and, so, community involvement and land use decisions, and land use approvals is really quite critical. so, we took the dissolution of the redevelopment agency as an opportunity to look at how we can actually improve the project area committee. under crl it was extremely limited in terms of qualifications and who could sit on the body. so, we've done our best to kind of broaden i think as much technical expertise as we can on the body. and we've also sort of narrowed its focus a little bit at this point. we have tried to keep it as consistent as possible with what the obligations of the planning department were in its previous agreement, which is providing notice to the entity of conditional use applications , zoning changes as well as anything that would technically qualify under our ppa application. the city administrator's office who is facilitating many of the new roles and responsibilities of the former redevelopment agency will be providing the staff support for this entity along with the mid-market cac. so, planning staff will not be overly burdened in that particular way. as yo

good land use decisions. so, while a traditional formula for distribution funding from the region to the counties looks at pretty much your share of the population, your share of land miles and you get a share of the money based on that, this time that formula also includes consideration of a jurisdiction's track record in producing housing and particularly affordable housing, as well as future plans to accommodate more housing through the regional housing needs allocation process. so, this is actually a really great achievement of the plan. it's something that we in san francisco advocated for -- you know, we've done the good work and the hard work of doing good land use planning and there needs to be some commensura investment in transportation. it's not perfect, but it's a very symbolic gesture and a great achievement of this plan. and that funding needs to be spent 70% in support of priority development areas. so, in san francisco you saw the map of our priority development areas. another chunk of the tid

therefore, there doesn't seem to be a land use rationale to keep that hard limit at 75. there does, however, exist -- strongly induced rationale to closer review each proposal through the conditional use authorization process. >> that seems consistent with which mr. meeko said earlier, that this whole process of 75 began from something former supervisor daly had done in regards to a broader area that was then morphed and carried over into the muo. so, i mean, i think we're talking about -- it's the new vote to talk about that particular number in this particular zoning district because that seems like just a carry over. it was just as good to carry into their -- >> another way i can maybe clarify it is that the 75 room limit came from the sso table. this site that we're talking about or this area was not formerly an sso zoned area. this was formerly the m2 district. >> you're talking about muo, not the king street site, but entire area was formerly an m2. that's true. it was a previously industrial area and i think this needs to be looked at. certainly if we initiate it t

so, the approach was to look at a future year 2040 with all of land use transportation with several

test, test, test, test, test, test >> good afternoon and welcome to the board of supervisors land use and economical development committee. i'm scott weaning i'm the chair. the supervisor david chiu a member of the committee is joining us and thank you to sf g tv for broadcasting this committee. madam clerk any announcements. >> yes, please make sure that your electronic excises are silenced. >> yeah. there will be no board of supervisors on april 30th so may 7. we're joined by david chiu. for members of public there are blue public comment cards at the front of the chamber and please fill one out and please note on the item number so we can organization them. there is an overflow room if you need to go there >> item numbers one and two or amendment the chapter code for the environmental appeal processes and public notices requirement. >> item number it you called both? so items one and two have been called so i want to make a few opening remarks as author of item one. colleagues welcome back to our second meeting on the land use committee on this legislation. more than a decade ago s

colleagues welcome back to our second meeting on the land use committee on this legislation. more than a decade ago sequa was enacted. now more than a decade ago we've not had legislative negative declarations under sequa. it's been a choofg and unpredictable process without a clear deadline for filing on appeal. while sometimes large developers can deal with the chaotic situation they have lawyers and small projects and home projects can't. this legislation should have been passes a decade ago. 3 of our predecessors attempted to pass those pursues in statutory form and they were unable to do so. so my legislation is before us and finally to codify pursues. i introduced this legislation almost 6 months ago. after a number of months to do so in a methodal way. we have had 3 round table meetings various smaller meetings are affordable housing and historic preservation. we've had 3 hearings and two hearings at the planning commission and now two at the land use committee. both the historic commission and the planning commission have recommended approval of my legislation. the he

for san francisco's "core network" of streets in response to the cumulative effects of the many land use and transportation projects proposed for the core over the next 25 years. the core refers to the downtown, south of market, and mission bay areas. based on the microsimulation analysis conducted in the study's first phase, we sought to identify additional interventions in the core network that would reduce vehicle miles travelled vmtt in the study area by at least 28 a "baseline prime" scenario. the study looked at a range of different strategies' contributions to the reduction in core network traffic e.g., grouped in three categories: making better use of the grid; using price to manage demand; and rationalizing regional accesss. we will present core study recommendations and how they may be incorporated into the financially constrained and "vision" investment scenarios. we will also present the results of the draft equity analysis which looks at both geographic and socioeconomic equity of existing and future baseline transportation system conditions. the equity analysis findings wil

meeting and we do not have a land use meeting next month. so, supervisor kim? >> well, i support the continuance, i would like it to may 20th. not just because my legislation will be ready for action at land use, but also because i really would like the time to explore what has been suggested recently, which is that we include ways of expediting projects that we all care about, pedestrian safety, affordable housing, through this legislation as well. i am sure that if we can get there in two weeks, but i think that additional time would be helpful. >> i will be supporting the motion for a continuance. in terms of that specific point about how we prioritize different projects. that is i think is a very significant discussion about the planning department resources and a lot of people will have an interest in that including folks in the affordable housing community and folks in labor and others, and so that strikes me as a discussion that may go beyond the legislation, but it certainly is worth talking about. >> do we need a roll call vote? >>

instead of 130, so right now the next land use committee meeting is monday june 3. if we call a special meeting or if we call -- start the june 3 meeting earlier at 10:00 a.m. we would provide the required notices. if anyone is interested you can call my staff to find out where we are on that. does that make sense colleagues? okay. so do we have a motion then to continue items five, six and seven to the call of the chair? >> so moved. >> okay. and take that without objection? that would be the order. okay. item number eight. >> item number eight is an ordinance amending the subdwigdz code to adopt condominium conversion impact fee applicable to certain buildings to convert during a six year period and suspend the condominium conversion lottery until 2024 and restrict future lotteries to more than four units and

land use is located within a subject block includes predominantly two and three story buildings that contain a range of commerce uses on the ground floors and upper floors including retail stores, eating and drinking establishments and financial, medical, professional and personal services. several buildings within the block also contain multi-family dwelling units above the ground floor. as noted in staff report, the department has received 59 lesupport from the public, nearby businesses, the merchants of upper market and castro, and the buena advice that neighborhood association in addition to a petition containing 453 individual signatures. the department has also received four letters in opposition to the project from the public, the duboce triangle neighborhood association, and the castro upper market community benefit district. in addition to a petition containing approximately 4200 signatures. since the packet was published the department has received additional communication including 20 letters in support of and 21 letters and phone calls opposing the project. the letter from

so i ask that if indeed we are considering for the central corridor, land use planning which includes hotels, i would be interested to hear that and the context of that study [speaker not understood] unfolding. i do not believe that any step ahead of time are appropriate. and in the whole story of how it evolves with the site specific considerations, i would be interested in that. ~ steps unfolding what concerns me is hotels which exceed 78 feet other than a site which is controlled for height and bulk as the case mr.

maintaining visual and pedestrian connection to the water front as was defined in the water front land use plan that the port undertook so many years ago and we are maintaining a commitment to the mixed use diversity. so what you will see here is a proposal of what we will have on what we are calling flexible zoning and in brown are the office sites and yellow is the residential par tal and the parking to the south end of the site and the hatched partials could be market or residential. now it is important to note here that those hash sites could not go one way or the other, we are maintaining a significant level of residential, we think that it is important to have particularly on the parks to create a day in and day out, lively feel. so there will be a range of office and residential depending on how that plays out. importantly, also, is how do we phase the infrastructure and we have a commitment to phase this appropriately with the adjacent uses and the buildings as they build out to insure that the infrastructure is delivered as the project is built out over the phased time period. >>

so i ask that if indeed we are considering for the central corridor, land use planning which includes hotels, i would be inter

i severable on serve on the arena cac and with ron miguel we cochair the land use design of that cac. in your packet today you heard that we're going to be having a full cac meeting in june and the land use committee is meeting later to start digging into this design. it's pretty pictures, but we want to look at how it's going to operate and whether it's going to be working for the city, the port and the neighborhoods. and i would encourage any of you that can to come and hear what the community thinks about this be design when we have a chance to really get into detail. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name's garett law and i live in south beach neighborhood there. this is amazing and makes a statement, but i guess i've lived in south beach for about /tepbl years now amend ten years ago we needed a statement and so we got sf giants. it lands with the neighborhood, you got brick and brick and it all goes together. this is a peck tack /hrar concept. i don't see how it integrates into the neighborhood. we've got -- years ago there weren't a lot of people. there were empty buildings there

community benefit district >> ladies and gentlemen, we have lisa pagan and daniel hurtado from the land use and economic development committee and they are here to present this item. would you like to start your presentation? thank you. >> good morning, chair cohen and committee members, supervisors tang and campos, i am lisa pagan, senior director with the land use and economic development committee and i am presenting the letter of intention sponsored by supervisor kim to renew and expand cannot property-based business improvement district known as the central market community benefit district. here today with daniel hurtado, the executive director of the existing central market community benefit district. the central market cbd is coming to an end of its seven-year term when its assessment collection term ends. the services will be provided to existing property owners within the cbd boundaries through the end of december. members of the board of directors of central market cbd and cbd renewal steering committee have been conducting outreach over a year in an effort to determine if there

so i ask that if indeed we are considering for the central corridor, land use planning which includes hotels, i would be interested to hear that and the context of that study [speaker not understood] unfolding. i do not believe that any step ahead of time are appropriate. and in the whole story of how it evolves with the site specific considerations, i would be interested in that. ~ steps unfolding what concerns me is hotels which exceed 78 feet other than a site which is controlled for height and bulk as the case mr. vettle is describing, large sites will go for very large hotels. those are all of the formula hotels which occupy sites which are really the ones we are looking for with a much higher degree of importance, particularly the housing sites. and i do not want to see then those sites start to compete with each other for higher and better use because we know tourist hotels most likely generate higher residual values than affordable housing will. i'm just hanging that out to you more as a question than a definite answer, but there will be conflict when it comes to adding this i

plan and article 11 of the planning code is such a governing land use plan and here we have a 47-story building attached to a much smaller building which will increase the height of that resulting one building by 40 stories, 39 stories, actually. the article 11 says you can't do that with a significant building. you can only go up one more story. so it's a very flagrant violation of article 11 ignored by the eir. the applicant says that is the zoning code stuff and it's not ceqa stuff. well, it is ceqa stuff. it's ceqa stuff because ceqa requires the eir to look at inconsistencies with governing land use plans, such as article 11ed. it's also ceqa stuff because the inconsistencies with article 11 are germane to the impact. these are not zoning provisions that are about something other than environmental impact. these are about environmental impact. the historic resources of this district and of this building are environmental resources of the city of for san francisco and its residents and this building is completely out of scale. the consultants for the applicants to jump through

second or third hearing of the land use and economical committee. in addition we have i've engaged in robust decisions. we've had a number of small meetings with individual groups and as a result of the public outreach we've made approximately 40 amendments to the legislation. at the last hearing president chiu offered several amendments that the committee adopted. i have several minor technical amendments that the planning department and city attorney recommended. i want to talk about them now. the first is hi, and these amendments have to do with a notice of determination is filed and data dumping. the first one is page 18 section 3811 after the word pursues add the quote and required you payment fees by the sponsor and next on section 31.5 after the word pursues add quote and upon the payment of the required fees by the project sprorn. sponsor. and then 31 section delete the last sentence and add quote the clerk will distribute any written documents submitted by the boards normal pursues and such written materials will be part of the record. subm

so there has been a lot of work done but never been a comprehensive look at if we do all of these land use transportation things together, what will things look like and how will transportation performance be. that's critical on the part to do this san francisco plan because it's a part of the city where so much is going on and it's where our main job centers are. i did also want to note, we've been doing this with a lot of input from other san francisco agencies and there is a nice interaction between this work and the central corridor work the planning department has been leading and the transportation ideas they are rolling out through that plan has been informed by this work. so, the approach was to look at a future year 2040 with all of land use transportation with several transportation performance metrics. the focus of today's presentation is on a few of them which we reveal some sort of a problem. i should not there is a lot of things that go into the note for making the better area for people who are wanting to bike and walk to this area. we have three bills remains and require ad

create a special use district in collaboration with the planning department that incorporates the land uses that we're proposing /afrpbd that would include design controls and occur in tandem with the water front [inaudible] use plan. in terms of affordable housing the project will meet city inclusionary housing requirements and is also exploring using low income housing tax credits to exceed the city's tax credits. we'd like to maximize that to 20 percent. we are also working with sfmta to participate in the water front transportation assessment and that will inform the transportation /tkphapbld manage /-pl plan that we'll evolve and discuss specific transportation interventions to make sure the site is well served by transit and that its users take advantage of transit opportunities. part of that is exploring subway turn around at 20th street. we are working harold on the fiscal feasibility report. we're finding there is significant benefit to the city on the same scale of [inaudible]. in terms of specific job creation, the de/sreler is looking at creating job opportunities forest city ha

thinking about it in the context of mission bay, market -- there are some areas, you know from the land use side we have from the transbay to even neighborhood co4th street corridor e and there is tremendous work on the transportation side where there are existing communities and plans for a lot of additional residents and john's. -- jobs. how can we make this area more livable. so there has been a lot of work done but never been a comprehensive look at if we do all of these land use transportation things together, what will things look like and how will transportation performance be. that's critical on the part to do this san francisco plan because it's a part of the city where so much is going on and it's where our main job centers are. i did also want to note, we've been doing this with a lot of input from other san francisco agencies and there is a nice interaction between this work and the central corridor work the planning department has been leading and the transportation ideas they are rolling out through that plan has been informed by this work. so, the approach was to look at a fu

it is being done in san francisco and the coordination of land use and tran powertation planning are essential to this plan and as you know for sb375, the reduction of the greenhouse gases and the housing at levels. and the most important is the focus on local lands and the local additions, the local neighborhood planning to put together this plan. we are trying to address the economic health of the region and the retention of the open space and natural resources and the effective use of our public investments and this is worth sharing the quality of life that we enjoy today with future generations. there has been a lot of analysis that we are not going into a lot of detail, but we are giving you a picture of the dimensions that have been assessed. we have been having a dialogue on this plan for a while and this gives you a picture of it being a couple of years in the making and sharing with you some of this input and at this point, we are taking public comments on the final draft. we had the session in san francisco and we still have four more counties spending and so we are taking

will begin shortly. >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. i am scott wiener, the chairman of the committee. to my left is supervisor david chiu, a member of the committee and supervisor zane jane will be joining us jortly. i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting today's hearing and our clerk ms. miller. ms. miller, are there any announcements? >> yes. please silence all electronic items and please submit cards for public comment to the clerk. >> thank you. i want to note that supervisor cohen has joined us. can you please call item one. >> item one is a public utilites commission for the pacific gas & electric company of the watershed lands lands for $2,200. >> so this item is the sale of puc land andisement rights to pg&e. it's in unincorporated san mateo county county. it facilitates gas repairs pg&e is making in the area to install a valve. the purchase price is 2200 foe easemenghto be conveyed to them. the puc commission approved this on april 9. it has a general plan referral dated may 7 showing confor

kopel these findings are absolutely accurate they were reviewed with the land use attorneys. and i do want to emphasize that the addendum that's referenced in the findings are absolute ly adequate. the file is in the addendum and the final environmental impact report and the findings were done with meticulo u.s. care. and returning to miss weiss's objections this is a project to be clear only for the height of the project nothing else is subject to referendum for example the dcw hearing ficer issued an order so that's already been done this is normal course of business if you will for a construction project public improvements like this take a long time to get. certainly when we do them these will be wonderful public improvements and again you want to be mindful these are not taxpayer funded they were offered up. i would highly recommend you do this and this is an adequate approval motion. >> okay members of the board? >> okay any further discussion on it? all in favor say aye. thank you very much. >> aye. >> the bicycle plan project and related actions reapproving david kope