tv [untitled] July 17, 2013 2:00am-2:31am PDT
thank you. >> thank you. mr. paulson. ♪ [speaker not understood] we're going to have room for the bikes it will be great it will be swell because we're going to have a great transportation plan thank you, woman land use and man ♪ >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on items 2 and/or 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor avalos, you have some -- >> yes, i passed out an amendment that has been requested by the department of park and traffic and mta and would like to bring this forward for consideration. it is in publicly owned garages and i'll read the language for you. part of it is amending the
table [speaker not understood] page 32 that would amend in the words -- i don't have the pre-existing language. hang on just a second. let me get that page 32. where it's actually about in city-owned garages, the language would be in the middle column where it currently reads none are required, however, if class 1 spaces that can be rented on an hourly bases are provided, they may count towards the garage's requirement for class 2 spaces. essentially, it's regulated between class 1 and class 2 spaces in publicly owned garages. we want to change that language, if class 1 spaces that can be rented on an hourly basis are provided then it counts towards garage's
requirement for class 2 spaces. and with the department of parks and traffic we have to request a waiver from the zoning administrator who will be doing the enforcement on these policies moving forward. the second amendment would be on page 51 -- actually, page 52. and that will be roman numeral small ii, for requirement, the new language will read for the requirement required by parking, nonaccessible automobile or lots 500 spaces in order to obtain this exemption, the responsible city official shall provide to the zoning administrator in writing an analysis demonstrating that the demand for bicycle parking in that location is less than the amount required by section 155.3 of this code. this exemption may only be provided for any required bicycle parking above 50 class
2 spaces. the exemption for these garages may be issued for up to one year. responsible city official shall provide the required bicycle parking within one year of the issuance of such exemption or shall obtain a new exemption for each year until each bicycle parking is required. and then under that is new language where it describes a temporary exemption for class 2 bicycle parking shall be granted as allowed in subsection 1b above under the jurisdiction of the zoning administrator. i do believe as a member of the mta here who might know about these requested amendments. no? ~ and the rationale behind them, plea. >> good afternoon, supervisors. rob malone with the off-street parking group at sfmta. thank you, supervisor avalos. nice reading of those. be happy to answer any questions you have. >> could you just explain the concern that the mta had about
current spaces and genesis of -- >> absolutely. so, for the item 1 request about the class 1 space, at the moment the language reads no class 1 spaces are required. however, the mta and my group that oversees the garages as well as folks who work as bicycle planers in the planning section of mta have been working on some next generation bicycle locker plans. there is some grant funding coming in. we have new ones coming in, plan for additional ones coming in. rather than the old style walkers rented on the annual basis and the key is turned over to the person usinging them, there is new generation of lockers that will be accessed by something equivalent to a corporate card where folks would sign up, have an account, it would be available for a short term in addition to long-term use while still providing the same fully secure environment. so, we're excited about supporting this kind of next generation of lockers and see
them as providing both short-term and kind of medium-term use. they're not going to be rented long term any more. and we just were suggesting the language change just because we want to continue to support that and not have this kind of new next generation marker not be counted toward the overall plan -- >> where do we currently have such lockers -- >> the new lockers? >> at caltrain station, do we have places like [speaker not understood] jurisdiction, but other places in san francisco? >> i actually don't work with these on a daily basis. i can't tell you. i just know they're intended to come to three of our garageses that have the most lockers right now and are intended to go [speaker not understood]. i don't know how many are already installed. >> which three garages are these? >> where the new lockers are going to go in, it is the sutter stockton garage, it's a mission garage. >> mission. >> and i believe the golden gate way garage. >> golden gateway?
~ okay. and the next amendment? >> and then in terms of the overall, the overall requirement, our general take on this is we are absolutely obviously as an agency fully supportive of all the bicycle improvements that are going on. we have a little more fine grain knowledge of our specific demand at our specific garages. in certain cases we're already exceeding what the new requirement would be, such as at our golden gateway garage. at some of the other garages, the demand is maybe lagging a little where it might be city-wide. and we're also just trying to manage quite a few what we have called sort of transit first friendly improvements in our garage portfolio over the next few years. our mta board is scheduled to hear and act tomorrow on a significant increase in car share space allocation in our garage supportive of a good
price point to really expand car sharing. we have also in the last six or nine months added the scoot, scooter sharing, little red skooters folks may have seen around, a new alternative transit mode coming to our city. i think we have eight locations. we have also been in partnership with a few other city agencies, department of environment, airport, dpw, electric vehicle chargers in many of our facilities. i believe there's around 50 electric vehicle chargers. some of that all of these sharers, they like to be in as prominent space as possible. we try to manage all of those demands. so, in certain instances there's lots of competing demands. we would like to be on the first level. we would like to be where people -- we're doing our very best to support all of these, the growth of all these at the same time, trying to balance them. in certain cases we feel like
all of a sudden throwing x number of spaces. we might be eating into some of those [speaker not understood]. only in specific instances request the type of advantage the supervisor outlined on a year-to-year basis where in certain instances we feel like maybe we'd like to request permission to gradually get up to the new requirement. >> of course the requirements are in place and you would be requesting a waiver on being the parking spaces that would be under the jurisdiction of the zoning administrator. so, there is that backstop to make sure that we're consistent with the overall, the rest of this ordinance to make sure we're maximizing parking spaces -- >> certainly. and we appreciate supervisor avalos's office and staff working through these questions with us until the end of last week and leading up to this meeting. so, thank you very much. >> supervisor chiu. >> thank you. first of all, i have one clarification question. i foresee somehow suggesting this legislation applies to all existing buildings. my understanding is that it
only applies to new developments and existing city buildings. is that correct? >> that's correct. we have someone to confirm that? it's in terms of added requirements for existing buildings are only for city buildings. >> that's right, it would only be for city buildings. the only other instance where it might apply to existing buildings is if they were doing a significant expansion or hitting one of those other triggers, 5 triggers we went over earlier. >> i think it's appropriate. i have one last comment, which is as the person who championed our city's 20% by 2020 bike share goal, we actually need to think about parking. this is great legislation. want to thank supervisor avalos and boma and of course the bike coalition and others for their work on this and i'm happy to co-sponsor the legislation. >> fantastic, thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> also want to say the same, want to thank supervisor avalos's office and all the parties that worked on ensuring
these amendments and also the additional environmental findings so that we can finally put this plan as part of our general planning code. so happy to see this move forward. i also agree with supervisor chiu. being a new biker now in the city, i find that one of the considerations i make are whether there are bike lanes an ride on to get to the destination i need to get to. the second consideration i always make is whether there is a place for me to park my very nice bike, public bike that i got as a gift and so that i can actually go into the location that i thaw i'm either trying to dine or shop or visit. so, i think this is an incredibly important part of the legislation. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any additional comments? okay. then, first, supervisor avalos has proposed amendments. can we take those amendments without objection? >> so moved. >> okay. [gavel] >> city attorney, does this require a continuance? no? okay, so, is there a motion to
forward -- those amendments were to item number 3, correct? >> item number 3, correct. >> okay. so, do we have a motion to forward items 2 and 3 to the full board with recommendation? >> i'll make the motion. >> okay. and for the general plan amendment that would also be forward with recommendation? >> correct. >> and can we take that motion without objection? okay, that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you. >> before we call the next item, is the mayor's office of housing here for item number 5? no, they are not here. okay. i was going to call them first because they're a shorter item, but they're not here, so, i will call item number 4, please. >> item number 4 is an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map, by adding section 249.71, to create the yerba buena center mixed use special use district located at 706 mission street, assessor's block no. 3706, lot no. 093 and portions of lot no. 277, to facilitate the development of the 706 mission street, the mexican museum and residential tower project, by modifying specific planning code regulations related to permitted uses, the provision of a cultural/museum use within the sud, floor area ratio limitations, dwelling unit exposure, height of rooftop equipment, bulk limitations, and curb cut locations;
amending the zoning map to add the sud and increase the height of property in the sud from 400 feet to 480 feet; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan. ~ tower project. >> okay. we're going to start with the planning department. is mr. ram coming or -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay. so, with presentation from the planning department. >> good afternoon, chair wiener and members of the committee. my name is kevin guy with planning staff. i will be presenting an overview of the entitlement actionses that occurred at the project of 706 mission street as well as the legislation before you for consideration today. the project would rehabilitate the historic aronson building and construct a new adjacent 43 story tower reaching a maximum roof height of 490 feet with tall mechanical penthouse. [speaker not understood] and contain up to 190 dwelling units. a core and shell museum space approximately 250,000 square feet that will house the permanent home of mexican museum. the building would also contain 4800 square feet of retail space, with reconfigured portions of the existing jessie
square garage, increase the number of parking spaces, add loading and service vehicle spaces, and allocate one parking space per dwelling unit within the residential building. the [speaker not understood] prepared for the project was certified by the planning commission on march 21st of this year and these appeals for the e-i-r certification were rejected by the board of supervisors on may 7th. various entitlement actions for the project were considered by the planning commission, recreation and park commission on may 23rd of this year. both commissions adopted findings under the environmental quality act and associated actions with planning code section 295. the commission also adopted findings related to general plan consistency, approved a downtown project authorization under section 309, and recommended that the board of supervisors approve the legislation that is being -- excuse me -- being considered today.
specifically, the legislation would reclassify the height limit from the existing 400 foot height limit to a 480 foot height limit and would adopt the yerba buena center mixed use special use district. this sud has modified [speaker not understood] regulations as follows. the sud specifies that the development must contain cultural, museum or other public serving institutional use measuring at least 35,000 square feet and minimum of [speaker not understood]. the sud would also remove limitations with respect to floor area ratio and dwelling unit exposure, additional height based on the roof height limitation above 30 feet for mechanical screening. the bulk limitations within the sud would reflect the dimensionses of the project. the sud would allow curb cuts on third and mission streets with the exemption under planning code section 309. no conditional use authorization will be required for dwelling unit and city
exceeding principally permitted amount. and as prepared, the sud would sunset five years after the initial effective date unless the project receives first construction document or unless the board extends or reenacts the sud prior to expiration. as mentioned previously the commission recommended that the board approve the proposed legislation forming the height of the project was generally compatible with scale and development in the vicinity and height classification and sud were appropriate given public benefits of the project. i should note that there are several pending appeals associated with the project. for july 23rd at the board, an appeal of the historic preservation commission action and on july 31st the board of appeals will consider an appeal of the planning code section 309 approval from the planning commission. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. i'd also like to note that there is staff in the successor agency to the redevelopment agency here as well. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. guy. is there anything additional
from the planning department, ms. rogers? oh, mr. adams, here, i didn't see you. director ram. >> thank you, john ram. kevin really covered it. i think you know the history of this project. the planning commission approved it with a slightly lower height than what was originally proposed and we're available for any questions. i'm happy to stay here to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. okay. colleagues, if there are no initial comments at this point, we'll open item number 4 up for public comments. i'm sorry, ms. bohee, from the successor agency. my apologies. >> thank you so much, chair wiener, for the opportunity to speak, vice-chair kim, and president chiu. i think as supervisor avalos indicated the two previous items before you, this item, there are related actions for the 706 mission and mexican project. we have a culmination of two
decades of work here. the board has the opportunity to really fulfill a promise to the community that the former redevelopment commission, now dissolved -- again, as i said, two decades ago. this site that's slated for this mixed use project has been on the books along with the contemporary jewish museum which is now on the plaza and the other important cultural facilities surrounding the gardens is really well over 100 million in public investment. and this is the last piece to that yerba buena cultural district. i think i'll just go in brief detail on what the components of that as currently are drafted. in terms of process, the commission on community investment and infrastructure, the successor to the redevelopment commission will consider the purchase agreement and related actions tomorrow, at its hearing tomorrow, when
our commission is tracking this. they are aware of the robust public discussion, both from our board members here as well as in the surrounding public. but the purchase agreement before them encompasses the following elements. to give you the base, there is the amex come museum, a commercial condominium that would be created as part of this development that costs to create the mexican museum project, as articulated, at the base of the planning approval, approximately 18 to $22 million. on top of that, the project developer has provided ongoing predevelopment planning and funding to the mexican museum project separate and apart from any public dollars. as part of the package there is a $5 million operating endowment that would be provided to the museum as currently envisioned as described by the planning approval. in addition to any in lieu fee
requirement, the 20%, what was negotiated as part of that exclusive negotiations agreement that we have with millennium, executed in 2008 and revised in 2010 is on top of the usual inlou fee. there is an incremental in lieu fee that would be exacted, 8%. the equivalent of that is approximately $5 million. again, based on the approvals before you today. so, in total a 28% in lieu fee requirement. the preservation of the aronson building, the contribution for the cultural facilities, and the maintenance of the cultural facilities, the gardens, the child care center and other related improvements, those contributions add up on an annualized basis to approximately $500,000. i think it's important to note, given redevelopment developing valuable public dollars not
available, city dollars not available, that this particular residential project unlike any other residential project in the district will be in the yerba buena district, will be contributing those funds. again, approximately $500,000. excuse me. when the board authorized the issuance of bonds a number of years ago to create the jessie square garage, the substructure for the contemporary jewish museum, as well as the structure, the foundation itself literally for the mexican museum, the total outstanding debt is about $43 million. so, when the board allowed property tax increment to be used for that purpose, thats was foregone property tax revenue that could have gone for valuable other city services and other benefits. as a result of this transaction, the developer would be paying off the entire amount of those bonds 20 years
sooner than expected. so, in real dollars, as you review the board's budget each and every year, those are millions and millions of dollars that would be freed up 20 years here for other important public good in the city. in addition, the construction code from this incredible mixed use project, ongoing construction jobs, and the developers committed to using city build and other cbos as a part of that. i'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. >> actually i have a question. i was going to save this till the end but i'll ask it now. is this project paying any transit impact development fees? this is for public transportation system. >> this project would pay all applicable transit fees -- >> are there any applicable transit fees? i don't know that there are. >> supervisor wiener, the tidf would not apply to a nonprofit use. so, essentially the mexican
museum is operating on a structure atlas nonprofit. the tidf would not be applicable to that portion. nor thes are dixonv portion, the retail portion of the project would be subject to tidf. >> how many square feet is that? >> approximately 4800 square feet. there is a possibility that some or all of that space could be used for additional museum use in that case would not be subject to tidf. a cultural restaurant type use would be subject to tidf. >> if the 4800 square feet is used for for-profit retail and not for nonprofit use, it would pay somewhere in the order of 50, $55,000 in tidf, 10 or $12 a square feet? ~ foot? >> right. i don't have it in froth of me, but that sounds right. >> [speaker not understood]. ~ front it's not directed at you, mr. guy.
these are sort of broader policy fights we have here in city hall. i completely and totally object to the fact that we could have a project of this magnitude built in the city and because we have loopholes around residential construction and construction that will be used by a nonprofit, the development effectively pays zero or pretty close to zero impact fees to support our transit system. [speaker not understood] how many millions of dollars in impact fees is this project paying overall? a ballpark would be fine. >> i'm looking through some of my other departmental colleagues. ~ looking to the 28% affordable housing fee which is based on up to 190 units at the building height of occupiable 480, in the range -- >> the number is approximately
$115 million. >> thank you. thank you, supervisor. >> i do have a breakdown of -- >> i just want to -- and then i have a comment. >> we can get copies to committee members as well. i'm not sure if the developer can provide that sheet. but it is a combination of the affordable housing fee, the downtown at work, school district fees, the mexican museum core and shell, the operating endowment, the garden payment that you had mentioned, the garage bond redemption. >> right. >> on top of a mixture of some pedestrian safety requests and open space requests that were made, including paying into basically the transit center district plan open space fee which is $1.6 million. >> and, so, how many -- what's the total? >> approximately 115 million. now, the garden payments, we were given the net present
value -- the net present value for two of the dollar amounts. so, those are -- again, it's not present value, but all the other sums are fixed costs. >> thank you, supervisor kim, for that clarification. you know, as i mention, i really have a real -- this is not necessarily specific to this project. this project is one of yet [speaker not understood] we have coming into this building where we have projects that pay little or nothing in terms of supporting our system of public transportation. and are there a variety of political reasons for that, and we saw that in the resoretion of the transip impact development fee last year which continued to have a blanket exemption for if you build the biggest hospital on god's green earth and you don't pay a penny in transit impact fees. and, so, you know, i think it's
incredibly short-sighted of us as a city and as a city government -- not anyway directed at the successor agency -- because really the responsibility resides at the board of supervisors and in the mayor's office of making sure that we're funding our public transportation system. and yet again, we have another project come through that is not paying anything to support public transportation. it's not an argument against this project. it's an argument against a pretty unbalanced and short-sighted system that we've created in terms of how we fund our transit system for a growing population. you don't have to respond. thank you, [speaker not understood]. yes, supervisor kim. >> i just have two follow-up questions. and actually they're questions i meant to ask you prior and i just had forgotten to. in terms of the tax increment that we had used in the past to fill the gap for the jessie garage bond, is this in terms of the bond repayment, so, this is when i guess parking fees [speaker not understood] kind
of the payments we needed to make for our debt? >> yes, that is exactly correct, supervisor kim. there are operating revenues that come from the operation revenues from this private garage where the residents live in the area, cultural facilities in the area do use the garage. it's an under performing garage. so, the tax reimbursement that we have in place is between the former rda and this city. in essence, required the rda to make the city whole. so, yes, there are operating revenues, but they're not sufficient to cover that foregone property tax revenue to begin with. so, that early payment of what was due to the city is an additional acceleration of a benefit. >> i know this may be a difficult question to answer because that tax increment is remaining would have been swept into our general fund. but was there a -- was there a thinking how that tax increment would have been spent otherwise? >> i think it was really subject to annual appropriation
by the board of supervisors through the normal process. certainly there's the baseline now mandated by prop e for contributions to muni, the usual set asides for every thawctiontiontax dollar there is certain mandated set aside for schools, libraries, et cetera, muni. but it really is as you describe, supervisor, every year to determine what is most important each year. >> and, so, this $9.3 million for the garage bond redemption and paying back the tax increment is just going back into our general fund? >> yes, that is absolutely correct. >> and then the 28% affordable housing fee, and i should know this, but is this generally what all the residential projects paid into in the yerba buena redevelopment area plan? is that how that -- >> no, not at all. >> [speaker not understood]. >> it really was varied. some residential projects t paid whatever the base equivalent minimum was in the city.
depending on whatever the legislation was at the time, so, they're surrounding developments. some of them have more, but because it is [speaker not understood], for example, the paramount apartments have the combination of very high end market rate rental and some very low, very low-income rental as well. so, it really depended on the nature of each and every deal, but there was a certain baseline for what was required by the city at the time and then usually there was a tiering of negotiation, that additional incremental 8% was really a recognition, in fact, that certainly there is the housing trust fund, but those dollars are finite and every -- is it certainly doesn't makeup for the affordable housing engine, but redevelopment dollars did. so, that incremental 8% was important as we heard from the community and discussion at large to have more than just -- it was a recognition that there is a benefit so there should be
a commensurate public benefit as well with respect to affordable housing. >> and my last question is just regarding st. patrick's such. i know there was a concern about parking -- public parking spots that were available to those that attended service at st. patrick's on the weekend. my understanding is actually in the weekend there is a decline in occupancy and the public parking garage. i'm wondering if the reduction -- because there will be a reduction in public parking spaces. if that reduced number still meets what we currently see in terms of usage on sundays at the jessie square garage. and you may not know the answer to that. >> i don't. i'll have to [speaker not understood]. what i can tell you definitively is the expectation that the contemporary jewish museum, st. patrick's and the mexican museum, each