benefits and i think it does give a lot back to the community. and i don't think it's proper to differentiate between types of people and reward one particular project over another. i think just because it's a market-rate project doesn't mean it's not beneficial for a neighborhood. we heard some of the things given back. the community room, the car-share spaces, the three community spaces and the trees that were mentioned that are planned to be planted along both larkin and clay street with maintenance included. and the fact that the project sponsor has worked with the neighbors to try to decrease the size. one of the things that we called for and i would encourage him to continue to work with neighbors with particular reference to the adjacent building on clay and the property line windows. although we know these are not protected, if there is a way

that they can be worked out to allow light into as many as these as possible, that would be great. although a lot has been done already. and then on some other issues regarding the redesign -- not the redesign, but the new project more properly state. one of the things mentioned in the complaints by the neighborhood and others is that typical finishs in the neighborhood are wood, brick and stucco and some of the earlier renderings had a lot of glass, concrete and metal base. i do really like the way this is redesigned. although i do architecturally like the richer-looking base and other elements that were present in the project that was rejected six months ago. and i had asked project sponsor's architect that it may beble to to look at that and

how that would look with the new project with its current massing from the project six months ago and certainly have the neighborhood and others comment on which of the designs that they like better. the other thing i'm assuming is that we still have the very innovative bay concept. mr. birchel, i believe that is still the case. where unlike many buildings that we see built particularly the more contemporary ones where we have these appendages off the side of buildings that are decks that sort of look like something that doesn't belong on the building. mr. birchel's bays are combinations of bays and decks with the infold doors that allows it to become a deck at such time as you wish to have it open to the outdoors. the rest of the time it's a bay, and in both instances it looks perfectly appropriate for the building. so i think those

are some of the things that i see. i am not opposed to letting this rest for a few more weeks. we do not have to take it up in early january, but certainly i would like the continued dialogue between the comment and community and the developer. this is appropriate use and i see nothing wrong with a building that develop these 27 units, brings 27 new families that will add vitality to the neighborhood. i think that is a very valuable improvement and we have been done the road about the church and how expensive it would be to try to retrofit it. it doesn't economically seem to make a lot of sense. and this is a private project, too. this is not a city-owned project. this is not a project being done by an affordable

non-profit. this is a private project and there is -- they are responsible to be receptive to the neighborhood and build something that is appropriate to the neighborhood and is supported by the neighborhood. and protected light and air and other things, but they should have the ability to put the type of project that they wish to put there, and have that ability as along as it's not deleterious to the neighborhood. >> commissioner borden? >> this project has certainly come aways. it's ridiculous in my personal view that there weren't these kind of conversations before. at this point i don't think that we're ready to take up this project. i think that there is a lot of work to be done. the adjacent buildings points out a lot of problems and mr. schoolneck pointed out things

are moving, but there are things to be done. i don't think you can necessarily arrive at a quick resolution after so much time and effort has been put insofar. it's a shame that a lawsuit is what was required for the project sponsor to work the community. i think this seems to be heading in the right direction, but it's certainly not there. i think there is a lot more dialogue that needs to happen between the developer and the community. i don't think there is an urgent need for us to take this up in the immediate future. i recognize that the termination of this might be a different project, but it's fundamentally still a market-rate housing project of similar type and scope. so i can understand why people could feel that we should wait a year on this. more than anything, i just want

to encourage the developer to continue to work with the community and to continue really the dialogue that maybe if this had happened in the first place, we would have been in a completely different circumstance. but i don't think that anyone wants to pretend that we can erase all of the bad things, all the bad blood, all of the bad misgivings and all the things that the way the church is maintained. there is a lot of history and it can't be easily undone with a beautiful building, even if it were -- assuming it were a beautiful building. there were a lot of other things that need to be considered first and i think that we have to go through those processes. so you know, i am glad to see that there has been least significant movement from what had been in past, but i feel there is a ways to go. >> commissioner suguya?

>> thank you. i just had to clarify something with the city attorney's office. i think it's been known and commissioner borden hinted at, there has been a process apart from this commission that is involved, that is revolving around a lawsuit. and as part of that, there has been a process that has brought the developer and several different kinds of interests from the neighborhood together to try to resolve some of the issues that have come about because of the previous development proposals. and i think i would just like to echo what commissioner borden just said in that although that process involving a particular judge bringing the developer and the neighborhood

together, i think is a separate process from ours. in the sense that although that process may have led to certain kinds of compromises and other things, i think we feel -- or at least i feel anyway, that a continuing dialogue still should take place between the developer and the neighborhood. and i would hate to think that it takes a legal court to bring the two sides together. when, in fact, a lot of, i think, dialogue could have taken place between the developer, the church and the neighborhood quite apart from that because that is the kind of thing we were looking for originally. so i would echo commissioner borden's view, and encourage, i guess, or make it

mandatory that any further community involvement in the project takes place ubs, but that is certainly something that some of us are looking for. >> commissioner moore. >> both comments by commissioner suguya and commissioner wu are spot-on. it is something that none of us have experienced. however, the guidance given to us and the interpretation to us by the zoning administrator that this should follow the typical timeframes by which projects come back is what indeed i feel comfortable supporting because that is by the rules that we work and that is what the public is expecting.

i would suggest that it is indeed changed and movement on the project. however, until the process has been fully worked out with the neighborhood regarding all of the issues that were briefly touched on by the people presenting, it's time to do it right this time. as we always said, every project has neighborhood support and the department's guidance has indeed created that and we're agreeing with it, then the project should hopefully be on successful way for approval. >> commissioner suguya, do you have another comment? >> i did. to the zoning administrator, interpretation of the planning code language that allows the project to come back can you describe to the commission if

there is criteria to describe "substantial change?" section 306.5 does not give any criteria. it just says, "the same project or substantially the same." those cannot come back within one year and reviewing the project and also in reviewing the commissioners' comments on this, i felt it was very clear direction to the project sponsor regarding the demassing and height of the building, i felt that was a substantial change. again it's not any determination on the project itself or the merits of the project, but simply allows it to come back before you for your decision. and certainly, if you did take an action to disapprove that and gave very clear guidance why you were disapproving that. >> is that determination

solely within your power? >> it's within planning code section 306.5 and planning code section 307 gives the zoning administrator the authority to interpret and enforce the planning code. so i am interpreting and enforcing the planning code as authorized under the planning code itself. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> along those lines i remember when the earlier project was denied, i was working with project sponsor and the neighbors as to a design with a floor less. fortunately that was coming forward the 11th hour and many commissioners said we wish we would have seen that weeks ago. so that reinforces the fact that we have something that we're moving forward on this project. along those lines on similar projects that are in the general vicinity, the commission worked very hard

with a different developer on the project that is now almost completed at polk and pacific; which is going to be, i think, a very attractive project, that went through some modification and also at sutter and van ness, under construction and nearing complete completion. i remember commissioner moore in particular had a lot of input on the design changes and the massing that makes a stronger cornice at a particular floor and makes it more sympathetic to the historic buildings that run along van ness there. in terms of cornices, the other thing and this is just a subtlety, but i looked at the before-and-after and i think a little heavier and richer looking cornice on the new design would keep it looking with the rest of the neighborhood. again, these are very easy things to do and they are not the essence of what we're working with here.

but i think we're certainly moving forwards what i think will be a very fine project when hopefully it is approve >> commissioner moore? >> i just wanted to make sure that since we do not have any action items that all we can do is comment. which is guided by first the proper interpretation by the department should be guiding comments. i don't think we should be sitting today designing architecture on something that is a progress report. you basically call it "informational." and i take it as an informational item. i am positive about the movement, but i don't feel that any of us should be in any position to comment on the specifics of design. at the core of all of this and will be the response to those concerns which are neighborhood concerns. we're not approving architecture. we're approving basically a project which starts with a change of land use.

we're going from public to private. from public to residential. so i think we need to kind of stay on target relative to what messages we are potentially communicating here today. >> commissioner antonini? >> but to that end, most of what was pointed out as things under discussion by the neighborhood were the massing and the size of the building, and to some degree the architectural appearance of the building, and so i think that certainly is useful to use our time well and to kind of weigh in on what is being presented to us. not that we're talking about any kind of approval process at this time. we're just sort of trying to indicate our feelings and outreach to the neighborhood. and to the project sponsor to continue to work together. and i don't believe this was -- i don't think this is going public to private.

this was a privately-owned, owned by a church and i consider that to be a private entity and it continues to be private. so i don't feel that it's moving in that direction. >> next item, please. >> commissioners, that will place you under "general comment period" not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time members of public will address those items within the subject matter of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity will be when the item is reached. each member of the public can address the commission for up to 3 minutes. >> opening up for 3 minutes >> kevin said it would still be all right to talk about 1360 larkin. i think the informational hearing was appreciated. >> excuse me, 1601 was an agendized item and you did provide your public comment.

>> kevin told you would be taking that in this? >> it's non-agendized items. >> thank you. >> any additional general public comment? next item, please. >> commissioners under your regular calendar you also considered items 9a and b and places you on 10, adoption of procedures manual update. >> good afternoon, commissioners and again planning director staff. this item brand new. there are two related items the first is the adoption of the procedures manual for inclusionary affordable housing and you will remember you had an extensive presentation from the mayor's office of housing november 1st, just an informational hearing. since that hearing date, the mayor has introduced an ordinance that would make the

conforming amendments that are needed, if you would choose to adopt this procedures manual today. so we have three staff from the mayor's office of housing who will give the presentation today. dan adams. brian chu. and i'm sorry -- will be making the presentations today. if you do choose to adopt the procedures manual, we'll go into the associated ordinances as the next item. >> good afternoon, commissioners we have divide up our presentation into two segments. i am here just to give a brief overview of some of the demographics of the program that was requested last time and dan adams will come up and walk you through some of the small changes and additions that have been made in the

procedures manual between the time of the last informational meeting and today's meeting. and i do have some handouts i can leave with you for some of the information that i'm going to talk to you today. you had asked for general information about the number of units in our program and who is in our units? so briefly, we have approximately 1280 completed units in our bmr program. of those approximately 860 are ownership units and 420 are rental units. again i have all of this on a handout that i will give for you for a total of 1280. we have an additional 1200 units in the pipeline that are ready to go. of those the percentage of rental and ownership still

shift as we go through the development process. in the past as miss egan mentioned, ownership units used to be the majority to be produced. you had also asked a little bit about the demographics especially in terms of race and ethnicity as to who is in our units. so we took a snapshot and looking at who is our rental and ownership households of december, 2012 and compared that to the relevant citywide distribution of race and ethnicity. so let me start on the rental side. it turns out that the number of households of color in our bmr

program overall is actually overrepresented. there is a larger percentage of asian african-american latino and more specifically for people who might be interested, for example, the percentage of asian pacific islander households in the 0-50 ami is 52% city. african-american households, in the 0-50% ami and rental units it's about 12%. latino hispanic families, 14% citywide, about 20% in our rental units. the one ethnicity that is somewhat underrepresented is white. so that is about 39% citywide and 0-50 ami, and just

about 14%. n our in our rental units. we don't have race and ethnicity for every single units. we have tried to collect it over the past five, six years. alt least it's a snapshot of our units. the number of households of color are overrepresented in the ownership, but the distribution is different than the rental side. on the ownership the number of asian families is a significant increase over the number of ami households would be in the 50-95% ami range. for that population, although asian-pacific islanders households comprise 28% of the 50-80 ami, they compose 60% of people that are in the

ownership pool. african-americans are underrepresented, as are latino and hispanic families. african-americans are about 7% citywide in that demographic, just about 1%, very low number in our ownership units. latinos 13% citywide and 5% in our bmr units. in terms of the outreach and the marketing for those units, because i think those demographics automatically lead to those questions. through the time i have been there with the department, so i started there about 2005, we have had grants to a number of

strategic community-based organizations in order to increase our outreach, specifically on the homeownership side. so we have worked specifically the asian, inc., with san francisco housing development corp., san francisco's lgbt center, et cetera. specifically to try to target outreach to the api lgbt latino and african-american communities, as well as working with homeownership sf, which was a elaborative of all the different homeownership organizations, as well as consumer credit outreach. there are additional barriers to access those units.

whenever anyone contact ours offices and said can you contact about bmr us about opportunities, everybody gets an email blast about an opening in the program. we approved the marketing plans of each of the development s where developers post on craigslist and other publications. we have also been attempting to assess what more we can do? clearly the numbers on the rental side, i think, we're rear view mirrorly relatively happy with.

on the ownership side we have been working with our homeownership counseling groups to determine what is it that proves to be the stumbling block? one is the timing to actually successfully apply. we have attempted to do, i think, a better job with the outreach opportunities to make sure there are families that are able to apply. we can always do better with that. but what we have been noticing more is that for many of the families the credit readiness. so even if we can get people in and of course for the unit as miss egan described you have to go through a lottery process. so even if someone is picked no. 1 or no. 2 in the lottery,

it's often the credit readiness of the credit scores and it's something that you can usually fix within two, three weeks. it takes months and sometimes longer to clean up that credit. what we have now shifted towards is expanding what was more traditionally thought of as homeownership counseling. they themselvess have recently shifted their model and so homeownership is one tool towards the larger picture of financial literacy and asset-building. because if you don't have that credit score you are not only to be able to fulfill your credit requirements for homeownership and even rental. the tricky thing we found for

any financial literacy program, for it to be effective, people usually only attend those courses when it's linked to an imminent financial event such as i want to buy a house. it's difficult to bring someone in to say a year from now you might be ready to buy and house and let's work on your credit score now. but that is the challenge that we need to work on. so that is why we're going to be working with our community-based organizations moving forward to do so. one exciting opportunity as you know with the passage of prop c, we do have a pot of money for housing stabilization. so what we're going to be doing in january through june is working with our neighborhood organizations, including all the homeownership sf organizations, to try to figure out how we can restyle and retune our homeownership programs in order to make them more successful in the long run. a couple of the questions you had requested was how many owners also benefit from having a down payment assistance linked to our bmr units? so we

have about 83 owners out of the total of 860 that have been received assistance. we usually are able to provide down payment assistance for about 20bmr owners a year. we have a combined source of state dollars and a little bit of federal dollars, so we can afford to give out about $750,000 a year with our down payment assistance, specifically to bmr owners. i think those are the major points that you had asked about that are program-wide, if there are any questions i would be happy to answer those before i bring up mr. adams. thank you, mr. chue. looks like no questions, but the commissioners may have questions after the presentation. >> thank you, commissioner