. >> good afternoon emry rogers planning staff i do apologize attire staff has been working on that andame out friday after 5 so the first public discussion of it and the commission was not able to hear the information so there are 3 proposed tiers that are described in the grandfathering the first will be for the projects prior to 2013 and that year or prior and we have there are 200041 potential units in the first year between january 2014 to the ends of that year there are 18 hundred 78 potential residential unit in that tier b and tier c all the 2015 and up to the first two days of this year there are about 8 thousand 1 hundred and 23 dwelling units. >> do you have a list of projects that are not being grandfathered. >> so of those potential projects not grandfathered a total of 5 thousand 200 and 46 potential dwelling units. >> is that because i know there is building over one and 20 feet at all or taller no grandfather and that's right building over one and 25 feet with. >> i'm sorry one and 20. >> one and 20 feet or higher. >> all right. so if you have a building that is your pro

emry rogers planning department staff members of the public we had some copies over on the side i think in their all gone ebt we'll provide the handy danny chart and kwhaets before you as i mention we wrote the report in two days there were errors the recorded the mission has a higher inclusionary requirements they funnel into housing that is one clarification we have district with that little higher inclusionary the example u m u and the various requirements there are not just on the onsite, offsite or fee alternatives but there is land dedication middle-income housing alternatives and those are all variable rates that are described other districts that are higher inclusionary requirements are the transbay sud, soma youth and family sud and the western edition you'll have a parcel that has split part of it is different those are the higher requirements. >> that is a better way to go on this is kind of what staff recommended this two in the m u m u the higher that exists perhaps the same level that is over the grandfathering rates that that jumped from grairthd prongs into a one or two

. >> good afternoon emry rogers planning staff i do apologize attire staff has been working on that andame out friday after 5 so the first public discussion of it and the commission was not able to hear the information so there are 3 proposed tiers that are described in the grandfathering the first will be for the projects prior to 2013 and that year or prior and we have there are 200041 potential units in the first year between january 2014 to the ends of that year there are 18 hundred 78 potential residential unit in that tier b and tier c all the 2015 and up to the first two days of this year there are about 8 thousand 1 hundred and 23 dwelling units. >> do you have a list of projects that are not being grandfathered. >> so of those potential projects not grandfathered a total of 5 thousand 200 and 46 potential dwelling units. >> is that because i know there is building over one and 20 feet at all or taller no grandfather and that's right building over one and 25 feet with. >> i'm sorry one and 20. >> one and 20 feet or higher. >> all right. so if you have a building that is your pro

. >> emry rogers planning staff i believe that as described the cap at 33 would still not acknowledgehe different tier rates in the proposal so if you - set everything as 33 percent if an onsite instead of having substantially higher automates for abc in the umu. >> supervisor kim you have not looking to address that there are two ways to be consistent one way to say if you are you know at he will 2013 and get a one percent and 2 1/2 bump we treat everyone the same what it gets calibrated the offsite and then 10 percent the problem if you are grandfathered then in some cases your bump at 10 percent you're actually above the 33 percent if we're to be twul consistent with all the bumps we'll not cap it at 33 percent but if we want to be consistent with projects not grandfathered those projects capped at 33 then cap it at 33 percent so that is you know my understanding of the discretionary pleased reorganizes is that not the case instead we're saying that - if the bad news are recorded consistent you might be at 37 percent we're saying guess what we firmly believe that 33 percent is the

emry rogers planning department staff members of the public we had some copies over on the side i think in their all gone ebt we'll provide the handy danny chart and kwhaets before you as i mention we wrote the report in two days there were errors the recorded the mission has a higher inclusionary requirements they funnel more into housing that is one clarification we have district with that little higher inclusionary the example u m u and the various requirements there are not just on the onsite, offsite or fee alternatives but there is land dedication middle-income housing alternatives and those are all variable rates that are described other districts that are higher inclusionary requirements are the transbay sud, soma youth and family sud and the western edition you'll have a parcel that has split part of it is different those are the higher requirements. >> that is a better way to go on this is kind of what staff recommended this two in the m u m u the higher that exists perhaps the same level that is over the grandfathering rates that that jumped from grairthd prongs into a one or