like to remind members of the audience a please be advised are not on today's agenda. commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll commissioner president wu. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. that commissioners before i jump into the items for continuance i want to advise the members of the public we've received a request if supervisor wiener's office to take his item out of order the committee moved item

16 the affordable housing density inclusion planning code amendment to the regular calendar to accommodate his schedule. commissioners, first on your calendar is your consideration for items for continuance item one at 1998 polk street request for conditional use authorization and items 2 ab for the case at the 66 third street requester request for a conditional use authorization are proposed for june 27, 2014, the next item application information on anti description housing policy is proposed for continuance for july 10th and item 4 at the 1010 bush street

request for kwifgs is proposed for continuance there are no speaker cards. my public comment on the continuance calendar? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> move to continue items 1, 2, 3 to the date proposed. well 4 is indefinitely >> second. >> on that motion commissioners to continue items commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and and places you under your consent calendar your consent calendar commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the

public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5 case at the 2189 custom berry land request for condominium conversion and item 6 requests for condominium conversion at south van ness item request for condominium conversion on market street rerequest for condominium conversion item 9 at the plaza zoning map amendment there are no speaker cards commissioners >> that i public comment on the

consent calendar? okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini >> move to approval items on consent. >> second. >> on that motion to approve all items on consent calendar. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you, mr. commission matter questions or comments commissioners, i want to follow up on the matter that was raised at last week's hearing by commissioner moore for the conditions of approval on bush street i reviewed the hearing tape and indeed the staff presenter glen did indeed read the amendment regarding this affordability exponent on the presentation i wanted to

follow up with you and the viewing audience. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. interesting article that will be pertinent for the discussion that follows and it was in the new york times on sunday june 8th dealt with affordable housing in new york city the system is different then here that's a volunteer system if the building sponsor agrees they have to provide 20 percent affordable and they get 33 percent more square footage. it appears to not be very popular because it's optional 3 thousand units have been built in new york city between 2005 and 2013. i guess office of management and

budget 3 thousand affordable housing. there's a state law on density one of the reasons that was felt there wasn't more built it was expensive to build at that affordability levels and sponsors don't want to do it we'll be discussing similar matters today >> commissioner sugaya. >> if the staff could we get a report i don't know if action was taken but the city was considering selling property on one hundred fulsome project and i was wondering any increase in the affordability percentage with that since its city property going to a rectify developer. >> i'll look cerebrothat.

>> commissioners, if there's nothing further item 11 directors announcements. >> director ram will be here shortly we're defer the item. >> item 12 review even if board of appeals and little historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon planning commission n this the aaron starr planning staff at that weeks land use committee the alcohol district sponsored by supervisor campos this would be the acholic beverage to allow golf courses affiliated with restaurant to have a liquor license it was recommended approval with the following modifications so the use of bowling alleys and mini golf course are replaced with an

entertainment not needing a liquor license supervisor campos didn't amend the order because of the community proliferations in the district, however, supervisor wiener felt the planning commission recommendations was appropriate and would allow other entertainment used to be loud the committee voted to include the first recommendation the ordinance has to be continued for one week and back to the planning commission. also on the agenda was the housing element the adaptation of the 2009 housing element it's are currently under litigation as a result of a lawsuit and the neighborhood groups who challenged the 2004 and 2009 eir and the adaptation of the 2009

element in san francisco supreme court the court ordered the city to reconsider the approval of the 2009 element it was heard march 27, 2014 at it annihilation and again at the 2004 hearing to remedy the adaptation that was forwarded to the full board await recommendation due to the pending sequa appeal filed by the petitions. at the board of supervisors the designation of 1000 market street received it's first reading the changing of the category 5 unrate to a category 3 to a contributor building it was passed without significant comments from the supervisors that will get its second reading next week and the latin cultural district to

remove a park there were no introductions >> commissioners zoning administrator scott sanchez is not in attendance but he forwarded his board minutes there are two element on 740 bay street features to a previously roof-deck the appellant argued they didn't receive notice of the roof but it was heard by the planning commission and the commission modified to have o pack windows but didn't recycle the roof-deck and on castro street the suspension that authorized a pharmacy and medical service use the pharmacy

was you identified as the aids health care which is that formula retail and the project was identified at the castro pharmacy it doesn't maintain 2 or more standards and is not recognized as a formula retail the burden of proof is on the pharmacy it was continued until august and requires the folks to summit a claim and it could be to allow the ah f pharmacy at the property. commissioners there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. so if there's nothing future. commissioners that places you in general public comment snooed 15

minutes to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes there are no speaker cards >> is there my general public comment public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. commissioners that places you under our regular calendar we'll be taking item 16 out of order the affordable housing unit density inclusion planning code amendme amendment. >> good afternoon commissioner i'm chris to speak about supervisor wiener's restriction to rules i handed to jonas the

exclusion and also two public comments about the legislation brown-bag i do the staff presentation supervisor wiener is here to speak on the item. >> good afternoon commissioners and thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak about the legislation. and first, i wanted to thank the lady for her terrific work this ordinance is pretty simple and

straightforward it's goal is to create an incentive for developers to do their affordable housing requirements on site unit and build more than the legal requirement of 12 percent. ass ems we're in a housing affordability crisis between 2003 and the end of last year our population grow by 45 thousand people during that same time period we added - i'll wait for the item to be passed out. between 2003 and the end of last

year our population grew by 45 e 85 thousand people and we added 25 units of housing, in fact, last year despite the talk about the cranes in 2013 we grew by 10 thousand people and added 24 house units of housing that's not much higher than our past we've got a supply problem with housing and it's going to get worse unless we take action to create housing at another levels for market rate etc. we have to take a lot of different approaches. currently i'm sure you're aware of the required on site affordable site the developers choose to develop on site and

those unite count against legislation if the developer build on site the affordable housing and lease 12 percent is affordable the affordable unit will not count against the unit density limits in the building. so a developer no longer has to make a cholesterol's by saying if i build nor affordable units i'll have to build fewer market rate unit we ask developers to build as high percentage of unit that's affordable as penciled out in the project it's a good idea to give them the option of president obama in to build nor affordable units without reducing the number even if market rate unit. as noted in the planning department a memo vs. only

impacts certain zoning areas. it's not impacted rh1 and rh2 this makes sense you're not going to be triggering any affordable requirement and some areas that have no density limits at all there are quite a few parts of the city that have unit density units based on lot size this could be very useful. the legislation does not change my height or bulk restrictions. it simple has to do with the number of units. we know that on site building unit is the fastest way to deliver affordable units in san francisco and will make that easier to build more unit we're all resulted in about the slow pace of affordable housing in

san francisco we need to speed up. so there remembers also some other restrictions not at that legislation makes as described in the memos as far as grounding up instead of grounding down when i determine the maximum number of unites to be built in addition we've distributed an amendment we intend to introduce the city attorney has provided in order to make sure that the blow market rate you unit are enforceable as such so it's a technical amendment that will help improve the enforce ability. with that, commissioners i'll be happy to answer 0 any questions >> thank you. we'll probably take public comment first and ask questions.

>> okay. >> is that the end of staff report? >> i believe supervisor wiener covered the issue i want to draw your attention to the map that highlights which neighborhoods this legislation does benefit which a small section of the city we can show it on this overhead i'm available to answer questions as well. thank you >> thank you any public comment on that item? >> good afternoon, commissioners jim from south of market there's a process under a separate process underway involving the mayor's office the nonprofit housing community, and dispensaries in the city and i wish the supervisor would give that process a change to issue

it's recommendation before putting his own legislation before you. thank you >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. i have a question so there's some piece of legislation that are not at the forefront two pieces one about how to calculate the number of units and rounding up and another piece around how to calculate how close you are to an r.c. district i want to get a sense how you think that relates to the larger affordability goal that impacts the whole city? >> thank you for the question commissioner. you know, i think that that is rather a small change to try to

we are not producing enough housing in san francisco and sometimes the rule in terms of the calculation are designed to minimize rather than maximize the number of unit and those two changes in particular a that's not a massive swing with one way or another but there's a difference between having our maximum number of units being 17 or 9 vs.ers 10 why not give the benefit of the doubt inform have more housing that's a small part of the legislation and okay. thank you >> if i may also just the comment that public comment that you heard i know there was an e-mail sent other than about the mayors working group i want to

say first of all, this legislation was introduced before the mayor and a formed do working group and second has someone that's attended the mayor working group meeting in the area this didn't mean we shouldn't do our normal work. if the working group moves forward with some way to implement the city bonus i don't know if they will there's language in here saying a you can't take advantage of both and if that move forward you have to pick on or the other in addition after that working group presents something if they had in 6 months or a year we can revisit this but we have a housing crisis now i heard some

of the mayoral working groups have been cancelled because people have withdrawn because of supervisor kim's legislation and somehow those folks are not advocating this legislation will be similarly drawn in >> can you ask a followup question you mentioned we'll be able to revisit the legislation in the working group comes up with another restriction. >> so whatever it happens in 10 years or 6 months whatever if the mayor were to move forward or anyone move forward with state density bonus legislation i think that would just co- exist with that and the developers might be able to pick one or the other if increase an

overlap i'll be happy to work with them on my legislation we'll passed legislation and some point down the road something overlaps you make modifications i'll be happy to work with any future modifications to address bonuss. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a couple of questions have you done many research about the existing densities in the areas that are under consideration because ems we're the second dense it city in the united states rh1 and rh2 not included the increase in density is a good cause are we appropriate or good dense how do you feel about the density.

>> that's a board question commissioner and we probably could talk about it for hours the density in san francisco. i even if i'm not mistaken perris paris is about as 3 times as dense so we can certainly have that board conversation i do know what the numbers say in terms of housing in san francisco and the fact that average represents are over $3,000 per month and young people are struggling to come here and we have 85 thousand people or in the go-go year of 201324 hundred units that's not sustainable whether looking at in law units or the castro legislation which i did or other ways to add units particularly

units that are affordable that's a positive direction we're all sensitive to our neighborhood and no one is suggesting there is a dramatic change to the look or feel of our neighborhoods but there's smart ways to look at in-law units or this legislation we added additional unit without talking about height or bulk using the space effectively to create the units. it's important for the public to understand sometimes the people have the prospective we shouldn't build housing because you're only going to bring more people here and mini is going to be strained we know from the last decade people are coming here whether or not we prepare.

so i vote in favor of preparing by having the housing necessary and making the investments in muni and the police department to prepare we are seeing the reorganization of america with exception of detroit we have to prepare and not having done a great job >> thank you, supervisor follow-up question i mentioned earlier and commissioners comments in new york city has had an inclusionary policy they require 20 percent and give them a third more square footage they've have two few buildings built some of this is maybe raising the a m u or i to allow

more people to get up to one hundred and percentage for ownership but the important thing about it it makes the subsidy less phenomenon the developer and they're more inclined to do that and i assume your legislation will apply to the level of affordability that our mayors group arrived on. >> this will not changed it from inclusionary this would change with that. we do have a need for more moderate middle-income housing but we also have a continual need for low income housing in san francisco we have a lot of people that are either truly low income poor but also a lot of people that are working a job

making thirty or $40,000 a year and struggling and those are the people that are most at risk of becoming homeless or driven out of the city we have to find a better way not one at the expense of another >> thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i'm not familiar about the state bonus law. >> i'm sure director ram can explain this there's a stating that allows developers to with a certain affordability level to get a density illustration or bonus that includes height we've not implemented it here i guess it is being discussed in the working group. and but it's a little bit like

the state in-law unit i've not been great about it but mr. ram can elaborate >> i can ice this one we actually have a sdrugs discussion if the developers provide affordable units we're allowed to give them more density but we have the inclusionary housing requirement we are looking at brown where it might happen and that's sort of thing but that housing density law has been in place for a number of years and we're looking at to implement it. >> it doesn't actually have a threshold number obviously to be implemented that's the difference here coun'