mr. teague. specifically as to the impact fee that i mentioned in the beginning that you covered in your presentation, where if a project goes above a certain size, there are changes to the impact fees, specifically affordable housing fees go up and other impact fees, including transit impact fees go down. can you talk a little bit about where that proposal came from? >> sure. i can give you some basic information on that and how it works. obviously jim niko and others are here to provide more intent about the treatment of those sites in the process. the general idea is essentially those are large sites that can accommodate potentially a larger amount of growth. where having an additional floor may be valuable enough to, if you create an incentive like this, have this trade-off happen. as was mentioned affordable housing is a very important goal as are many goals in the plan, but affordable housing is incredibly important and these provide an opportunity to provide more affordable housing. not in

mr. teague? >> i'm sorry, i don't mean to interrupt. i just want to be clear that the ordinance that is in front -- the updated ordinance that was introduced today, that does not include the amendment for wmuo, that would have to be a separate amendment and same thing with the 7th street rezoning. that would have to be a separate. >> that would have to be separate. >> those two issues were not -- so the first three, yes. the removal with the conversion of the b bulk designation to x. the rezoning of those red sites. and the educational services breakdown. those three things are included in the ordinance that is in front of you, but beyond that would require introduction today. >> okay. so i am going introduce two amendments. one to modify the restriction on lot mergers. that would be my fourth amendment that i want to add and the fifth just to rezone the two parcels on 7th street, which is known as cycle glass and rawhide and i believe those last two are no one controversial and i would like to pass those together. >> can we take those

mr. teague. specifically as to the impact fee that i mentioned in the beginning that you covered in your presentation, where if a project goes above a certain size, there are changes to the impact fees, specifically affordable housing fees go up and other impact fees, including transit impact fees go down. can you talk a little bit about where that proposal came from? >> sure. i can give you some basic information on that and how

mr. teague showed that shows the west soma plan area will create 200 in the new units over what the existing 1990 zoning contemplates. and given the proximity of western soma to so much employment and even if it's inadequate, so much muni transit infrastructure, that seems like an enormous missed opportunity. i don't think anyone could accuse this plan of being too bold. a second issue that i'm hearing from a lot, i would say well-regarded architects that their design features in west soma plan in particular you saw roof decks, rear yards and open space, that i guess can only be said to be not friendly to building. or let's say not friendly to building and neighbors so close to downtown in an urban area. might be more appropriate farther out of the and finally, i would ask you to reflect on the slide that we saw, it looks like there is 90 something million dollars in projected needs in infrastructure and community benefits. there is some kind of disconnect here and look at it as something that could be modified down the road to make it more friendly to the needs that we face. thank you. >> t

mr. teague had said this earlier, but it's not really an even change. i think at the end of the day, there is a net gain for the city through this policy. because it is always more expensive to build housing on-site rather than the fee itself in and of itself. so being that this impacts such a small number of parcel, 13, but realistically, i'm not sure if even 4 or 5 parcels will consider it and it's voluntarily. i have to represent the community that i serve, and affordable housing is just the top priority for that neighborhood currently. but i understand the concerns. i believe that we need to figure out a better way to fund transit. i don't think we fund transit enough and that is why i that that discussion keeps emerging. >> supervisor kim i completely appreciate and respect those comments. affordable housing is also a huge issue in my district and a big issue everywhere. i completely support more affordable housing generally in all of its different forms. but i think i also, not just in any district, but everywhere i go in the city, people are very

mr. teague? >> sfgovtv, is that possible? maybe we can allow another speaker to go while that is happening. >> miss holiday. [ inaudible ] i also want to bring up 340 11th street and the reasons i would be opposed to the grand father status. this was when we were closed down by the abc, after working with our neighbor. we did try mediation and agreed to certain terms of mediation, which we exceeded and it didn't work out. we tried every possible step that properly would address her concerns and concerns of the other neighbors that she was working with. they stepped out. they were happy with results. it ended up with a $750,000 lawsuit. we broke no city ordinance. the city backed us up, the police department backs backed us and the closure impacted our staff, our business. i believe that in good faith i would have a very hard time seming any kind of condition that was put on a building that wasn't stamped. because of the experiences that we had. i think the work that has been done, emotionally, and timewise, i completely suppo