of affordable housing in the mission and this is a big project it is one city block it will convert pdr into housing we have an issue with jobs in the mission so the pdr to conversion is part of the mission 20/20 plan so i will request rather than putting it over for two weeks you give the mission time to finish the plan with the planning department and that will - this is the second largest track of land in the mission if it goes away we'll have a problem rather than that lets figuring out what is best for the mission as it is over 5 to 8 hundred people i don't know the all estimate come to the board of supervisors and said we need a moratorium our luxury housing mayor ed lee tolerance is for every twitter job that will be 80 percent affordable all of this takes for consideration than a two week kick the bucket down the lane i'm asking you wait until november with the 2020 in a draft form to look at what to do with the mission thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> honorably commissioners john from todco well, i'm normally be supporting what the speaker said but actually, i want t

here's the item and kill it now vote this project down it is an absolute disaster insuring this is pdrs sites and in the potential factory building and, of course, surely you know that 10 thousand feet of that is the sell says that a heart and soul of the mission for 20 years now and as an extraordinary act it will cause $30 million to replace but $50 million to replace the sell space only 12 percent of site it is we're coming to you and having the staff recommend you should demolish this extraordinary asset as part of the spirit of the mission to have more luxury condos that is if insane this project is insane it shouldn't have gotten this far from ceqa nobody is required to produce scenarios for development none i want you to have a maximizing the site another will moment misses the pdr and still add housing none that have is before you now you know me i have a good sense of what is going in the government issues this project is your last chance and commission to retain any credibility. >> sore to interrupt you, you can only speak on the matter of the continuance. >> turn it down toda

so the will performer sfrooik from an economic sense didn't capture the pdr land and certainly the pdr land has a value the baseline for example the buildings in the valley were a one story pdr building the revenue was taken out of the overall plan that's the land has value of the one story they could use that for planning for income that's accounted for we recognize the pdr jobs more indifferent than the rent income that's why we included it as a benefit that's why we put in requiring a right arm like e like the flower mart; right? this is not a new benefit any project like the sally district you have it you have to replace it. >> if i hear you right commissioner you're asking whether there's a way to quantify the loss? >> existing uses. >> that's the bottom line how do - i think conceptually how to lose the things that are community benefits because of the rising benefits i assume you have to knock things down to build how do concept listed it we integrate or bring back. >> certainly part of the range of pdr options we're keeping some of the areas zoned sally we're requiring a one mo

the pdr spaceerize critical to the vibrancy of the community. mini ortest work in pdr spaces and have for decades and being displaced as a very alarming rate because of the conversion of pdr space to other uses, specifically office space. planning tells while permitted conversion of pdr are 2.2 percent city wide, the rate of loss in the mission is actually 12.3 percent. all most 6 times more. this is taking into account the permitted conversion and doesn't take into account illegal conversion we know are happening. now let's talk about the voters. the voters of the city and coupty of san francisco presented their own vision for housing in san francisco. they passed proposition k last year and my proposal is very much in line with what the voters of san francisco asked this past november. proposition can ask established at least 50 percent of all new housing should be afford nl for low, moderate and middle income people. my legislation is part of a plan to actually try and reach that goal in the mission and it is actually a community saying we ha

it is meant for the office prototype including the nonprofit and pdr space as well as including the facilities through the residential fee and for the infrastructure the diversity focus on melrose and if additional value allocating it to other fees. >> so very briefly here were the main finding for the 4 prototypes the main take away that all of the scenarios the full community benefits package exceeded the amount our target so we the play with different alternatives to get within that range so for prototype a our body capture scenario under full bends was hundred and fyi percent we tested the affordability policies in order to inform what could be feasible prototype this is our 85 foot condo the body capture under the full benefits is 86 percent so when we tested our alternatives the affordable housing we found we can increase affordability for onsite from our 12 percent starting point to 23 percent we think this is probably on the upper end of what the project can faenlt feasible do and for alternatives two and three we added the infrastructure and jobs and found we can increase the affordab

space and new nonprofit office space part of pdr and focusing on infrastructure you'll put that money not into affordable housing but more towards transportation and environmental sustainability from the plan never passed and department can happen that is still about 6 thousand units based on downtown and each neighborhood we still get about $600 million in community benefits. >> from the plan passed but we didn't change the requirement we'll double to $1.2 billion but we'll still be leaving a lot of money on the table if we try to capture the value for the upcoming zoning and allow the development to happen you're up to $2 billion in community and benefits quickly go through what this means for example, we'll maximize we'll get to 38 unit in affordable housing and once you get that we'll get hundred million dollars above and beyond we we have today and childcare we'll have more is so that's the alternative maxed out one $.4 billion if you signed off on all this is what you get. >> today there's no requirement for constricting pdr space for example, the existing bar is for no central

of market many artist work in the pdr spaces. planning tells us while 24 loss of pdr in the sit a is 2.2 percent the rate of loss in the mission is 12.3 percent and that just takes into account permitted conversion not illegal conversions which we know are ram utthroughout the city. last year i introduced pdr conversion supported by the board twice. the first for 45 days and the second extend today a eryoo. we also identified a need to pause the rapid conversion rate in the south of market of the pdr spaces to lexerary housing and office. the issue of arts, cultural performance space being displaced sularming. nob nub stodeio 17, south space, dance mission theater are evicted or under threat of eviction. we need a plan to retain and support the institution and insure we create a environment where the arts can continue to thrive and expand. we need a plan with tools and resource squz funding to do that. i think everyone in the board agrees with that, i think where we disgrie is how to make it happen. if there were large sites avai

historic preservation commission as well, a pdr space and nonprofit space and a melrose space for this. >> here's a list of baseline and full community benefits packages for residential prototypes similarly in our baseline in the eastern neighborhood fees, school and water fees and the transportation sustainability fee affordable housing requirement we started with the existing requirement which is 12 percent onsite and in 20 percent for the fee option for the full benefits package we increased that affordability to starting point of 20 percent onsite and 33 for the fee like the office prototype we added the central selma fee, we added the pdr and the melrose and add did community facility fee steve mentions will fund the nonprofit requirements. >> so before i get into the study results i'm going to describe the rationale behind it the consulting had a land redull analysis to analyze decision on development it is the same methodology used for market octavia and it allows us to test the option for impact on development and allows us to prepare apples to apples so to speak so here's a si

what every happens in the mission good by art and pdr i'm astonished this commission has advocated limp obviously the neighborhood is extraordinarily aroused i can't stand why you're not doing anything. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'd like to make a comment on an item that had been couple for discussion in other month or so i understand it is a time when i'm out of town the 5 m project an important issue for the future lists to this tuesday, i went to a community meeting to discuss the 5 m project put on by house and senate e hearst and the forecast city i want to compliment the meeting while they allowed no public comment conversation it was a one way presentation followed by a discussion of members of the team i'm concerned about this project it brings the central business district to selma and as a result the spot zone that will be start by 5 m will be continued and destroy the selma communicated a community of a very fragile population retirees and sro's and homeless a number of the support agencies that provide health for t

spaces issues with having a percentage of the building be pdr versus commercial use be a four to keep track a total different circuits but the same kind of reasoning how is that we're allowing unit in the building to be one type of use and the rest another kind of use and keep track of that not that i disagree but a staff or the city attorney. >> this will be dwelling units and file number which units are subject to which requirements in terms of implementing that is 30 or straightforward than the open floor plan one of the reasons so. >> i would agree in the case of the third street properties in looking at the building for a long term enforcement it is harder to distinguish spaces given how businesses operate over a long term it is common when we look at office uses in the past the 90s and the 2000s and getting american people accurate record of what was designated for office is also or always kind of unclear. >> that make sense and finally he agree with commissioner hillis it is insane that seems that building was approved and they went back in with the illegal changes that will be

in san francisco from non profit workers to first respondsers and tech workers rchlt we say yes to pdr and cultural preserveivation and the fellow talking about cell space e we can still save it with this moratorium. that is what this can do and need to work with developers and unions to finance mpts we can't get the chase bacwho is funding the cell space development >> thank you very mump. next speaker please >> hello, i'm donald [inaudible] and resident of district 3 and rent in the city. so, today before you i'm here tabring up facts. 2008 was a reset [inaudible] 80 percent of developers are local developers of 30 years. luxury units are 2 million and above according to housing industry. it cost sux00 thousand dollars to build onebedroom bun one bath united. it takes 6 to 12 yinets to break ground due to sequa environmental review and planning commission department. we are not in a economic bubble here, we are experiencing a tech renaissance. san francisco is in the 4th year of a 17 expansion period only 2 things want to [inaudible] that is 9.0 earthquake phurenol miles due west of

we're trying to catch up as well as the work with the major policy efforts from affordable housing the pdr to transportation and so on. >> so, so i guess in converse the staffing you have this year is inadequate and i'm sorry. >> the staffing for this fiscal year is inadequate. >> it takes us awhile to catch up with the volume so, yes those are it is almost entirely fund through the vice president fees through the general fund. >> thank you. >> okay colleagues any further questions mr. rose can we go to our report on planning please. yes classroom and members of the committee on the items we consider that to be a policy matter for the board and on the budget on page 71 our recommended budget total 563919 of that amount 250s plus are ongoing savings those reductions will allow an increase of one million dollars plus or 5 that is o .1 percent in the 2015-2016 and for 2016-2017 recommended reduction or ongoing savings we're working with the department we'll report back to the department next week. >> thank you, mr. rose any questions we have item 10 first of all a motion to excuse supervisor

transportation and short-term rental the office allocation dealing with the general plan updates and the pdr uses and those are policy issues driven by the growth in the city we're focusing and you'll see on the budget proposal altercation on the major policy issues as we move forward it is no secret this type of growth in san francisco is happening national in the urban centers we're seeing it because of the growth of the technology destroy driven by the 3.4 percent unemployment rate in terms of our volume and staffing trends in the past fiscal year it has increased by 40 percent our staffing has kept pace the 78 hundred preliminaries for the next fiscal year and another 6 thousand planning cases and as you can see the change in the staffing levels as a result we anticipate by next fiscal year we'll be at 2 hundred and 20 ftes to keep up with the pace of growth on the revenue does the vast majority of revenues from the fees from time development for our charge of services an increase from 4 two to $47 million over the last fiscal year we have a grants budget that is dropping primarily due t

historic pier 31 it was red-tagged and unable to be used we're spending $6 million to open that up for pdrnd are shortage use avoiding more significant investment needs this will generate $750 million for the port. >> and when you see us back in the fall with the supplemental appropriation bill you'll see more and more those kinds of projects the port is in dialog with the waterfront use plan it is not updated in 17 years we completed a review in 2014 where i showed showed you the steps we're beginning to discuss with the public the view and the visions to the next way to use the piers not yet development the plan we adopted previously looked at many of the issues but we have any challenges we didn't address and importantly sea levels and it is complicating the facility conditions their aging and more and more expensive to rehabilitate. >> regarding the seawall we at the port combined with our integration of capital planning committee are aware the seismic risk and vulnerability of our sea level that is not repaired since built we're currently doing a study to understand the seismic reflex

we vafleed for housing sfr support the working plas and pdr and make sure your dezser service workers are here to help because if your labors and first responders live in east bay i don't know how we will get here to take care of the city when you need us and i want to be here to help take care of this city >> thank you very much, next speaker please. mr. campos thank you for doing what you can frathe community. i hope to see you as a mayor one day but [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker please >> supervisors my name is [inaudible] with the mission economic development aensh. just to give context we have lost 8 thousand latinos in the lest 10 years from the neighborhoods. 8 thousand. this is wie we have these people here. this is why you have the biggest [inaudible] on land use since 1999, 2000. if we do nothing about it we are on pace to lose another 8 thousand. i agree that we need a plan. it is only convenient and scenic to pretend there isn't a plan and not inteent to develop a plan. the moratorium is part of a plan. this plan will include setting ambishing goal said for afford

members of the public can place recordings requests to on them they're typically provided as electronic pdr attachment and the complaints about privacy is muted her concern about lack of ethics training is nuns nuance to only file form 7 hundred electronically didn't go far enough tier 2 designated should be required to buy no be ethics train in the ended requiring both may well reduce both sunshine complaints and the number of retaliatory wrongful termentsz they need to be trained they can do the training in the comfort of their offends on line like the department heads do training is set up on and on online and the department heads take the training and civil right those in the confront of their own offends. >> i'm aware that some city departments have tipping not required the contractors where identified in the governing ordinance to smith form 2 hundred despite the ordinance in essence to the commissions roll that the contractor were identified by position in that ordinances are required to file requiring on the tier two filers to do this online but not the contractors also didn't go fa

that diminish didn't demolish or convert examples with 5 or more units it will prevent the puss use of pdr state law establishes moratoriums can only be infected for a 45 day to insure that the emergency ordinances are established stalling requires a 40 fifth majority to limit the protections to critical issues for the immediate threat to public safety the supervisor president london breed determined the issue was important it should be heard by the full board at the hearing the primary co-sponsor supervisor campos said it was a decided property impact into the community and the moratorium was needed to take a break from standard development reviews the city has time to develop a few of the soft sites for affordable housing supervisor campos has joined in the sxorp and supervisor jane kim and supervisor wiener supervisor farrell said the moratorium will only cause housing crisis to arise supervisor president london breed encouraged the public to be heard and is commissioner richards called for the moratorium more finland the mechanism the hearing starred at 3:00 p.m. and last day until mid

in san francisco from non profit workers to first respondsers and tech workers rchlt we say yes to pdr and cultural preserveivation and the fellow talking about cell space e we can still save it with this moratorium. that is what this can do and need to work with developers and unions to finance mpts we can't get the chase bacwho is funding the cell space development >> thank you very mump. next speaker please >> hello, i'm donald [inaudible] and resident of district 3 and rent in the city. so, today before you i'm here