i go down to the van ness special use district, and i see , on the part recommendation, reducing the permitted high of projection signs from 24 feet to 20 feet. no, about that. but businesses would be required to turn of illumination when the businesses close. my experience with this, although not in the van ness special used district, but a flower shop in the richmond district, with a projecting sign that was eliminated, -- illuminated, i had that sign on a timer. even if i closed at 6:00 or 7:00, it would go off at 10:00 or 11:00. it was advertising for me within reasonable hours. if that was true, with a very

this was offset the vast majority of inclusionary units that would of been required under the van ness special use district, as i mentioned earlier, and these units will target low and very low-income households in san francisco and will become part of the permanently affordable san francisco housing stock. the second component of the housing payment to the mayor's office on housing will provide at least 135 down payment loans, such as cpmc households seeking to buy a home in san francisco. this will be limited to people in the work force income category. employees cannot buy homes that and subject to an alice act in the last 10 years, -- subject to an ellis act in the last 10 years. there is also a share in appreciation, based on the split formula used by the mayor's office on housing and the current downpayment assistance loan program. these recaptured funds will then be diverted back to the mayor's office affordable housing funds and will help complete destruction of the 190 units i mentioned previously. finally, while cpmc will make payments, they will be subject to a payment escal

number one, the van ness special use district requires a roughly 3 to 1 residential sort of production versus commercial production. based on a sort of detailed process that the community advocates engaged them with the mayor's office and the mayor's office on housing and the planning department, we landed on roughly a 1.37 $6 million square foot residential obligation. if you essentially take 20% of the square footage not for circulation, which is roughly stated in the area, that brings it down to about 1.1 million square feet. if you averaged two units per 1000 square feet, that is about 1100 units, and the inclusionary obligation would go between 165 to 220 units, so our target, unit production goal, was based upon that peace. and that is what we are negotiating for. >> so just to try to conclude quickly, and we will then be available for all of your general questions, referring to transportation in the development agreement, the development of the new cathedral hill hospital is expected to impact munis service because of increased traffic as well as additional passengers riding nea

which i believe initially, they were urging $186 million to the affordable trust fund based on the van ness special use district, so that is $160 million for affordable housing, and it seems like the 20 sr road -- sro's, could you just tell us a little bit about the numbers of little bit more and how far apart the proposals will be from what the community coalition is requesting? >> because we are in negotiation with cpmc it is difficult with me, in fact, i am not in a position to disclose in a huge amount of detail the precise numbers and modernization. i will say however that the underlying premise for the unit goal was based upon a square foot calculation. actually, let me backup a little bit and give a little more background. number one, the van ness special use district requires a roughly 3 to 1 residential sort of production versus commercial production. based on a sort of detailed process that the community advocates engaged them with the mayor's office and the mayor's office on housing and the planning department, we landed on roughly a 1.37 $6 million square foot residential obliga

restrictions in the van ness corridor. i think it has ramifications for the other areas too. where we are eliminating the minimum requirements for parking, but what are we replacing it with? restrictions on maximums? >> the maximum for residential, i believe, -- the proposal is to change from one parking space to every four units. the idea is to create the maximum 150%. commissioner antonini: so you could go from on to two by cu? >> you would get rid of the minimum and then make it -- we have not done that calculation. commissioner antonini: it sounds too restrictive, going too far in a certain direction. i can see eliminating required minimums is a step in the right direction, but every product is different and there are projects that definitely need one to one parking. trying to restrict them to less or to make it cumbersome, administratively, to go through a long cu process, to just get this additional parking that they may need for the development, i think, is moving in the wrong direction. i would look at that seriously. this is an area that has potential for a lot of de

restrictions in the van ness corridor. i think it has ramifications for the other areas too. where we are eliminating the minimum requirements for parking, but what are we replacing it with? restrictions on maximums? >> the maximum for residential, i believe, -- the proposal is to change from one parking space to every four units. the idea is to create the maximum 150%. commissioner antonini: so you could go from on to two by cu?

i am sorry, like the tenderloin or along van ness. it removes the 1 to 1 requirements, making this consistent and removes the minimum parking requirement in broadway and the north beach commercial districts and the chinatown mixed use districts, and also increases the authority of the zoning administrator to waive parking requirements under section 161. the proposed legislation also proposes changes that will help preserve historic buildings and expands the tdr program to allow development rights to be transferred route the c3. currently, they are only allowed to be transferred in the individual c3's. and there is something to facilitate adaptive re-use, and this is also currently allowed for article 10 buildings, which are landmark buildings. it gives the authority to credit off-site publicly accessible open space towards open space requirements in article 10 and 11 buildings and allows them to waive certain code requirements when dealing with residential use. currently, many of these come in for variances, and these are often granted

we were able to achieve together, such as the completion of the environmental impact report for the van ness bus a rapid transit line. i project this is poised to move into implementation, and one that i believe will change for the better, the way people see public transportation in san francisco. on high-speed rail, we spent a very productive year forging a unified san francisco position in the face of rapid change them in the policy environment both in washington, d.c., and in san francisco. i believe we will see caltrain electrification in high-speed rail kunduz san francisco at center than most people predict. we only realize the dream, the downtown high-speed rail terminal, but we're also known to show the way for the rest of the state. our coalition building worked in this area, and it will be a major legacy. i am proud of the work we have done on the presidio parkway. we're poised to open the first phase to traffic in early february, and our work on the public-private partnership has said legal challenges all the way back to the state supreme court. again, we are blazing new trails in

the van ness windy environmental impact statement and report, the draft, as you know, is circulating. i want to remind people that the close of public comment is in december 19, just next monday, and that the public can obtain information about the project in the eir at our website. i encourage everybody to heed that comment deadline. we have reached out to over 20 state groups in the last month since the eir draft was published. i anticipate that we will have the final ready for you to adopt in the fall. we have also been working diligently on the update of the countywide plan. i will not say a lot about that, but we're now at the stage where we have developed a framework for evaluation of projects and have over 100 projects submitted by the public and public agencies over the past couple of months. and we're now beginning to go through the evaluation of those projects for performance. the public is invited to go to our website on the transportation plan, which is www.movesmartsf.com, to look at the details on what we're doing on that. i am very pleased to report that the jfk bikeway

i go down to the van ness special use district, and i see , on the part recommendation, reducing the permitted high of projection signs from 24 feet to 20 feet. no, about that. but businesses would be required to turn of illumination when the businesses close. my experience with this, although not in the van ness special used district, but a flower shop in the richmond district, with a projecting sign that was eliminated, -- illuminated, i had that sign on a timer. even if i closed at 6:00 or 7:00, it would go off at 10:00 or 11:00. it was advertising for me within reasonable hours. if that was true, with a very small neighborhood business, it is going to be even more necessary for larger businesses. so i would question that. however, i think the department has done an unbelievable job with this massive piece of legislation in their recommendations. on the whole, with these few questions, i think they are great and i look forward to february. commissioner olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: i am glad we are continuing the item and giving it more time to mature. there are so

whether the data and the numbers that were presented make sense as someone who actually goes through the van ness and geary intersection many days of the week, through gridlock. i am very curious about whether we'll be able to address the transit issues given how many new people we have. obviously, there have been questions raised around local hiring, the fact that this is a project that will create 4,000 jobs over the next 20 years, but according to community advocates, will really only guarantee 1% of that over a five-year time period. and then i know that many of us will be having conversations around the possibility and i think the importance of the c.b.a., not just to build community support, but this is a model that has worked really well with the hunter's point shipyard project and i know we will continue the conversation around this but i don't want to belabor the point. i want to thank everyone for coming out tonight and acknowledge supervisor campos who has closing comments. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i want to echo everything you've said

we have the van ness corridor right behind it. we have many apartment buildings in the area or maybe a building owner wants to do a significant size job that is more than two gallons of paint. to commissioner moore's question, it is a curious if this is a place where people can come in and look at swatches and plays a larger order for delivery to the actual job site or pick it up -- it is not a warehouse, correct? >> correct. commissioner fong: for all the larger buildings in the area, then as corridor -- and we want property owners to make improvements to their building's overall. so i think this will benefit a different niche. i am in honor of a small business and fearful of someone else coming in, and that might threaten the portion of my business as well, but i would be surprised if you probably sell more than four gallons at a time of paid at one time, and i think this might serve a different niche. i will see where this goes. i will support the filling of many vacancies in san francisco. commissioner antonini: i think, as com

the community. please support their efforts as we do. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is joe fang and i own a business on van ness. as you all know, especially supervisor chu here, the van ness corridor is in dire need of help. we have drug addicts and homeless people wandering the streets at night and it's unsafe to walk. when i first heard about this project four years ago, i applauded it but in over four years that i've been watching this project, my mood has gone from jubilation to impatience to despair. the city already has the dubious distinction of being one of the most difficult cities in the country if not the world to do business and this project is a prime example of what misguided democracy has done to this country of ours and the endless debates to protect a few minority groups will discourage productive projects and investors such as this one. in any other city in the world, a project such as this would be welcome with open arms and city officials would bend over backwards to make it happen. i implore you, city officials, look past the benefits of a few minority interest groups. the city is broke. the