they want it exactly the inverse of what you are proposing, up to 200 units want 100% affordable and you are saying it could be 50% affordable. >> let me clarify, i must have misstated. we would love to see 100%s but that would cost $50 million. so we have to acknowledge scarcity of resources. >> it's a resource issue? >> yes, absolutely. >> one limited resources you would be on the same page they are. >> absolutely. absolutely is. >> another quick question, let's say the four tier 1 sites and put them in up to 200 units 100% affordable units camp, how would they pencil out if built to the max these four initial sites? market rate versus moderate and low-income? >> you mean in terms of costs or percentage of units? >> percentage of units that would fall in each one of those? right now, 1950 mission upper

yard and seawall 33221 are 100% affordable. >> they are? >> yes. >> i have not done an analysis on 4th and folsom and balboa reservoir is a large -- much larger development. but if we could do 100% affordable at 4th and folsom, that would be great. we would love to do that. so of the five parcels identify, three are 100%. >> so 1950 is actually 100% affordable? >> yes. >> i have one other question, maybe mr. cohen, he is still here? given the scarcity of resources issue that we just heard about, and your advocacy for the inverse, what do you say to that? >> well, miss heartily is correct, we have a certain amount of resources now and those are all been programmed and there is sort of a game plan for the next five, six years. but the conversation is about adding more resources. so what we need to be thinking about is

how to meet our housing goals? because we saw earlier, we're at 41% in produce of low-income and 16% of moderate. we have to figure out what we want to achieve and then what that costs and that becomes the a. sizing for our new revenue package and housing working group came up with six ways from sunday how do you find new money? we're bog to be work on that as well. so we don't work backwards from how much money we have now. we say how do we spend that? and what more money do we need to be able to achieve some of our policy goals? that is how we approach it it could be silly to say we can't afford it, so therefore turn it over to market rate housing. we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. >> thank you, to commissioner antonini's comment, about the income levels, ami is defineds a family of four, $87,000 that we heard on the commercial and

industry, that $85k was average for an individual and we shouldn't confuse those numbers. i think the efforts that a lot of people in my circle face is not the income qualification, but the down payment. so they have the job that pays enough money, but they are already pay 45% of their income in rent and can't get a down payment. so that is a real issue. there is a continuum that i see in my circle, like who have housing security and actually start building wealth with housing security and physical stability and community stability and i think we need to move up that continuum quickly because there are too many people at the bottom of that. thank you. >> thank you.ing i want to add a couple of comments. i strongly agree with commissioner johnson's comments that we're trying to show developers our city values in developments that we have more -- or sites that we have more control over; right? so trying to address a number of city goals, small business, affordable housing, local hire,

prevailing wage, i think this is really an opportunity to talk about the package of community benefits that we want. it's really great to hear that three of the first five sites are looking at 100% affordable housing. i agree that there really is a site by site analysis to be done and another goal that has been talked about is neighborhood stabilization. and so look in particular at maybe 1950 mission and 4th and folsom, it's an opportunity to do 100% affordable at those sites in which -- or in those neighborhoods in which we're seeing a lot of also pressures caused by market rate housing. i have always thought that for that middle-income category, in abag, it's so hard, because a lot of our middle -- a lot of middle-income people are actually served by existing rent controlled housing also. so i want to bring that rent controlled housing stabilization discussion into

the conversation also. i know that within the context of mayor's task force we're looking aways to expand the pie and looking at new tools for middle-income housing and hope that we can do that and that sup really one of the major goal for us going forward. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. to broaden the discussion a little more and i don't know if you have looked at this, the city of san francisco owns a lot of acreage outside of the city and county. in fact, i believe we're the largest property owner in alameda county, if i'm not mistaken and a lot of property many san mateo. i grew up in pleasanton and i'm aware of fact that san francisco puc sold a big portion of land, i don't know if they sold it to the city or private developer. housing was built there and i don't know if it's affordable housing, but hopefully the city realitiesed a lot for that. these sites might provide means

to provide housing because consistent with other areas also have needs for affordable housing, and i think we have to also factor in these sites, many of which might be appropriate for housing, and may be sites that are underutilized as was the you case the water department sighsite used for farming. and wasn't bringing in very much revenue. and why the city didn't develop it themselves, and use it to meet some of their housing needs, i don't really know. but it's been quite a few years since that was built. it's worth looking at these different properties. >> commissioner richards. >> one last thing. i do support local hiring and middle-class rage wages and our race to the bottom line is a slippery slope to nowhere. thank you. >> thank you. so once again, thank all the staff for coming and presenting today, and the public for bringing their comments as well. commission will take a break.

>>

>> decemb silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. we left hov discretionary review calendar on i. 17 for case no. 2014.0544d. at 16 and 16a iris avenue. this is a discretionary review. can be considered to be confirming with respect to density and one unit must beer 11 designated aids non-conforming unit. this distinct is important because the planning code does place some restrictions on enlarge -- please standby.

including the loss of a dwelling unit, but eliminated from the project scope and proposed one-story addition that they believe is inconsistent with the block pattern and intrudes the

mid-block open space. the residential design team reviewed the horsesal addition following submittal and concluded that the proposed addition is -- that the proposed one story addition is of modest size and reasonable depth, which does not disrupt the mid-block open south and proposed south of 5-13' is sensitive to the adjacent property in terms of massing, property and sight lines and

>> the overhead. thank you very much, commissionersm i'm kathy and my family has owned the property next door to this since 1955. the planner told me that the first thing that had to happen was that the merger had to occur because the garden apartment was a non-conforming use that could not be expanded outward. as you can see the department originally recommended that the mergeerr be denied. because it would create a larger less affordable unit contrary to the mayor's directive to preserve the affordable units and that the current affordability crisis created exceptional and extraordinary circumstances such that the commission should deny the project and preserve the existing dwelling units. the modified project would still merge the units through an internal sayrway right down into the middle of the garden

apartments. [ inaudible ] the only modification from the time that they were denying the merger is the addition of this floor. >> could you bring the microphone over? >> the addition of the internal door that i highlighted in yellow. the door can remain open and so it's considered reversible. and under your guidelines, the planning commission has a long standing policy of treating as mergers any applications that connect via a door, or other communicating opening two or more existing units even though kitchens are retained and the construction would be reversible. that is your policy. the first page of the plan still show a connection. as to the ground floor unit, says dwelling unit on ground floor existing vestibule will be remodel and have access to

enclosed staircase that connects with the second floor units. at a minimum the commission should take dr and eliminate the internal staircase because that is the merger staircase and they already have a staircase right here that goes down into the garage and they just take two steps into the garden apartment. so they don't need a second staircase. that is the merger staircase of the they say will at this time not formally pursue the merger application, but the construction is the merger construction and if they cut the hole in the floor and put the staircase into the apartment, the apartment will be -- you know, it will be the merger construction and then later they will move to make the paperwork match the reality. also, the proposal to move the non-conforming use designation to the middle flat is contrary to code. the third unit was the last one in, that is the non-conforming one. under section 181, the

non-conforming use shall in the be enlarged intensified extended or moved to another location. under your zoning administrator's bulletin, the prohibition against moving the non-conforming use shall not apply to relocation within the same building provided it occupies the same or less area. and it's not intensified in many other way. so the move would occupy a greater area and violate your bulletin, because the flat is bigger, 1375 square feet and the garden apartment is 505. so under your zoning administrator's written interpretation on your website, moving the non-conforming use to the bigger unit is an intensification that is prohibited and the zoning administrator said in an email to the supervisor he didn't know of any guideline and i'm going put that in the record, the email. also, in the future, he shouldn't be allowed to move the non-conforming use designation, the planner says

they can flip it, move it up, move it down by applying to them this the future and paying a fee. and it seems to me that if you allow it to be moved you ought to say that he should have to leave it where it is on the second unit or at least provide an opportunity for a notice, hearing and vote of the commission as to whether he should move it down again? because otherwise it just provides a ruse any time you want to alter the non-conforming floor you just move it down. and so that is essentially the position that they are taking and planner said i should ask you for notice. so i'm asking you for notice and a hearing if you allow this? i have another point. he is not measuring from the ground level wall. he is measuring from the top wall. he is 10" over. the 12' you are allowed to encroach in the rear yard. and is i ask you to remove that as well. we have a strong pattern. we have five houses in a row that have stayed the same way since 1949.

and i ask that to mitigate the effect on the mid-block open space, you could allow him to allow it just fill in the 3' overhang or 7.5', which he said at the pre-application meeting. >> unfortunately you are time is up. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. other public speakers in support of the dr? >> are you part of the dr requester's team? >> no. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm greg scott president of pacific heights resident associate. we support the dr and this should not be permitted. the in[to-eurp/] stairway with the door at the bottom is a wink of an eye, the dwelling unit merger issue and we have seen this before. and we think that should be stopped. people are plague games with dwelling unit mergers by putting internal stairways with doors it they leave open all

the time and defactor units. and moving around non-conforming use within the building is absurd. we had a similar issue on jackson street and then zoning administrator pospass morsaid they could not expand anything outside of the existing building envelope of the non-conforming use because the entire building was subjective to the ability of pro[h-eubs/] on expansion. if they permit them to move the non-conforming use from the garden apartment to the second floor flat, it should be stateds a condition of appeal that they cannot move it back to another unit [th-fpt/] is too many gamesmanship going on and it's an insult to the neighborhood character and encroachment to the rear yard space. this should be stopped. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> if you begin speaking sfgov will put it up. >> i'm chair of the land use committee and first i would like to distribute letters from the land use -- jonas, can i have a copy? at the land use commission, it says dear commissioners, jonas -- that is mine. sorry. i'm sorry. my time is almost up. can you start it over? >> go ahead. >> the proposed construction

will affect the merger of two unit because the new second internal staircase would run -- will internally run from the upper unit garden apartment to the direct connection to the unit above. the garden unit is currently a non-conforming units which cooperate be enlarged under planning commission's -- plasing code section 181 and cannot be moved to another location. the proposed move of the non-conforming unit upper unit is contrary to planning code section 181 a and 1991 interpretation of the zoning administrator. on this overhead, you can see that -- this is in regards to the addition. at the pre-apmeeting notice,

the addition was 7.5'. and that is what changed to 10'. and also, the measurement of the addition was taken not from the rear wall as required. it was taken from the next level, the second-story pop-out and that is incorrect. it should be measured from the rear wall at the ground level. so that is something that is critical to this case and i hope that you would change that addition to 7.5'. also what i have for is from the richmond review, the planning board of supervisors decision to overturn your approval of 26 avenue and clement. and it was decided that the preservation of affordable units was more important than

new units to be added. since so many new units are being added anyway, affordable units are being lost at 1,000 per year. but most importantly, please -- measure from the rear wall. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> san francisco tenant's unit. tenant's union supports preservation of the existing garden-level studio apartment at 16a iris avenue. and opposes the request to add an internal spareway between it and the 16 iris flat above. the new internal stairway with the door at the bottom would not genuinely maintain the current separation of the two units. the planning department initially recommended that the

building permit be denied and admited that the proposal was a merger before the internal door was proposed. the 505 square foot garden apartment in question should not be made less affordable by effectively adding 470 square feet, contrary to the intent of major directive 13 01 and the planning department's own guidelines. interesting point about the richmond review article that you just got distributed from the prior commenter, that was unanimous vote at the board of supervisors. so the mayor's executive directive is filtering through the commissions and the legislative branch and now we're seeing some sort of uniiimity about the imperative to keep the units that we have got. we're lowing a couple thousand the last two years. it may even be accelerating. we don't have stats on that, but there is a grave condition about maintaining the affordable units, not having

them demolished or merged or lost, and the affordability crisis is real and the bodis are taking cognizance of that. the tenant's union was been trying to sound the alarm for this for years and we're delighted to see that the city is taking notice of this problem and taking actions to deal with it. so it may be a small matter, but there are only two units involved at 26 and clement, but it caused the notice at the bdr. ureau of board of supervisors. thank you. >> additional public comment? >> i i'm a member of the cataloging for san francisco neighborhoods land use committee and i will just go

over a few points. i don't mean to be represent repeatous, but it's timely for this to come before you, earlier on in the agenda you talked about having affordable units and people creating 200 units in one place and all over the city there are in-law units and even if built 200 more units piece by piece, if they disappear it may become a zero-sum game. the proposed internal stairways between the garden apartment and level above, 16 and 16a iris, even though the plan's description says it's a merger, they are saying now it's not a merger. this thing has moreovering for the last, three, four, five days and it's very hard to keep up. if you look at page 82.1 of the plan submitted by the architect, it will show there is still the two stairways that some of the other people have

alluded to. planning code section 181 prohibits enlargements or expansions of -- the zoning administrator prohibits moving the non-conforming use designation to a larger unit. if there is an unwritten practice of moving non-conforming units around the building, there could be many more mergers and continued lack of affordable housing. and this is going to become very crucial and especially the low density neighborhoods of rh1 and rh2 and rh2s and 3s abutting 1s. the department proposes to allow the project sponsor to record a notice of special restriction, designating non-conforming units and i'm concerned that the project sponsor can apply to change the nsr by applying to the planning department without any notice or public hearing and should require to change the designation of the non-conforming unit written notice of proposed change must

be given to all owners and residents within 100' of this project. planning commission as duly noticed public meeting must decide whether or not to change the nsr and require a showing of extraordinary circumstances -- you already heard about the ground rear wall not used and instead the cantilevered section being used. urge the planning commission to take the dr and disapprove as to all ma that was mentioned earlier. >> thank you. additional public comment? seeing none, project sponsor, your team has five minutes. >> good evening, president wu and commissioners. i am the architect representing my clients jim and ana mary and their two young boys. i have represented many case before the board over the years and many times i had clients pushing for the most aggressive designs to maximize. not in this case.

from the beginning jim and an mary asked for just enough of an expansion to accommodate their family's needs. our design discussions centered around if we setback the massing along this side to minimize the potential impact of thisnable neighbor? if he setback the guardrail it, it decreases the concerns ofprive cirrus for this neighbor and the entire focus focused on compact design latow. we could have expanded wider. we could have expanded deeper. we could have expanded taller. the proposed design however i think is best described by the residential design team quotes "the proposed addition say one-story permitted obstruction of modest size and reasonable depth and does not disrupt the mid-block open space." the seat bac is sensitive to the adjacent building in terms of mass, privacy and sight lines. the proposed deck is setback from the adjacent property to the north and addresses potentially privacy and security concerns."

commissioners we don't have massive volumes of legal responses to the dr requesters partial citations and inaccurate -- but what we have is a hard-working san francisco family trying to make the most of their modest accommodations. we have a eleven letters of support and i have a map here of those letters of support, which should be included in your packages. and the design that vestained in size and sensitive to context and fully compliant to the planning code. hopefully we'll have your your support as we encourage you to dopt staff's recommendation. thank you for your time and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> is there public comment in support of the project sponsor? >> good evening. mark stall stahl. i live at 18 iris. we're the upstairs neighbors of jim and ana maria. i have to assume we are most

impacted by their request. and i, my family, like many neighbors as you just saw are fully behind and support a modest adjustment that is in front of the you to be able to see san francisco stay? san francisco. i grew up in the east bay and went to college at uc davis and probably lost about 95% of my friends who viewed that san francisco was unlivable, unfriendly for families. parts of it is perception of the public schools. my kid goes to george peabody in richmond -- we need to change the culture and the perception. this modest request is going to potentially allow a very good family in laurel heights area to stay in san francisco. my wife and ana maria went to the laurel heights improvement association about this specific request.

they were told that had they asked first they would fully support this assignment. so i find if very hard to believe that because their decision-making process was based upon who asked first really has a negative view about this project. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? okay. seeing none, dr requester you have a two-minute rebuttal. . >> thank you. i just submitted the 12 letters of opposition to the project including from the suzuki family, whose