. i am the one -- if it was a conditional use, maybe it was a demolition, i don't recall. we require two doors, they submitted the plans that way, shouldn't we have that under enforcement? you need to put that and submit the address. >> why?

>> first of all, the project is done, they are not going to put it back, they are not going to put a door in, they will sell the project. secondly, if the enforcement is so hard for your staff, they work so hard and they have limited resources, it has to happen either at the beginning or when the building department goes out there. and i raise this issue with the building inspection commission. it can't just be after-the-fact because even then, it doesn't have to -- happen because the market needs a whole other paradigm shift than just adding a unit. thank you. >> thank you. there was a for sale sign on the building. we can look at the real estate agency and get the real estate agent's number. one question -- not a question, but a comment, i wanted to understand more deeply what the actual questions were on the housing policy. i tried to find them.

if you have a copy of the questions to submit, that would be helpful for the commission to understand. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. johnson? >> i wanted to follow-up on those comments specifically and what happens after. we, at the commission, have discussed that whether it was s.b. 50 or others, legislation is going to continue to come down from the state, looking at ups owning zoning and i think this pause provides us with an opportunity to step up and really do the things that we should have done, or should be doing around tenant protections, around value capture, around some the issues that we have brought up at this commission, and want to see or work with staff more to have a more deep conversation about what those things are that we can do to protect tenants so that, you know, as these bills continue to come through, we have things in

the works. this commission has also mentioned that we wanted to look at our h. one zoning and really consider what we could do to explore turning that into the opportunity to create zoning in which three to four units could be built in places in which we are actually supporting density, and so it would be great for us if we could actually have a hearing and explore that and explore what other cities have done around that. >> thank you, commissioners. i want to echo those same sentiments. maybe we can broaden that and talk about some of the things that were in these housing bills that have been stalled that we can adopt to protect tenants and produce additional housing again we have been looking at eliminating and looking at

eliminating our h. one zoning. it is incumbent for us to look at that also. >> thank you, commissioner. >> one last comment on these commission comments. i support that we don't have this is owning anymore because a.d.u.s are allowed anywhere. it is really our h. two. judging on how the cynical deal was cut to exempt all these other counties, my fear is we go ahead and do the right thing, and we are the good guys and we still get punished in the end. i am a little hesitant to go out on a limb until there is a guarantee that the people who do the right thing don't get swept up with the people who do the wrong thing. if there is nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to your regular calendar. item number 8. informational presentation. commissioners, i wanted to introduce informational presentation that we prepared for regarding affordable housing in the central soma plan.

this is one of a series of presentations that we are providing to you to highlight the implantation measures of the plan. at this time, a place to pass the microphone over to the director of development for the mayor's office of economic workforce and development. >> good afternoon, commissioners nice to be in front of you again we wanted to do this because in light of all the big, very interesting office projects that you are seeing as part of central soma, and the prop m. debate about how to deal with that, what seems to me to get loss is the idea that this is a housing plan, too, and there's a lot of housing in this plan, and not only is there a lot of housing accommodated in the plan , but we, the planning department, oe w. d., and the mayor's office of housing are working proactively to make affordable housing part of that happen. i wanted to talk to you about that for a very few minutes today. if i could have the screen.

as you remember, the central soma plan envisioned 9,000 units and promises to get to 33% affordable, both with the required inclusionary from the private development, but also with a significant amount of 100% affordable development. all the affordable housing needs to be spent in soma, not in central soma because it is too small, but in soma so that we have a nice reservoir of housing , and the bulk of the fees to support the hundred% affordable that i will talk about today come from the jobs housing linkage fees generated by these large office projects. there is a link that we want you to be aware of as you are looking at these office projects coming through. also a reminder, that the housing sustainability district that is part of the central soma plan that you adopted provides that projects with on-site inclusionary can be approved with only ministerial approval,

in 120 days, providing that skilled and trained workforce provisions are in place as you will remember. and then lastly, on a slightly different level, there is funding that i will talk about for the small sights program, which is a very important component of the housing efforts , which endeavors to acquire particularly at risk rent-controlled buildings and rehabilitate them if they need it and put them under the control of a nonprofit housing organization to make sure that the tenants and the affordability in those rent-controlled buildings is maintained forever. what you see here are the sites that we are currently working on that can be developed with the funds that come from the office projects that you are going to be seeing. i will just briefly go through them. brannon street is a site that is owned by the city of housing, and i should say that the mayor

's office of housing is here unless there are questions that she can respond to. 801 brannon street has been in our portfolio for a while. it was a land dedication from an earlier housing project approved under eastern neighborhoods. fifth and howard has been a standalone proposed affordable housing project, quite on the large side for quite a while. eighty-eight blocks him as a parcel that comes with the tennis club project, the alexandria tennis club project, 163 is a parcel that comes with 598 brannon project that you will be hearing today, 725 harrison is a parcel that comes from the boston properties the garden project, and i should mention that these three, and let me mention the flower market , the off-site parcel coming from the flower marked project, we don't have the location identified, but it will

be in central soma. the last four of those are parcels that are dedicated by these large office projects to the city, and then the fees that those projects and others pay are used to develop them. lastly, we are looking at this funding source to get to at least 50 units of small sights. it is not a huge number, and i want to point out that there will be more small sites investment, but that will come from other funding. from this funding, we can look at about 50 units. that adds up to 820 units. i do want to point out there are other parcels in soma that the city is working on that are not coming through this funding. there is even more, including the fourth and folsom parcel, would you have heard about over the years. the 96 a seven mission parcel came from 5:00 a.m. and will start going forward soon, and the 1064 mission parcel which will be supportive housing. on the funding side, we are looking at about $211 million.

a significant amount of money coming from central soma, from the key sights, not all of central soma, and there will be much more fees coming from the smaller project that we don't really know what they are yet, but we do know what the key sites are, and they will give us $211 million. i will say that that is in today 's job housing linkage fee, there is likely to be a modest increase in the fee that comes along, and then we will have more than $211 million. i am showing here that when we think these funds will be available. this assumes that projects have to write the city a check for the housing linkage fees one they pull their building permit, surreal of them, more or less, about a year after you approve the project, they pulled the building permit, and it writes us a big check, and then we are ready to go spend that money to develop the parcels that you just saw. so we expect in 2020, a year

after this year, to see about 170 million. that is the bulk of it. in 2022, we expect to see another $23 million, and the last couple of key sites because of prop m. constraints that come later, post 2022, $18 million. and so, this is provisional. i don't want to swear that this order will remain, but having looked at the parcels, we are looking at trying to open the first five of these and some small sights in 2023, and the important thing a to point out about that is that is roughly when the office projects that you are approving will also open the office projects take longer to build. the affordable housing project will start later and they will probably be roughly -- what is really important to us is that the housing is coming along with the opening of the office projects, and that is the goal.

that is roughly what we expect to happen. the last couple in 2025, we might switch around the order of these, but i wanted to give you a rough idea. so that is the end of the presentation. i'm happy to answer questions at any point, but we do want to leave you with the message that the housing has not been forgotten, it is being worked on quite assiduously by all of. thank you very much. >> thank you. that is it for staff presentation. with that, we will open up this item for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards, but if anyone has public comments. >> commissioners, that was very interesting of a presentation but he neglected to mention one thing. with everything he just presented, every detail, every site, the 33% affordable goal, the dedication of all the hounds

it -- housing funds, each one of those individual sites in the office projects, or the off-site , the five m. site, the subway site, every one of those was first proposed not by anybody in the city, not by the planning department, not by the mayor's office of housing, not by mr. rich's agency. every single one of those factors that we are glad to see highlighting was first proposed by our community, first came from us, first showed up in our central soma community plan, and was presented by other community activists, and sometimes, when it took political muscle, the five and project did not put that site on mission street because anyone in the city asked , they put that site there in order to secure our support for their project. that is exactly what happened, and that isn't the only case. the flower mart affordable

housing site is only happening because supervisor jane kim made it happen when the central soma plan came to the board of supervisors. she got it done. there is also going to be an affordable housing site on the garage development, and in central soma. that came from the community. i am glad to see these things happening. i'm glad to see the mayor's office embracing them, but really, if you want to know how planning gets done in this city, you aren't doing it, we are doing it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> one of the things that was done by the communities the job selling industry. and it needs to be updated. i read all the time the articles

in the business times and times and the business sections about how space is really used differently than what the planning department has as assumptions for how many square feet equals one worker. the formula that imposes a requirement on offices has to be adjusted. where is the planning department where is the mayor's office doing that work? what is the schedule? how soon will they do it? i have been asking for you to do this for a couple of years. because the office space is so expensive in the city and because there are new ways of working without paper and files, the whole methodology, it to the tech industry particularly, has been to change the use of space to get more people using this space than your formula, and so if the formula is out of date,

the requirements for building housing are out of date, and dragging your feet for 15, 20 years is not good enough. what is the schedule for really doing a deep dive on the housing formula, and it will have to go through the city's attorney's office because it will be one of those things that they have to manoeuvre her to get legal. so what is that? secondarily, everyone who stands here and makes a report to the commission with a presentation that you have without the captions, the people cannot see. mr. rich, planning department staff. see the captions and where they fall? when you have a presentation that has things under that caption, you cannot read it, and if you haven't learned, as a

staff person for the city that the captions obliterate your presentation, a large part of it -- i was really trying to read what can rich was presenting, and every time he got halfway through, i couldn't read it because the numbers were behind the captions. come on, guys. get straight with the people. we are trying to read things, and if you can't read it here, you can't read it as well on san francisco government t.v. with captions because people who read captions obliterate things. you should figure out how to put information on the paper that we can read in the audience. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item?

okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> mr. rich, if i may, thank you for making as feel that there is somebody holding all of the various strands together, and i see you are doing it. i have a question. you are presenting a very large amount of certainty that people will move forward with their project. that seems to be somewhat in contradiction to the many things we are experiencing here where people come in a reasonably large projects, getting entitlement, but not facilitating projects to be built. if you are saying that if permits are not built within one year after approval, that is what you are expecting. what happens if that doesn't happen? >> as i believe with all impact fees that the city exacts, they are due upon -- you do make a good point, the projects can get

entitled, and for whatever reason, not move forward. i would offer that occasionally we consider acquiring, asking, incentivizing developers to give us the fees upon entitlement, instead of upon building permit. and the reason we have never been enthusiastic about that is because if the project, if the developer decided not to move forward with the project at some point, we would have to give it back to them, and therefore, with the city would do with the fees they got before a project broke ground, is the city would put that money in the bank. they couldn't spend the money because it would be too risky to spend the money. we are stuck with a situation we have. i am always open to ideas. i am relatively confident that these large projects will go forward, and i would also say that while, of course, we need housing anyway, some of the demand for this housing is generated by the very projects that are paying the fees, so there is a nexus with the fees

coming in when the projects have been. >> i see we have very credible developers who are engaging with you. you are involved in crafting developed agreements and overseeing them. do you have strong enough expiry , use it or lose it clauses, in those agreements to give people the feeling you are serious? >> all of the projects you are seeing, all of the projects that generate the fees, save one, are not development agreements. i would defer that question to the planning staff which can describe what the code says about the expiration of the entitlement. the kilroy flower mart is a development agreement, and we are currently negotiating how that would work. i do not have an answer for you, but i do hear your concern. the only one of these projects in soma is the kilroy flower project. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards? >> i'm not sure how things work legally with these studies, but

as i sitting up here speaking about the use it or lose it, thank you for last doing all this together because this gets lost as time goes on. perhaps there is a way to do a cancellation penalty. like if i cancel my hotel room i have to give 20% of my entitlement dollars that the impact -- and the impact fees and all the time and effort that city staff spend on this. there has to be something that we can do to get some money out of it. i think that could be looked at with the city attorney. it is kind of obvious. a couple of other things, just this morning, i read to miss hester's point, the average office space now is 193 square feet, i will have to go back and figure out where i read that. i really -- i read a lot. it is no longer 250 square feet for the very reason we do not have cases of books in them anymore. and the last thing for mrs.

hester, i was sitting up here and following the presentation. i was looking over at the screen , and i say, i cannot see some of the things he was presenting, and we don't have closed captioning up here, i get where people get frustrated. i just noticed it myself sitting up here. maybe somebody can work with san francisco government t.v. to make sure when presentations happen, the captions can be at the bottom of the screen. >> thank you. commissioner moore, i share your concerns as well when it comes to what our developers and what they will do with projects. i do know that the larger projects in central soma, they are going to be held on to, they will be built and held onto whether it is properties or kilroy or tmg, these companies owned buildings, they built buildings, they lease buildings here in this city. some of the other developers, you know, we take our jobs pretty seriously up here and

don't like when we are getting some disingenuous answers from the developers, but i'm confident that the larger buildings we're looking at will get built, and they will be held onto. i think i said in one of our last informational items that building these buildings, the height and the development is what gives us the fees and gives us the affordable housing and the community development. i am glad we got to see more concrete information on what we are doing here with this area of planning, and i look forward to hearing the items. >> thank you, commissioner. i also want to thank you for your presentation and for documenting how we have this and how we will see these projects. thank you. >> just a couple of things. i share the concern about approved projects not being built, it has been a problem. the one thing i will say is the vast majority of those projects that are not being built our

housing projects, and from everything that we can tell, there is strong demand for additional office projects, and the office projects, the vast majority of them are moving forward with construction. so i think we do have some confidence that the office projects would move forward. there are certainly a number of housing projects that are not, and i share that frustration. i want to address the square footage issue because we have looked at this. the numbers have been revised in the central soma plan, if i am not mistaken. [please stand by]

>> president melgar asked we have a further discussion about the procedures we had recommended. this is our review of the proposed process how we bring projects to you in light of we have insufficient space for the

proposed squa proposed square footage. i sent a memo to that effect and referring to the memo which i think we have copies of handy. i'm referring to the momento dated may 30. as you know, just to remind everyone in '86 the voters passed proposition m which gave us 550,000 square feet a year -- the 950,000 square feet and a portion in large cap office space and 75,000 in the small cap space. since that time there were two periods when the amount of requests space exceeded the amount of available species. we're in the third -- space we're in the third period of time when that will have happened. as you know in the past, it led to some outright competitions that were dubbed the beauty

contest because projects were brought to you in the same hearing and presented with you in a competitive kind of format. i think this commission has felt less comfortable with that and i have felt less comfortable with that approach. in light of the fact that much of the unallocated space and the challenge that we are facing is in central soma and in light of the major office project planned in concert with that plan, what we are proposing in fact you not consider a competitive process but in fais phases. there's approximately 2.9 million available for large cap and 6.6 being requested. the second page summarized our proposed approach.

the first two bullets are re-affirming previous planning commission resolutions and let me talk about that for a minute. the way prop m is drafted that projects have 18 months after your approval to commence construction. now what we found as projects have become bigger and complex that's not realistic and it still lives in the prop m measure. what the commission has done in the past is allowed flexibility and judge if projects are moving forward in good faith seeking permits and moving ahead with permitting agencies, then you would consider that as moving forward towards construction.

the second thing is revoking projects and you adopted a policy several years ago that says as long as projects are moving forward in good faith you would not revoke them but if not they would consider revocation. louisville louisvillely -- legally you have to revoke it and it doesn't die after two or three years you have to have a public hearing to actively revoke it from the office cap. so the first two bullet points are reaffirming the policy which has been in place a number of years you have done. that's been our practice for many number of years and there were a few years ago when you took the office allocation back and we put that back into the pool. the third bullet refers to

reviewing each project on an individual basis with no defined approval period and generally sentra soma projects will be considered a priority but still allow ug to consider other -- allowing you to consider other projects as we move forward. and consider them in phases. so in reality, only the last bullet is a change in any policy. what we are proposing in front of you today and what we have proposed in the last few months is simply that you stay the course with how you look at projects and the only change is that well two, changes, one is central soma be given a preference for the office allocation and you consider the projects in phases so all the projects that have been planned

can be considered in phases as you move forward. that concludes my presentation. several of us are hear to answer any questions and we're happy to hear from you. >> thank you director. i'd like to prn -- open the item for public comment. i have one speaker card, anyone else who would like to speak line up on the screen side of the room. >> peter drakmier i want to comment on the jobs/housing imbalance which is an issue of supply and demand and supply could be met by building more housing but demand is all the office growth bringing in new employees and they're