housing stock, and hopefully help with the pricing. i do think we need the small buildings to support the fabric of our local neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is pete brannigan. i work for a small real-estate company, and represent a few small builders in san francisco. i know that their business plans depend on growth, as do the number of jobs they provide to san francisco residents, and a living as they provide to families, companies that supply them, and subcontractors employed in the same project.

like this gentleman said, jobs in san francisco are down from the average in california. i urge you to make building housing in san francisco affordable by passing this measure. thank you for listening. president fong: the commission appreciated everyone's comments. because we have been sitting here for three and a half hours, we are going to take a little break, and resume in 15 minutes or so. >> you were in the midst of public comment for item number 14, threshold for application of inclusion mary -- inclusionary affordable housing program. i will ask the gentleman in front of the door to move to the

other side of the room or find a seat. you create a fire hazard. thank you. president fong: i have one additional announcement before i call speakers. that is there has been a little more time needed, for technical reasons, on the item for 55 laguna. so we will hear item 16 before items 15 a and b. [groaning] president fong: i knew that was not going to make you happy. i am sorry to hear that. we are going to call some names for public comment for item 14. tom walsh, and james warrow, suzanne greg, declaire dwan, and

greg redstone. >> i will be the last speaker, actually, from our side. i want to reiterate a few points that have been made already. i was a member of the housing trust working group. i would like to reiterate -- in 1992, the threshold was 10 units. in 2006, it changed to five units. the report studied 100 units, which is 20 times larger than a five unit building. i would just like to make that point. one unit was built since the legislation was changed in 2006. the staff report alluded to the economy, but from july 19, 2006, through september 2008, when lehman brothers collapsed, there

was two years of a housing boom in san francisco. i know project scott submitted. -- i know projects got submitted at that time. after all the information, i think it is time to approve this. i would say we need to give san francisco small builders and equal opportunity, a level playing field, and not burden them with excessive fees, which make it prohibitive to build. i am opposed to the pro rated fee. look at the working group sheet, and let all of us roll up our sheets -- our sleeves and get this approved by the voters in november. let us get some housing built. thank you for your support today. president fong: thank you very much. any additional speakers?

ok, the public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner antonini: thank you. i agree with virtually everyone who spoke, and i think this is important legislation. i know we can opine on it today. it has been presented that it is hard for so many. it makes sense, logically, that it is hard to absorb when you have fewer units built. it is easier when you have more units to spread the cost over. we had 50 leaders from the housing industry who came together, which was very impressive, because often these leaders are at odds with each other, and they were able to agree on things. i think that is impressive. also, this particular size, five to ten units, is very desirable for buyers, because you are in a

group where, if there is a condominium unit, you have a smaller number of members and often have lower hoa fees. it makes it more attractive for buyers to have that variety to choose from. as has been pointed out, a lot of the building in neighborhoods, infill building, is done in this size, because you do not have spaces that lend themselves to a larger number of units. there is a chance you could get more multi-bedroom units, because probably they will be building more in family units, where people need multiple bedrooms. the other point that was made -- i remember this, and i understand the reason, being construction costs are greater as you get higher, but the fact that buildings over 120 feet in

the past got a different inclusionary number, 12% as opposed to 15% -- it always struck me as curious, in some regards. this might help to remedy, if not speak directly to, that. it was interesting that was pointed out. this is interesting legislation. it will help us stimulate a segment of the housing industry that has been dormant. i am in support. commissioner hillis: can i just ask a question? sorry. planning commission staff, planning department's staff -- has there been any analysis of this notion that five to nine unit buildings would be constructed throughout the city? what are the

we looked at these kind of sites, they are spread out throughout the city. i would not say it is a specific area. some in the northeast side, some in the southeast side and spread out throughout the rest of the city. it is hard to say. we looked vacant lots. >> because of the size, outside of rh and rh2 sites, it is spread out outside of those districts. >> in the analysis in 2006, i would imagine if we did it again, it would come to a much different conclusion in today's economy. it is not feasible. has that been re-looked at at all

-- at all? >> there is a study done about the feasibility of inclusion rehousing. >> mayor's office of housing. we're undertaking a study of our inclusion rehousing program, we do that every five years so we're slightly behind for the 2006 study and we're looking at four prototypes and looking at the finances, given recent conditions. it is not just a snapshot in time. this is a dynamic point in the development community. the inclusion trade task that we are coordinating -- the inclusion married task -- inclusionary task we are coordinating, we are looking at a product type that is smaller at 20 units. there are a couple of things

that work. one is the difficult economy across the board for buildings but given the economies of scale at the low end, it is acute for this. >> i would cautious on -- caution on that type of analysis. he will have massive changes in what is feasible and what is not feasible. looking back and seeing what has been built is a good barometer. the fact that one or nine we have heard have been built, granted the economy has been bad. is that related to the economy or this inclusion increase? it is tough to isolate. but i agree with many of the comments, these housing developments are not created equal. there is economies of scale in larger projects. we get large projects in south of market. we do not get a lot of the 5 to 9 units. it's great to encourage that type of development and i am

supportive of this legislation. >> commissioner su. -- wu. commissioner wu: i am generally supportive but i want ask some questions. in the letter there was reference to -- prior to 2006 the perception that developers would be incentivized to build nine-unit buildings instead of hitting the 10 mark and could you elaborate on that? >> it is a great question. the planning code stipulates that buildings can be considered a single project for purposes of the inclusion requirement. and when projects come in for their entitlement, when proposed

lot substitutions -- subdivisions are made, there is a regulatory oversight mechanism that insurers the planning department can interpret that agglomeration of individual parcels as a single project and apply the inclusion requirement to it. i cannot speak with great detail to the mechanisms that moves through time. both from neighborhood advocacy and planning department, we understand the concern about avoiding inclusion very requirement through lot subdivision has been dealt with. >> i wanted to -- we have special restrictions. if future development happens, we consider it a phase project. that is the specific mechanism that he was alluding to.

commissioner wu: i want to understand why this element was put into legislation. why the five to nine is going through this legislative process insert -- instead of being in the charter amendment. which i want to be careful about not asking about the wrong title. >> i want to be careful in answering. this was seen as not appropriate to be dealt with through a charter amendment. the charter is challenging to adjust or make changes to. it was a component that was introduced through legislation and can be best addressed through legislation. commissioner moore: i am generally supportive of what is in front of us. i have one question and that is to the mayor's office of housing. does the housing trust fund also

have a set aside for small site acquisitions? >> the housing trust fund in and of itself does not. the inclusion dairy program -- inclusionary program, a 10% of the fees collected through the program are set aside for small site acquisition. we're in the process of researching how to implement that and it is the intent of the mayor's office of housing to create a small size program in by the inclusion very fees collected by the office or the housing trust fund. >> i am encouraged by your answer. i hope you will also look at the site size in order to generate the most for the buck. this is too small to generate

the maximum number of units not just by zoning but by dimension and existing rules. i hope that you will find not only the idealized prototype of housing but also make sure the size -- side is conducive for getting the most for the lease. >> we're looking at both those issues in development on vacant parcels but also looking at acquiring existing parcels. existing buildings where we can maintain the level of affordability within the neighborhood context which is again something different than what we have done with our developments outside on large parcels. that is something we're looking at. we think the feasibility of doing small sites acquisition of existing buildings is of higher feasibility and building small sites. we're going to look at both new construction as well as acquisition rehab as part of the small sites program. commissioner moore: i am glad

you are saying that. thank you. commissioner antonini: thank you. i had the same question about the process, a little bit about the charter amendment and this is being a legislative peace in my assumption was since it was a modification of existing legislation as opposed to de novo creation of the amendment, it takes into consideration existing entities in policy is pretty much a new piece of legislation so that is probably why this is in this format. i am supportive regardless. i would make a motion to approve. >> second. commissioner wu: i wanted to add another element to the conversation. concerns that supervisor campos the office brought up. i assume that the mayor's office of housing is willing to

continue the conversation with their office and will work on studying what that means. >> i appreciate the opportunity to mention this. we have two co-sponsors. supervisor kim and president to have -- chiu are interested. commissioner moore: this is a graduated scale of fees and it would apply between five and nine of -- between one and nine. i heard between five and nine. i would be interested in hearing a discussion of the pros and cons. >> the motion on the floor is for approval of what is before

you buy an item 14. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner hillis, aye, commissioner moore, aye, commissioner sugaya, aye, commissioner wu, aye. the motion passed unanimously. commissioners, as has been stated, we're pulling items 16 out of order. this is case 201for 25 mission street. -- tfor 25 mission street. >> good afternoon. diego sanchez, planning department staff.

establishing a medical cannabis dispensaries at 2525 mission street. it will be located on an existing 4 story mixed use building and independent of the other uses. it will be 550 square feet in size. they will sell medical cannabis and medical cannabis food stuffs and is proposing a delivery service. it will not provide on-site smoking or vaporizing and will not grow minor amounts of medical cannabis on site. the operators of the collective will focus on providing medical cannabis to patients with illness and has made strong linkages to the lgbt community and plans to be integrated into the social service network for that committee. -- community. this is a proposed map of the

existing mcd's in the area. as you can see here, this is the proposed site. and the dots in black are mcd's that allow delivery service. there are four medical cannabis dispensaries with and this one- mile radius that do -- allow retail foot traffic. love shack apothecary, and the bernal heights collective. the planning department staff has received multiple telephone calls regarding the project.

those in opposition are concerned about the incompatibility of the mcd with the area and the possibility that it will aggravate criminal activity and antisocial activity. i have received multiple letters in support of the project and i will submit these to you. those in favor said the intention of the mcd to serve the lgbt community and those with chronic illnesses such as hiv/aids. staff recommendation is based on the following. the mcd complies with all the standards and requirements of the planning code including all proximity limitations in advance of the objectives and policies --

>> excuse me. you can take pictures, do not use a flash. thank you. >> the mcd complies with the policies of the general plan. it will generate between 15 and 20 poll time and -- fell -- full time and part time jobs. the sponsor will agree to the following conditions. daily sweeping and pick up of litter disposal along the main entrance of the proposed mcd and abutting sidewalks and provision of appropriate odor control to allow -- to prevent nachos odors from escaping. that concludes our presentation and i am available for questions. " president fonpresident fong: t sponsor. >> congratulations to commissioner hillard for his

appointment and commissioner antonini for his reappointment. staff's recommendation is to not take discretionary review. briefly as has been stated, the location for the proposed mcd meets the requirements in section 790.1941. staff has responded to some concerns. i wanted to highlight in the ledger that was provided to you additional information. the nearest open mcd's are miles away. they're within a one-mile radius but there are outside -- they are outside of the mission district. this would be the only open in the mission district and the nearest ones are closer to the bernal heights and to the castro

and while there are some within a one-mile zone, their outside of the mission district. substantively, the broader collective will be focusing on providing medical cannabis treatment to patients with illnesses such as hiv and aids, cancer, and other life- threatening illnesses. the collective is setting a truly inclusive community model by working with multiple, highly respected, anchor organizations that are based in the community and are run by members. these are true partners. among the organizations are a guilas, support to persons living with hiv. they have been around a little

over 18 years providing these services and we have shockey -- shanti, serving patients to suffer with harshened debilitating effects of aids, breast cancer, and other life- threatening illnesses that will require medical marijuana treatment. we also have as a partner the lgbt community center which opened in 2002 and it serves the full spectrum of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities. and it plays an important role as a spiritual home for the lgbt culture. the rudder collective has structured its opportunities to provide financial sponsorship and support to the above community-based organizations with the objective of increasing the number of organizations and will support over time and in the last couple of days, we're pleased to also

report that we're bringing also on board the breast cancer emergency fund as a community partner. most unique and important to this project is our collective and partners, the partners will help with the outreach and it will help to provide oversight of the operation of the project to insure we provide the best and most inclusive and comprehensive service to the community. with that, i ask you to please support and adopt staff recommendation and approve the project without taking d.r.. thank you. >> calling for public comment. a will call you names and if you want to line up. i will call bunch of names if

you want to line up, other speakers on that side of the room, that will be great. [reading names] >> i was walking down mission street 10 days ago and i walked by aside under active construction and i looked at it and said it will be a marijuana dispensaries. i wrote a letter which i do not know if it got to you folks are not. we've lived in the mission district more than 30 years. we have been pleased to see a transforming from an area most

of the people i worked with thought was not safe. it is n area where residents and visitors are moving around with a sense of increased security. we work with the mission police department. and has been and is still a strongly family oriented area. it also has been and is still an area afflicted with drug trafficking and abuse and other crimes associated with drugs. marijuana i have heard described as a gateway drug. i think a marijuana dispensaries on mission street would be another gateway -- and dispensary -- dispensary on mission street would be another gateway. it would send precisely the

wrong message about the committee's effort to get rid of drugs. we do not need nor do we want a place where drug users congregate and use the project. it will not be smoked there but there is air handling equipment which makes me think something will be going on in there. we spent too many years stepping over and cleaning up after drug abusers. i had to clean out my flower bed yesterday morning. it does not happen as much as these to but i do not want it to increase. based upon what we have read and heard anecdotally, acquiring a medical marijuana card basically can be as easy as being able to walk upright and pay the fee. my personal experience with family members that are unscrupulous card users, they become accom