new pdr space. the the legislation had included a sunset provision that caused the program to expire on december 31st, 2017 unless the board of supervisors account aed to continue, extend or modify the ordinance. the proposed legislation that's before you today was introduced by supervisor cohen with the intent of reestablishing this program and remainioving the st clause, making the program permanent. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance as the crossubsidy program that was enabled by this has been successful at achieving its policy objectives by facilitating the development of new pdr space in under developed parcels in pdr districts. this project as 100 hooper is a perfect example of space that can exist because of the program. the program aligns with the plan to promote healthy industrial industry and accommodate for the difficulty of new industrial uses to establish in a competitive real estate market. this concludes staff's recommendation and i'm also ava

in terms of land use and zoning, the project requires that there's pdr space. [inaudible] >> in terms of physical character, we have one nonsubstantive amendment that i want to call to your attention because it wasn't in your packet, and that's a cross-reference in the cmu table in section 848, the residential lot coverage requirements in 249.78. we're also recommending for key sites we tailor some of the proposed receptions. just for one call out at the tennis club sites, they're adding a lot of public benefits, and one thing we're comfortable with them doing is not providing all the pdr sites. we would like to start tailoring those, and work with the city attorney on how to do that, but we want your blessing to kind of tighten the key sites language. the owners are seeking to place an additions on that site to go from 85 feet to 250 feet and to do so would benefit from exceptions around tower separation and set backs. in addition they would provide benefici additional benefits. this is a good opportunity to talk about tower separation, since you asked us to s

we heard this from transit workers saying what about permits for transit workers, pdr workers, folks who work in the retail businesses and may be approving early or leaving late. that sill -- that illustrates why permits wouldn't work. if you give everybody a permit you might not as well not have any regulations because then they are moved because everybody can park everywhere. i think it's important to remember that as i've said a lot of the reason for this regulation is to move along all the folks who don't actually have any business in the dog patch center, are just using it for that free parking. the point is to open up spaces for the workers and the people who live there and shop there. others have said, well, we have demand responsive pricing now throughout the city. you say that you're going to start these rates low but doesn't that mean they are going to go up over time. the answer is my operation ex-- experience has been is going from free parking to any price at all is a big change. that moves a lot of people along and getting them to change their behavior or makes them go

trust purpose, then, we can have uses that aren't traditionally considered trust uses like office and pdr in those facilities if they are contributing in a significant monetary way to enhancing a district. whereas facilities that are not in the embarcadero -- that are not in the historic district, we might not have the flexibility that we are able to have in i appreciate your input and agree with the other commissioners. this is long overdue. i agree with commissioner makras. i think we have to broaden this and there's some good discussion. i think we have an opportunity to do some really good work here, and it's really overdue. i agree with commissioner woo ho, that pier 32 really needs to be on that, and i'm hoping that some visionary, some billionaire, an elon musk or tom steir can come in and has a vision. thank you. >> president brandon: rebecca, thank you. this is a great vision and very exciting and long overdue, and really looking forward to the responses we get. my only question is one that's been asked, and that is why isn't 30-32 included. and i heard the rationale, but i still

was it at pdr? >> commissioner moore: no, why did you set the limit at 99,999 square feet? >> i think that was an attempt to try to recognize who the biggest -- where the biggest impacts were coming from. you know, we certainly are open to other suggestions, and if folks want to take the square footage down to capture more of that impact, but it seems that the feasibility, you know, for the largest projects was -- was very evident, and so you know, we started there. open -- open to feedback and suggestions. >> commissioner moore: perhaps at this realm, we can take what's in front of us, but perhaps, president hillis, we can take this up -- >> president hillis: yes. i know the board of supervisors is taking this up as a retail conversion and what will happen. >> commissioner moore: okay. >> president hillis: okay. is there a motion to recommend approval? >> vice president melgar: i move that we recommend approval. >> president hillis: second to what supervisor peskin has proposed. >> clerk: that's the staff recommendation. >> president hillis: and i think there already have

up regretting decisions to convert to office space where if we were creative -- even if we had some pdr and manufacturing uses that actually used to

there is no displacement of any business, residential or pdr, it's a vacant blighted site. the project provides affordable units. the project has been reviewed by our design team, the project sponsor purchased property in the early 2000s and filed application in 2006. the project was not allowed to move forward until after the adaption of the neighborhoods due to the 2660 replacement policy in the spring of 2006. by the time the eastern neighborhoods was adapted in 2009, we were in the middle of a recession. and after that there was no funding available for smaller project sponsors. the project was proposed for a large project authorization, but the planning department withdrew the large project authorization because the mission controls had expired. the project sponsor has met with the appellants, but they are close to agreement, they haven't reached. numerous letters in support of the project, i believe 90. this application is 2006 application, 12 years in the making, it's time to move the project forward. this is a project if it gets approved, it will get built, it will

we're able to preserve 20,000 square feet of pdr. we've become a state culture district. we were diesignated last week. we were able to preserve afford annual housing, looking at the p -- affordable housing, we've been able to provide technical assistance in our culture -- in a culturally competent manner to our businesses along the core co corridor and in the cultural

the project does not displace any pdr or local business and the ground floor commercial space is limited to 1425 square feet. the sponsor has offered to subdivide the commercial space and lease half to a nonprofit at one half the market rate for ten years, but that offer had not been accepted. additionally, the project will add 37 units in the city housing stock, including family-sized units with a high quality mixed use income development. the urban design advisory team reviewed the response to the request and determined that the project's intended use to be compatible with the neighborhood and the general plan to date, the department has received 90 signatures and comments in support of the project and six in opposition. with those in support saying the project will provide housing on a vacant lot on a site that is currently a source of blight in the neighborhood. with those in opposition stating concerns about gentrification and the need for more affordable housing. staff are convinced that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. as n

what i've highlighted here in yellow shows the date that an opdr -- pdr, eligibility for inclusion in the california registry. march 23. next is the date that they got the last revision. ten revisions later, in 2017. now folks, do you actually think that this is right? do you think that this process needs to be improved here as opposed to the ten days that the department is proposing for cutting off from our 30-day notice? so if you want to improve the process, improve this: three strikes, you're out. five strikes. you're out. ten revisions? do you actually think an architect would have gotten his license if he had failed ten times? think about it. then, what about this pop out notification. this is another thing that you should not make any mistake. these days, pop outs are about extensions to an already megamansion that the developer builds to the maximum limit allowed in rh-2 zones, 55% of the lot. and they take the 55%, and then they add the pop out on top of that. so this is another case for serial permitting. we were here two, three weeks ago, with a joint bic and planning commi

we're able to preserve 20,000 square feet of pdr. we've become a state culture district. we were diesignated last week. we were able to preserve afford annual housing, looking at the p -- affordable housing, we've been able to provide technical assistance in our culture -- in a culturally competent manner to our businesses along the core co corridor and in the cultural district. and also, we've been able to create an identity for the neighborhood through signage and through marketing. so these cultural districts really allows the district to be seen in a social justice cultural lens, making sure that the cultural district is heard, seen and preserved for the future, so thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is carlos alerta, and i'm the chamber of the hispanic chamber of commerces for san francisco. i want to thank you for all that you've done for the mission district. i appreciate it. you work for the city, but at the same time it's really hard for us being seeing somebody who cares as much as you do. i

south of market neighborhood within the west soma mixed use district which is comprised of low scale pdr uses that is intended to support light industrial, wholesale distribution, general commercial and neighborhood serving retail and personal service activities. while also protecting the existing housing and encouraging the development of housing at a scale and density that is compatible with the neighborhood. the immediately surrounding properties are housing to the north and west. a small mixed use building and hardware store in the north. industrial and small office buildings to the south. and an industrial building currently occupied by fedex to the east. nearby landmarks of the project include the victoria park, one block east. san francisco hall of justice, one block to the southeast and the u.s. court of appeals and social security administration buildings three blocks north. since the packet was published, the department received nine additional letters supporting the project, including the leather and lgbtq cultural district that were provided to you a few minutes ago. after an

perhaps there could be policy of considering that replacement pdr and retail uses in that general area could also be in direct support of the flower mart because they are complementary and synergistic uses in both places. those are ideas that i've been thinking of relative to the flower mart will not be in the same surroundings relevant to new development when it comes on-line in that new location. the community has expressed large concerns about displacement and gentrification to consider a policy for preservation of affordable office and other spaces for nonprofits and cultural district assets i think is an important element when most of this built trend towards new office, how do we protect those who traditionally actually have lived in this area and may now be threatened for displacement? we should encourage a discussion we have not just in this district but every where else and other neighborhoods to make sure or encourage that off-site bmr units will be built within the plan area so if there is indeed displacement, that people find replacement within their neighborhoods. encourag

up regretting decisions to convert to office space where if we were creative -- even if we had some pdr and manufacturing uses that actually used to exist at union square, that it might be the right thing as supervisor safai said in terms of looking forward. manufacturing spaces becoming hot and we should try to incent things like that as well. if a member of the committee wants to move the aforementioned and circulated amendment and send this to the full board with recommendation, i would be delighted. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang: we have motion for amendment without objection. and if we can get a motion. >> make a motion to send this the full board with positive recommendations with amendment. >> we'll do that without objection. thank you, supervisor peskin. item 3. >> hearing on the cleanup time line and disputes between federal regulators and the united states navy on the percentage of parcel g to be retested and the methodology of retesting soil at hunters point shipyard. >> i'm going to turn it over to supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, good afternoon, ladies an

the next this study justified nonresidential costs for nonresidential costs not counting pdr was $80.16 ohms -- 68 cents a square foot. we are talking about may be raising it to 22. what is unsustainable is not funding a transit system that works for all san franciscans. it is not sustainable for this political body to say that the only way we can pay for transit is a sales tax. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again chairs and supervisors. i am here today to speak in favour of the transportation sustainability fee. as other speakers and supervisors have pointed out, our unfunded needs for transportation capital and operating currently grow into the billions. we do not have, at this moment, be clearly identified source of funding to address those needs. if not did this, than what? i look to members of this board to take our needs seriously. to act within their powers to address them and to come up with some reasonable proposals to help fund our many and growing transportation needs. to me and to our coalition, folks you have also heard fr