>> >> please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner wu commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner richards we do expect commissioner johnson to arrive commissioners, the first item on your agenda is for continuance under our consent calendar for the items west portal is continued indefinitely and that comes from the brlg and item 11 regular calendar for 2406 bryant

street confusion needs to be continued until october 1st, 2015. >> okay. any public comment on the items promoted for continuance not seeing any, public comment is closed. and - >> i apologize commissioner antonini our monitor is broken you'll end up with a variety of names. >> (calling names). >> but i know what it is now okay. i'm going to move to continue item 6 indefinitely and item 11 until october 1st. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to

zero and places under your consent calendar to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless 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 one for case 2015 plus at 10:30 washington a conditional use authorization and item 2 at 2018 clemente streetcar a conditional use authorization and item 3 at 701 fillmore conditional use authorization and item 4 for case at 290 conditional use authorization and item 5 for case 2014 plus at

4226 admitting conditional use authorization i have no speaker cards. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to pull item four off content to 90 division street. >> very good commissioner richards. >> i'd like to pull item 1 and 3 off. >> okay. any public comment on the items remaining on the consent calendar okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> i'm sorry did i - and commissioner antonini. >> so i'm going to move to approve items 2, 5 and 6 and second. >> just 2 and 5 commissioner. >> oh, 6 is in continuance thank you. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion excuse me. >> commissioner antonini.

>> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards chiu and commissioner president fong so moved commissioner president fong at the beginning this place you in the consideration of draft minutes for september 10, 2015. >> any public comment on draft minutes not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner richards i have a couple of corrections i'd like to submit thank you. >> noted thank you. >> is there a motion to approve commissioner johnson. >> they were not substantive changed on like it the essence is the same i'll move to approve

with the small corrections on my mine on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner antonini is commissioner johnson commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 8 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> with regards to an e-mail i received this morning i want to clarify my comment that my comments have been taken out of context from a long conversation about architecture urban design and planning in this city i want to make clear my basic goal has

been and already been and always been to support and further the urban design planning and architecture for san francisco together with the department and director who are creating that my intent no to insult or hurt anyone in the course of it i regret any misunderstanding i'm turning to speak to the department at large and to the director and everybody else thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. thank you just in the process of clearing out a family home in the east bay where the last of my father's generation has gone cerebroassisted living found a lot of things and among the paper i wrote as a senior in high school in the demographic and i had supporting material

from the the planning department an life-saving street from spur and is chamber of commerce but the most frank rogan, president and ceo, united way of roanoke valley thing i found is appropriate for us to realize that we hear a lot about families moving away we hear a lot about the effects of the presents time of these things were set up in the 50s a significant loss of population from its 5 previous 7 hundred and 75 thousand in 1950 and cost 8 percentage and another percent this was families with children moving to suburban and the nature of the city changed drastically and what it did set up a lot of areas most notable the areas with victorians and hooushtd in the mission district

this drops in value and difficult to rent and you know that kind of set up the situation we deal with today, i mean the causes of this whole thing has a history and it occurred since the year of 2000 we see the opposite the mayor has recorded the unemployment rate dropped and a huge increase in population sohave we he opposite conditions in san francisco so things of the nature there is going to be conflicts that are going to be development by important to look at those things not in the long view - >> commissioner richards. >> 3 things first, i got commissioner moore's comment and i have been reviewed by the press and on connecticut terminally how did you piece

this with that and sometimes, i read it god if someone reads the comments you'll look stipulated dennis i understand i read the article this morning and i - still learning agency a commissioner on urban design and i'm not where i need to be i appreciate the comments and to those i appreciate what i just said more serious and a lighter item there was an article in the chronicle on wednesday this wednesday about the amount of rent increases based on venture capital in any city so study i'm going to have to go out and look at the data they're for every venture capital in san francisco the increase in a one bedroom is

69 and two breem is 99 we have $15 million of venture capital and the rents have increased from 35 to 65 percent the point is a double ending scored we have a cost and looking at a catch up and next another billion dollars gets invested imagine $69 every month going up correlate that the venture capital san francisco is a small town in terms of housing given the onslaught of population that is causing everyone to come here this is what where you want to be so that's an article it said that the other local is known for the rent increases are san diego and up 10 percent and boston up 10 percent and 90s up

25 percent a good read and a lighter note on a article sunday called into paradis to san francisco a real detour i don't know if anyone intelligence talks about some of the kind of out there things that are happening as a result of another money from the kind of you know people paying $40 for a hamburger tongue in check but an element of truth if you get a chance well written a it was written by john king thank you commissioner moore. >> i'd like to add a comment to what was said the phenomena steep increase is not only happening in 2, 3, 4 country but abroad but many cities are

looking at what we're doing i think we have in the dialogue which is somewhat ahead of institutional structure the city gives us the ability to discuss and put on measures to address those better than other cities have. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to department matters director announcement. >> thank you excuse me. good afternoon, commissioners two items one of the memo in our packet that i wrote to abag regarding the merger and go agencies i both wrote this memo and attended a hearing on wednesday the 12 under consideration quickly as a matter of fact a potential merger of a shifting of abag planning to mtc

the mtc staff is proposed this and proposed a new structure it is shifting resources they now give to abag to shift those resources to mtc there was a lot of testimony there was a lot of concern our position has been that a merger having a single function it quite a good idea and combining land use and transportation and all the issues we deal with our concern is the way it was handed and how fast the initial proposal this will happen he by the end of this year and there is a lot of discrepancy how the offer lap so our testimony and letter specific speaks to the idea we will supporting and help them they should take more time to get it right and make sure that whatever planning covers all issues not only transportation there were a lot of other folks

including spur and supervisor wiener and supervisor campos that were there to support that idea as well as well as mayor of oakland if you have a chance to hear the issue it was good secondly, related to commissioners comments i know last year's hearings and some coverage a lot of angst and tension the changes in the city and our staff is under a tremendous amount of stress from the community give strong pressure i'm anxious about what is happening i of course, the commissions is to you 80 want to reiterate to the staff and thank you for you're amazing work we have a tremendous bunch of people and dedicated commissioners and he hpc i know i'm available to anyone to talk

though how we can dpo do better in easing the tension and recognizing we all i think agree more than we realize on those issues thank you that concludes my report. >> commissioner moore. >> may i ask a question as a followup to. >> bob: the public needs a description for many of us it looks like the elephant taking on the moss kit and significantly less money and when i join a large and small corporation or department it mostly goes the way the larger entity wanted to run it are you going to stay in the conversation particularly when it comes to holy up planning it is a smaller department that

does the planning. >> that's a good point my testimony we had to be comprehensive in our thinking about this and transportation only one aspect of a multi faceted program it is true the mtc has the resources and one of our concerns and one of the concerns of abag that that transportation becomes the primary planning issue rather than the issues of affordable housing and entity and all the other issues i made a strong point to many folks in the room we'll be from to help them think through the issues we're did largest department in the bay area and we have a lot of great expertise to address this in a way that is good for the region. >> would you mind sending up i us a link of comments it that

will be helpful. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further to item 10 review of past events that he board of supervisors and the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon aaron star at the intersection reheard the configuration requirement this owners eliminates the eastern neighborhoods new district that permits project manager to lower the configurations inclusionary by agreeing to maintain the reshlz for thirty years the planning commission heard this and recommend approval to the board of supervisors at the committee hearing no public comment and no comment from the committee members expect supervisor kim and the employee voted to recommend to the full board establishing the citywide sustainability was continued for

one week the dagget street park passed its first reading and no introductions i have an update on the 2015 code corrections orientals jonas if you could pass this out. >> so this ordinance is to be heard and land use commission on october 31st for corrections to be made discovered bunt to the referral to the board so for we've identified non-substantive changes to add and identified an additional control inadvertently added the intention of the article 2 not to make substantive congressman's therefore the department is asking it to be added to the code 2015 and the city attorney's office says this was removed and adding back to the

owed code and not discuss as part of the ordinance the proposed will add a foot not to the section which is the zoning control under the housing control to allow conditional use authorization from the group housing is operated by a hospital or institutional education this is the same los angeles required for the zoning district today, i'm here to ask the commission has any questions or objections would like further information on the proposed information if not we'll precede with the corrections if so this item can be scheduled at a at a later time but not computed in the code corrections ordinance and he require a separate ordinance your silence would be affirm

active. >> commissioner moore. >> - >> so the residential density for group housing in r.c. is principally permitted for up to 4 hundred plus and r c-3 for square feet for rc-4 in the old code and provision group housing that is owned by a educational institution or hospital required cu so this foot not puts that many there if so look at the handout it refers to the bottom of the table and says just that it requires. >> cu. >> could we add one comment why you had to do it is it fascist the issue we had issues with group housing in the past and

upward battle can you give me one. >> i'm not e i'm not sure why but the intention was to maintain the current controls but have the zoning commissioner to speak. >> what aaron is briefing you on returning to the reorientation to this gives back the control noting that a cu is required for the group housing so this is revertigo the way it was as inadvertently code change. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and the board of appeals did meet last night their meeting in

two weeks. >> more did the historic preservation commission meet commissioners, if there's nothing further to general public comment members of the public may address the commission of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i do have one speaker card. >> great, thank you. >> john. >> good afternoon, commissioners john what i have for you as discussed weeks past is a really thorough accounting of all the demonstrated proposed from the

mission since the passed eastern neighborhoods point several years ago one does the map and the one side is the chart and what it shows is, of course, what is being proposed as far is inclusively matthews with the inclusion affordable what has happened all the proposals on the other hand, collective remove will remove if approved a huge amount of pdr space from the district those approved to date smaller projects only 14 thousand feet of pdrs will be lost but what is in the pipeline two hundred and 28 thousand feet with the project accounting for more than half of that that is coming from the eastern neighborhoods if you read the text of the new

district it is supposed to permitting provide a use this is not happening i mean let's intellect that is not what is happening what you're getting is maushts and it is intunlt i think the director is perplexed by the zoning that myself and others had honestly perplexed the reason is when it started you know under director jerold green we all sized it up and concluded they'll give us wonderful sounding words like this again the real agenda in the mission and selma is maushts and nothing else and wasn't any pro-active part of that zoning to develop even get to the affordable housing let alone get

any built that was our you know hard-boiled conclusion 15 years ago honestly you were right. >> hello commissioner tony kelly the vice president of the boosters neighborhood association i have to things a letter that is handed to you about this project on the projector 790 pennsylvania and 22 street on your calendar for a few weeks three weeks from now this is outline one building it looks like a skyscraper and it is clearly about 4 hundred to 5 hundred feet long a prime example of the architecture we've wherein subjected to for

the last few years and voted to oppose it for a number of reasons at a meeting a couple months ago it was ugly this is the first one of about 6 projects that will be coming your way in the bear minimum in terms of neighborhood benefits and they're doing a bare minimum of affordable housing none of the 2 hundred 50 units in this building will be affordable to san franciscans those reasons we're opening o opposing it we want to meet but individually to go over our concerns in detail but also a larger problem about design i don't as opposed you remember and considered some time back 5 m is called okay. good so 5 m

is about 4 acres of development we have a half-dozen projects heading our way in terms of 11 acres of development in potrero hill and a design problem and in fact we've met with director ram and others a few months ago about a number of issues the infrastructure and the transit planning and but design and we were told at the time oh, we're looking at getting an architect and improving or upgrading the design for the new district everywhere we've not done that there is no progress commissioners with all the development headed our way 6 large projects 11 developments around potrero hill do you think we have had the design in place before we consider the projects otherwise what's the point we have the discussion in our hands

you have to give direction to the staff they're doing their job and doing it well, they don't say have the updated standards if up to you, we have should design standards in place before it changes the design thought and the character of the hill thank you very much. >> alison potrero we're hearing how we haven't merced lake out the pipeline and the city is not using the area plan the projected projects are well within the see projection and therefore no additional impacts beyond the eir as those claims with made the

goalposts keep moving in early july the x check list for pennsylvania despite adding 2 hundred and 50 units any increase in population will be within the beyond the scope of the eir and would not be considered substantial next came in the draft eir from the 6th street for the pipeline report then suggests we shouldn't consider the development in an individual sub project rather than the entitle of the eastern neighborhoods this is strange the eastern neighborhood plan didn't analysis the impacts in isolation and we should combine residential and commercial with regard to the imbalances and impacts between the two it is on the overheads

the new analysis included in the draft eir clamming on 3 thousand mrs. is plus residential uses they o militaries the projection between 2000 and 2008 keep in mind the eir increases the dwelling units from 2009 to 2025 we put together our projects of 8 hundred units with a total of more than 4 the house we're certainly beyond those projected and well into uncharged territory we need answers exactly how many units are completed and in the pipeline throughout the eastern neighborhoods and within each sub area 2 thousand to date nobody knows for sure and time is running out we have an eir for more and more possess to be

published any day and several maps of potrero hill on the commissioner sclaund in october how can we precede like everything go going to be fine anyway i'll see you next week thank you. >> is there any additional public comment not seeing any, general public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> yes. next week we do have the - it's not on so we have the eastern neighborhoods on the advanced calendar for next week maybe we can have i'm not a product of eastern neighborhoods it it is a - or not implemented, implement i know that market octavia that will be helpful and background

on the eir what does is cover and what time periods i know that issues come up several weeks ago in a row what does it get used up 2008 or 2012 those issues were brought up and i'd like to understand how that works. >> i'll say commissioner we are organizing the presentation next week the packet is complete we the plan was approved in 2008, so it we'll look from that point forward and go over the eirs for the sub areas and how much has been built and planned for how much is in the pipeline pr both of residential and the design side i don't know that we planned a presentation on design standards but there is substantial progress on the design standards and staff is working on a memo to that effect. >> thank you that's great.

>> director ram i'm sorry. >> okay thank you. >> excuse me. commissioners, if there's nothing further to our regular calendar items one, 3 and 4 were pulled off of consent and considered now individually item one at 10:30 washington is a conditional use authorization and commissioners he did she's been with the department you've not met ann she's been with the department for a couple of years originally in portland and came from oregon where they studied architecture as a planner worked on a variety of projects recommended to preservation and transferring to the citywide the information and analysis group much to jeff johnson.

>> welcome. >> commissioner president fong and ann planning department staff this is a request for conditional use authorization for missouri guarantee cafe within a rfp 3 the project manager is going to operate it as a coffee shop and other retails sales and service use located on the ground floor in the zoning district it is reviewed under the priority program to dates the department received 4 letters of support none of opposition the department believes the project is necessary and desirable it is a proposed restaurant for a establishment of a locally owned small business the proposed use

it designed such the ground floor can be re-established as a residential unit it is operated until 10:00 p.m. the 7:00 p.m. will be the close and it will sell coffee items and no dedicated point of sale will be provided for the included purchase you were it can function off site and the eating and drinking within the immediate area should not steady 25 percent of the frontage and the eating and director chin wellness 3 less than year feet and 25 less thanier feet lower than the 25 percent and the project meets all the planning code and the proposed restaurant

will be a locally owned business to provide desirable goods and services that concludes staff presentation i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> staff. >> this is the opportunity to pick a presentation to the planning commission. >> good afternoon it's a pleasure stephan i'm the project manager and the owner on washington street i live on the block for 12 years and walked by this 10 thousand times i've wondered why this is empty about 14 months exactly i acquired the building with a vision of establishing a coffee shop worked with edgar and ann and had a very good experience so

for in the whole process and love to we are any questions if you have any questions regarding this. >> thank you. we may have questions. >> open up for public comment if there is any. >> okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner johnck's. >> just a question for staff congratulations on being able to pull this off it is hard to open up a small business in the city just a question for staff this is a vacant ground floor retail space in a motion and a second not use since 1960? i'm sorry you were you can sit down >> the conditional review was a location prior to 1960 uses as childcare in 1979 a small grocery and convenient slow and

art gallery. >> it's not continuingly used and a mid block space. >> yes. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> follow-up on this so i want to understand the action here why there a need to reactivate the conditional use. >> this is a non-conforming use. >> and restaurant also. >> as a residential it is in a district that explicit permit residential use up until 3 years ago no way to reactivate you u that but the existence allows for someone to seek a conditional use authorization to reactivate non-conforming use in the the first two cases you're seeing under this provision. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i think in principle we all support this which many people

are worked on with the small business commission for many, many years personable will help me i've mentioned that ones before a minimum piece be included we better understand the context i don't think that the planner the planners themselves have the material from i i said choosing one or two pieces to add that would be helpful that's a communication suggestion. >> commissioner antonini. >> what are the cross streets of this property and washington between powell and ma so often. >> oh, very good thank you. >> i had the proposed plan if that would be helpful to see. >> no, thank you for offering it i was basically asking to be added to the passage it is a

little bit it will help us to understand and support it. >> i think this is a good project because you start to get into an area that is elevation chances and having a coffee shop nearby a block or two makes a big difference when our climbing up and down those hills it will be a good service and i'm approving move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve with conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong and good luck to you. >> yeah. good luck. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero, zero and places ion item 3 fillmore street conditional use authorization. >> commissioners, i have

another new planner to sdrie costing collin joined in march and he's a bay area nature earned emphasis bachelor u.s. davis and social studies and city regional degree for the last 5 and a half years in the washington, d.c. area and many other places of the world and worked for the navy for davis and as well as a private firm. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members the commission i'm collin thank you john for the introduction the the item before you is a request for the conditional use authorization to allow a reactivation for a discontinued retail space on a third-story building built in 19 hundred

within the r n two and the western neighborhood this retail space on the corner of fillmore and has been vacant since 2011 because it has been vacant for more than 3 years and recognized loekd in a residential district planning code requires a conditional use authorization in order to allow a rail tenant to reactivate it compasses the facade repairs the tenant has not been determined because the property owner is seeking to go establish this is as a retail space before may or may not to individual biz because it requires a conditional use not traditional for the conditional uses the property owner didn't want to put that this burden and instead took this initiative to minimize the cost for future tenants since the packets were published one phone call for

support for the with that said, the department has found the project to be necessary sdiefshl and comparable with the neighborhood as follows: would activate a vacant ground floor serving realty for half a sent and two the sgrshgs is defined by the ground floor commercial space with residential blowing blowing above and consistent with the land use and 3 the project will provide a neighborhood severing retail space assessable to small businesses as much the department recommends you approve this with conditions and this that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor please. >> hello my name is kelly i'm the architect for the project

the owner val couldn't be present today, this has to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote a retail space for more than half a century a whole century records back to 1913 a drug store and morning in continual use as a rail space, however, in 2011 a tenant moved out and a new tenant was not placed into the location as it was rage no tenant was found and one finally a car crashed into the side of the building it happened in october of 2014 but during that time of not having a tenant and starting the rapdz from the accident the 3 year time period has lapsed we're asked to come back and reapply for the conditional use of retail space we strongly believe this is

really what this is space needs to be used for makes no sense we've permitted to applied to the promissory note program and even though we don't have a tenant there are restrictions we've had support from the neighbors i have had 3 phone calls in the last two weeks requesting information who the tenant will be with no tenant in mind, i gave them the exhausted information from the planning code an what can and cannot do their satisfied we hope i've answered any questions i'll be happy to answer any questions if there are any and hope you vote in favor of reactivating this space. >> any public comment on this item? not seeing any, public comment

is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> i think again, this is a good project the background information was incredibly helpful maybe a running experience if we could put that under there this is the history i thought the business name and i was t b t that is to be determined i understand and i move to approve. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to restate adding a little bit more visual support that was sent to me makes it easy to understand the project including commissioner richards comment give you a little bit of background because we need to decide it needs to give us a little bit more support i'll be supporting it. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is a good project we all think of many instances of businesses that exist in neighborhoods that would not be you know conforming

to the presence zoning but established so long ago they've been garrett in this make sense it has been retail and serving the neighborhood for most of century i'm supportive of this proposal. >> commissioners there's a motion seconded to approve that request conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under on item 4 at 290 division street. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and fellow commissioners jeff department staff the item before you is a request for the confusion to expand an existing

non-conforming office use 4 stories and approximately 35 thousand square feet existing non-compliant of 18 thousand plus expanded to 20 thousand plus square feet within the existing building by expanding into unit 4 so 5 a net increase regarding the history and illegal office use in at least december 2013 a letter was issues for the 18 thousand polluting plus of the officer use in the building at a time two spaces were including excluded units 3 hundred and sorry units 3 hundred and 405 it was not legal missed because of the management unit 405 that is use as office as far back as

1999 would have been legitimate missed if not a vacate from 2345078 to 2008 during the great recession the space was market and management was furthering to get a tenant in the space the process required the space to have a continuous operation so unit didn't qualify for the vacancy so the letter including excluded unit and the owners preceded to legalize unit 405 two months sorry two months after the letter not much lag the conditional use application is that path to legalize and the office space continues to operate and seeking a path to legalize it the proposed expansion required the to obtain

a confusion it is coding complying complying by expanding are more than that 10 percent percent but within an area the building surrounded by office space proposed no entertainment commission from supporting a pdr use at a later time and subject to impact fees that benefits the community the staff recommends approval that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> any public comment on this item. >> i'm sorry project sponsor my fault. >> thank you and go ahead john with reuben, junius & rose hoff michael waning the conditional use use it is the final step for the congestion building the person purpose was to liquidity

misses it when it was impacted in 2009 and essential many of the buildings were unclear building history and the planning commission adapted the program in order to document the legal used in those buildings and prior to the 2009 rezoning 290 was zoned m-1 that is office use much of the 290 division street was occupied by office space but the first year was a mix of pdr and retail and office use and the serving floor and third and fourth were office space they filed an application in 2012 in order to legitimize the 3 and 4 floors and the zoning administrator approved those almost all of the third

and fourth floor on expedition of exception that was 3, 405 was denied because it and fully with an the liabilitytion it means it needs to be occupied during 2007 to 2008 there are technical rules but that's the general rule suit 405 from 1999 to 2004 and 2007 they were unable to find a tenant after that, they have issues with that tenant they were dealing with so there was a break in the leasing during that period and sponsor after the fact it was due to the poor economy the project sponsor filed to legally convert 405 to office and no pdr tenant

occupied the space during that time and surrounded by office space and the expansion of the existing office by 25 percent to 1886 square feet of space in suit 405 is 10 percent of existing legal non-conforming office space the conversion will allow for the san francisco companies to operate as a building and allow 44 for the flexible use of the fourth floor and paying transit impact fees as part of conversion so we're here for any questions and roll call ask for the commission support thank you. >> okay opening it up for public comment now is there any public comment? not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i ask the project to be pulled off content for consent reasons on september 15th i was

asked to report to the arts commission of what the planning is doing from a policy and active engagement to protect artists and pdr displacement and i worked with the expert in the planning department that's steve and claudia to get the general overview or recap of where they are one of the strongest messages that striker enforcement are one of the tools that the planning department is paying attention and executing wetherbee they can other ideas in the works not in the room to talk about they'll require more work and steve is working with the arts commission and representatives of the their staff to refine possible ways for the protection the point i'm trying to make is we have 18

thousand 9 hedge fund square feet that was legitimate missed through the eastern neighborhoods to meet the pdr and replace the zoning with office space on the next week and tools that are described by staff this particular 404 suit, 18 hundred 86 secret come down forwards as an independent piece i have to step back and ask myself do we need to be vigilant particularly because of the what we heard from john who gave an comprehensive overview the daytime for that reason i ask us to consider what we need to do here it's an independent small

suit that could be rent or leased to an artist pdr or whatever use within the existing building that would be possible and i am - i feel put on the spot given what i recorded to the arts commission i'm asking the rest of the commission to discuss this. >> and consider what we need to do. >> commissioner antonini. >> from the testimony this space is well as many of the spaces joining it has historically been office although the building had sxusz and this was permitted because under the m-1 zoning that was allowed to be put into office use and so this is a use that's been around for a long time and an absence during the period of time the year 2007, 2008 the

technical night life that brings it back it it wouldn't have been vacant this wouldn't have been legalized with the others 18 thousand 9 hundred square feet but it has been in office use since 1999 for almost the entire time so it kind of makes sense that this be legitimate missed and random space to find someone in the mist of the office space on that particular part of building so i would be in support of allowing this because it now conforms to what would have allowed it to be approved at the earlier time but because of the restrictions for that year it was vacant was the only reason it wasn't approved i'm going to move to approve it.

>> commissioner moore. >> i want to ask the zoning administrator to perhaps give you a little bit more description. >> certainly commissioner thank you so maybe some history this is a provision that allows for the expansion of the non-conforming use the office is the non-restricted conforming use that is expanded we've had one similar case before you in the past in 2012, the hams buyer went through the legitimatization they legitimate missed 80 thousand square feet of office space and there were suits like rooms that were not eligible for the organization and came through substantially through the conditional use process to expand the legalized office space and by 15 thousand

plus and the commission unanimous approved that finding the space given not one large space spread throughout the building and areas less desirable for pdr use with those finding the commission unanimously approved that so i think before you today with our recommendation similar reasons we have sthipgz that perhaps less desirable for pdrs that could still in the future, in fact, be a pdr use and any change of use from an office inform comply with the pdrs district so helps to reiterate the loss of pdr use and appreciate your mentioning the fairly robust program we have pdr uses and we're working on a long list of pdr violations which have been before you 663 streetcar is one we're pursuing

enforcement we're working through those cases from our prospective thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> so could staff remind f me from the legitimate missed projects are. >> it did sunset and some people availed themselves of the process but one can morning apply for the legitimatization we have a couple of pending request for people that submitted we're reviewing but none can apply now. >> okay. so this you described the expansion by 10 percent of the 23407b conforming use. >> that's correct. >> okay. and the chart we have in our packet only shows through 2013 has it in vacant for the project sponsor vacant in 2014

and 2015. >> no, it was that we've had to tenant history since then if he could have the projector i have the full details for 2014 i on the last one in the legitimatization it was in the space until envelope and edge online took it over in november of 2012 and since been the lease was transferred to a company that was formatted now another company it has been mostly occupied by tenants since the histories you've gotten the legitimatization letter. >> okay can we but that on the overheads the 2013 is shows vacant you have that and edge online came i also want to talk about the preservation the pdr space this

one may have circumstances that make it permissible it used to be m-1 and now it is 405 mostly the strongest argument on the fourth floor maybe the first floor would be much more available for pdr use but trying to jog my memory we have a great presentation on who was happening with pdrs it seems more like we often hear hear the example of dodo or is timbuktu it is kind of a smaller call of manufacturing now that didn't quite seem appropriate for the fourth floor i go guess luke at the intersection broorld there are a number of buildings i've hearing about that are inappropriately being used as office and this one is going to

the proper channel. >> commissioner hillis. >> a question on the those o other use what's happening oar often the first and second floor. >> are they compliant with the zoning. >> thank you commissioner that will be too that is all to see two suits on the first floor one a a retail space and one public defender's light administrative reviews and one a legitimized office space this is a desire health club and other than this has been liability miss and consistent with the pdr zoning so the second floor health club use is considered what the second floor health club use. >> the pdr zoning district didn't on the law pdr use but other like the health club obviously.

>> all right and timing wise so a legitimaizelegitimized. >> can that be considered. >> as long as once legitimized it is treated as a non-conforming use if they voluntarily convert to a widely permit a pdr use that that motion carries puts it back it to an office use not okay once it is converted you and recognize the concern it kind of does what we did only third street we have two floors and added to the third street and make those kind of office not in perpetuity but it losses its

rights to have office space the pdrs uses couldn't become that. >> not even by cu. >> in this 25 percent you can't keep coming and xandz the 25 percent beyond how does that work. >> the code doesn't specify it but the interrogation 25 percent that the non-conforming as determined with the letter of legitimatization. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> thank you i'm actually on the second commissioner antonini motion and add i totally august with commissioner moore that we definitely need to keep the site on pdr and look at those projects colons on that one it

is fighting over inches and not a broadly project in my mind sparks more of a broader conversation generally speaking we need to take this seriously i know that is this has sunseted but a few projects there are larger spaces i'll, looking at them much more closely of they're on the first floor or second floor floor maintaining the pdrs use and putting the office where it should be. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree we have to concern ourselves with creating pdr spaces in the case of the dog patch area as one of the projects in deceasing even though square that catered themselves to the uses they are

successful in san francisco those pdrs uses that succeed are a certain type of and an isolated unit in a building on the fourth floor is not appealing and also it is probably not very good for reflecting on how we handle business whether there an operating business and that business will be forced to move someplace we're denied the legalization i'm in support of approval. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to make one additional examine that is reminding us about the creative use of combining office and artist with respect to the building i was a mixed effort to create like a new bar for how to do that and not everybody agrees with the consideration to be a

very commendable project i unfortunately sat down sat in the arts commission preservation for a hundred and hundreds of artists spoke to the individual artists analysis that is the daytime study i believe that i can't support any one single square feet without a future examination. >> commissioner johnck arrest off the top of your head square feet for pdr and square feet for office what's the difference. >> i'd like to comment but that's not the kind of focus. >> i do i visited the building and looked at it it and part of i think of heavy machinery and pdrs were making little things

you could but that in a box and carry on an elevator i'll not be supportive of this space. >> commissions to approve that matter with conditions. >> shall i call that question. >> please. on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards no commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to two request commissioner moore and commissioner johnck's voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 12 under the readings for the housing presentation. >> secretary did we continue our item 11 i voted think outside the box 0 continuance i remember hearing it thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners gil kelly director

of citywide planning in the planning department staff it is always interesting to observe our deliberations on projects i'm here to talk about the long range policy planning function and i wanted to frame the today is e today's discussion in the context of earlier directions you'll recall in january you approved a 5 year work plan for the citywide planning division that steward on 20 four key drives issues, if you will, including temps to make continue to make san francisco an inclusive city for access and mobility going into the future not only intansz enhanced transportation systems but neighborhoods that reduce the need to travel by car for basic

services and so forth third street to be a sustainable city components of sea level and seismic concerns immediate concerns and fourth set of issues being around kind of a quality of public life did i understand by public spaces in their design and this is overtime we came to you - you discussed i decided that was good and go forward there were specific kind of place expression how that might work you asked you as a body take up the deliberating those four themes contaminate and break that down into chunks and preservation for your discussion to hear our thoughts about those

major overarching themes you selected the equity theme you'll remind i further when we presented that theme it included components preservation of pdrs space nevertheless, continued living wage jobs and augmenting that with workforce training a better relationship with the schools to make sure we have adequate school facilities for first name going forward it included the notion of having a array 80 of services for the diverse population but for the most part the need and most urgent need to continue efforts to provide affordable housing so we'll remain a diversifies city we came back in may and had a discussion we set the table to

broaden the issue asking what kind of city if i could frame a couple of take away messages one that we need to broaden our focus from approximate of new affordable housing to also preserving existing housing stock this was a big shifting the conversation, and, secondly, this was a regional issue that demands regional dialogue and collaboration and some level of strategy making around the affordable housing production so we then to follow up and come back and have a discussion around whether the need of tools to help think through option we divided that follow-up into two sectors today's sector we thought before we got into a discussion of whatever whaeg

co-sponsor we could be doing focusing on the new housing but focusing preliminary on the tools that are released at our do so we want to give you two sessions on the other things that are going on you don't see in regards to affordable housing production so this is our lead policy analyst will follow to frame a bit further and introduce a couple of people from the xhaichlz and have our understanding the february on the programs they're operating before we come come back and jump into what live we might be doing thank you for that and let me introduce kezar son. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners terry son department staff i'm

joined by senate file if a and educating howard as gil said we're following up from the may hearing i like the comment commissioner antonini opened up with taking a long view about the demographic changes and policy that is an informational item this is our goal to take the work the commission does on a day to day basis and connect it back up to that view. >> so as gil said in the spring we were here with the city's chief committee mist ted how to remain an, huh? it it relates to affordable housing and we provided an overview of who we saw ourselves as a city a

lot of demographics and we suggested the demographic center the region with a changing demographic we asked about what kind of city we want to be in the future and ted talked about the past and future policies to change those outcomes as and relate to income and equality so we evident with the suggestion that we focus others policy work in two areas first making the existing housing affordable and promoting a metropolitan growth that is kind of a conclusion of that presentation and we outlined four - clear

actions step the first thing understanding our existing housing stock and then how to create goals affordable housing goals the entire housing stock and finally the flexibility with the housing stock and engaging our regional partners and we're getting technical support we tresht that that is our presentation and angela said we wanted to do two things talk about the ongoing policy work and second kind of return to what the state of the affordable housing portfolio and i'll hand to offer to moe before i do i'll talk about the affordable housing policy work that is going on right now which is led by the departments and i know such read the mayor press release before the affordable

housing in the city and the fifth point referring to one of the piece the department is leaving the affordable housing bonus program i don't have time to go into the full program but give you a productive and the public that is a program that offices program bonuses for the affordable housing for higher levels of affordable housing and the program was development in coordination with the mayors working group and key stakeholders from the affordable housing applicant four main goals you'll see on the screen first to incentivize is affordable housing on site so by encouraging people to choose the onsite and go beyond the 12 percent i heard a number of public comment about people doing the basic is this is an opportunity to sort of encourage people to go beyond that the

second goal to approve the feasibility on sites under utility by a number of sites with antiquated for some reason very can't move that program helps that and establish a middle-income program and finally to fascists the affordable housing with those four goals we're going to propose a program first what we call the state part that really kind of stacks the state and bonus hallway and articulate it and how it applies to the city of san francisco and then the second part takes the ideas of state law but lines them. with our middle-income housing and also helping us move towards the prop c of 33 percent affordable housing the department works with david barker and libby to work out the

pechz it is complicated but i wanted to point you to a questionability about the program all of studies we've done and several of them with detailed presentation we encourage to sign you are up and finally we're having an open house on october 26th at city hall and online version of that a week before for folks who can't make it we're expecting legislation as the mayors press release this fall so we want to make sure you understand what we were doing for the 5 point plan and i'm sure sophie will add more points again in the spring we kind of gave you a high-level introduction of what your exist affordable housing portfolio looks like this slide should be familiar it show us how much of

our housing stock is rent-controlled or pubically subsidized we've heard again questions what does affordable mean i'd like to introduce sophie and educating howard to talk about the mohcd portfolio and where we plan ongoing thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners kate depending upon a dotting on the mayor's office of housing and community development i want to thank you for having us here and to give you information on the mayor's office of housing and community development work as has been discussed today, the affordability crisis is a deep and complex the mayor's office of housing is addressing that crisis on multiple fronts and doubled our resources to you put

ann as much of affordable housing information on line and launched new programs to provide as much assistance in this effort to all san franciscans with that, i'd like to introduce my colleague sophie our director of policy and legislative affairs to provide the good details of our work and we'll open to questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission sophie has to do with ward from the mayor's office of housing and community

development thank you for the opportunity to present to you today the focus of my presentation is basically an outline of the existing program and forces that the mayor's office of housing and community development i'll call it mohcd is deploying right now your existing tool kit i'll begin by that summarizing our mission street mission and give you an overview and followed by information related to the existing programs portfolio and funding and last i'll provide but an overview or blup to talk about 10 thousand units of affordable housing by 2020 as you may know is worth highlighting mohcd to cooperate

the policy and provide financing force the development and acquisition and preservation and to provide economic and community development fund to support the community and neighbors in need as you may know we are in a housing affordability crisis those are sobering statistics in order to afford a two-bedroom apartment one hundred and $71,000 a year for a family mohcd determines eligibility for the programs based on no objection as a percentage of san francisco's medium income and 2015 that's just under hundred and $2,000 for a family of four that's the medium and mohcd finances and administers

housing program that fall into 3 categories housing production and dachlt assistance they serve a wide range of income levels i want to pause i'm is so critical to the discussion of the programs it is confusing for you and members of the public i have handout that will include the complete 2015 medium income levels as well as defining terms like hundred and 20 percent of area protect and 50 percent all of that and a supplemental handout oh, i'm sorry they're right up here - some for the public and some for you and a second handout that puts the income levels in context

so this the handout that puts the income levels in context of proving and this is available as i mentioned mohcd programs fall into 3 categories housing production and preservation and dauchlt on the production side we have the bmr program that includes as you may know rental and overflow room unit provided dissatisfi dissatisfied inclusionary housing units those are individually and the total portal those serve households for 55 percent ami so hundred and 20 percent of ami in our hundred percent affordable multi rental units 71

thousand those units typically serve humorous or hollers up to 60 percent ami those are pubically to federal, state, and local sources we also have our public housing and on the production side through hope sf we will have 5 thousand 2 hundred and 65 units by the mixed use housing that includes households earn from zero percent ami up to market rate units as a mixed portfolio and provide housing for the formally homeless on the preservation side we have the small sites program a program in which we acquire the rent-controlled units that are at risk of conversion to market rate and in which the tenants

are at reflex of eviction the program has been active for just about a year and in that year we've acquired 64 units of housing that were at risk imminent risk to evict tenants i also want to make that clear inform through the community development we fund the preservation eviction we provide funding for programs or activities such a legal aid to tenants facing eviction we also fund programs that provide direct short-term rentals for tenants at risk of losing their home on the preservation time i am talking about the hope sf they have hope sf we'll be replacing all public housing

that are existing onsite and adding and to the rad program we will be rehabilitating public housing units on the down payment we have down payment assistance programs that support the first time homeowners up to $200,000 for down payment assistance and combine that up to 57 thousand for a down up to that time for a bmr units those loans are shared appreciation loans the bureau didn't pay it back until they sell and at that time, they repay the loan and houfd shares the appreciation of the home

as of june 30th of last year we're comically our final numbers for our annual report 5 hundred and 62 down payment sups loans and for teachers and you firefighters and hoping and looking for ways to expand those so i run through a number of programs and used a number of buzz words i attempted on this slide 0 summarize who each of these program are we serve a range of incomes our public housing serves people that make no money up to percent ami and the inclusionary the rent-controlled units or typically offered at 55 percent ami and overflow room up to 50

percent ami our affordable rental stock is typically rented to hourly up to 60 percent ami and the loans they go up to hundred and 20 percent ami and teacher grants that think extend higher-up to 2 hundred percent ami this is a snapshot of all the programs in a single slide our let's see - in total we have just under 22 thousand units our numbers need to be updated this is june 2014 i apologize i'll get you updated numbers a summary of assets under management at this time and the critical question, of course, how to pay for the

programs and units this slide illustrates the sources of our housing loans those include the local like the housing trust fund and impact fees from the developers and state and federal grants 17 percent of mohcd fwrants are derived if impact fees from the developers and about 25 percent of funds we're expanded towards the housing loans from the trusts funds looking ahead this slides shows a sxheft estimate of the money available to invest in housing up to 2.5 billions half of that total will come in by 2020 it is conservative we're making out year estimates that the developer fees and action and others sources we can't

completely control including the federal resources and this slide shows our production trends and it is hard to read the numbers from here he on the take away theoblast blue color is new production which is on the rise and the red shows our preservation efforts and redistribution efforts as we've built housing stock as time going on to make capital investments and improvements now and tomorrow our areas of focus are to implement the mayors housing goal we're on track to construct units of housing by 2020 and up to

developing and building new units and preserve and rehabilitating public housing and maintaining the commitments to public housing we'll to expand our down payment assistance program that allows us to widen the band of households we serve. >> in this slide we were trying to get a little bit more specific about rather than saying yes, we'll meet the housing goal of by 2020 this is how we plan on doing it those are associated with public housing and preserve is one thousand plus affordable housing and build 45 new units we can get to that 10 thousand number now we've identified the unit and identified the financing

we need to do more that goes back to the housing filth crisis they are innovate getting better in the short time in order to do more we mediate to produce and preserve it costs money as you may know the mayor and board of supervisors placed the general obligation bond on the booklet that provides money that will allows us to accelerate production and preservation and augment all our programs i wanted to make sure we had a little bit of information about the proposed spending of that bond the $310 million bond is allocated into four buckets geared those public housing, next door housing, middle-income housing and a specific set aside to address issues so that concludes the slide

presentation i've provided a lot of information i imagine you have questions and i'm available and kate howard is available. >> okay. thank you. >> is that it from staff open up for public comment i have one speaker card a charles head. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is charles head did recordings secretary of coalition for san francisco neighborhoods excuse me. >> last week in our general assembly we pass a resolution on affordable housing bonus program which reads whereas the affordable housing bonus program by the vrldz was part of the process for the last 18 months and we initiated a meeting with planning on based on this

journal articles met and whereas the limited time space to respond and whereas no clear timeframe for the program and sf n is to respond in september and whereas the exhibits not provided for the presentation or have all the information on the draft form and whereas not known how the large authorization will be into the program and whereas the internal revenue is off the housing element and whereas the financial feasibility and whereas transit impact fees are not destined and infrastructure are not addressed whereas it is unknown to how the discretionary review process will continue and whereas it is not announced and sf n doesn't have all the delays and whereas the city's has in

anesthetists of 20 thoughts units empty and whereas we propose the fast track of the ordinance and requests continuance after alp meaningful discussion and with the input for the c s n have been seriously addressed thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners mary speaking for a number of concerns citizens and neighborhood groups not seen this the way that the city has been dealing with the hockey's a petition which you're not seeing copies of yet going to the mayor and the supervisors so i'm going to read part of this for you i'm

going to hand in the rest we oppose the way the city is handling the housing crisis we oppose any plans to substantially over san francisco neighborhoods and we request that city authorize solve those problems in a manner not displacing people or we want housing we can afford and sdwrobz and streets that move freely therefore we ask you stop the expanded development in residential neighborhoods and stop the planning codes that create for density into residential neighborhoods and fourth the zoning laws that restrict our investment thank you. >> good afternoon coalition for

san francisco neighborhoods and richmond association i think you're doing a good be no building building building but unfortunately building the wrong type of units and part of this program was that nonprofit developers for profit and attorneys they were all included the residents were not included and also more importantly plaintiff important muni was not included my background and was a director of pharmacy in a county couldn't hospital in the east bay one of the things in health care at that time hospital care was not very organized and not very good that was it needed drastic improvement and with that, came about the commission for the prioritization of health care what that the it make sure that all the different departments

were organized they were part of a team, they communicated and it was smooth communicating organization you you know you can't have surgeries countless but i'm trying to equate the city and county of san francisco is doing a good job in some departments and horrible in others and although they're building a number of unit not the right type of units and transit is horror did you say and the city is not just one department it is the function of a city requires a smooth operation of all departments and so i therefore when you have planning meetings approving projects you need to have tons of people here and have them come here and give a report as to the functioning of the

transit and are they meeting their goals one department piles into another departments issues we don't say a very good city functioning as far as quality of life and peace of mind wellness all that is important now as far as this program is concerned affordable housing all the districts included except rh1 and rh2 those areas zoning explicit delicate that only certain types of buildings be built and in the richmond's for example, a lot of small hours 2 and 3 story houses in those areas and the city is proposing to approve 6 disappears or stories in that area that's not reasonable we need to discuss this in a serious manner and bring in

transportation. >> sounds like a horse. >> (laughter). >> good afternoon peter costing council for coalition an expressive array with the mayor's office of housing has and, of course, our member organizations are involved in the entire compliment from down payment assistance to public housing and construction small sites it is all good stuff in those programs have done well and continue to fine-tune but also i'll significant important to step back and los angeles county that is dealing with the overview situation our affordability crisis i want to look at the big picture and the numbers you're aware if i could have the overhead a housing balance

report was released about a week ago maybe two wagon you're having a hearing on october 1st next week you maternity have had ta it chance to review it if i could have the overhead age hard for the public to see this is the big table and the yellow highlighted corner down there says 21 percent over the last 10 years of our housing production has been affordable and that is pretty low balanced number so we have quite a bit work to do if you look at it on a year by year base it vascular laid down up and down in a hot market the annual balance in the - this is why you're hearing folks

concerned with the disruption of a market value but african that over ten years that the clearly with the mayor's goal of thirty a starting point i'll august we have a lot of work to do i want to show you the other table the projected housing balance it is looking forward what's in the piecemeal now that you, anticipate coming online the number if the corner is 11.2 percent so it looks worse going ahead in terms of the balance of affordable and market rate is so again, if we're imaging how harder it is for the mayor's office of housing to stabilize our community the numbers are right in front of us and lastly i'll suggest this is wut put ousted generally every quarter a very informative active

production you guess so at the end of 2014 hundred percent of our market rate and 19 of you are middle-income and 20 percent of the lower-income this balance needs to be corrected tests a good presentation thank you. >> i'd like to ask a couple of questions from the director's report on july 15th and 16 not quite presented by a it says are above moderate income hundred and 8 percent and middle-income at hundred and 80 percent we've developed 19 percent and in terms of the low income 14 percent 7 years ago and scroll down the page 10 thousand units we've developed 95 percent of

the above moderate income and drove 95 percent of the school district units we've only development 12 percent of the moderate income and also only 10 percent of that blow moderate so 95 verse 10 this is compatible and seems i'd like to think about where they're coming in we want to put the low density into the same neighborhoods over and over and over and over when we plan we are looking at different ideal lodges we move that into the same coordinatcorridor extr developed and not do an this middle transit infrastructure we look at thanks. >> any other public comment.

>> not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a few questions i took down the numbers i'm going e i'm not sure it was accurate on the amount of post i guess you call it housing in the city i think you gave the numbers on public, affordable and inclusionary i'm not sure if i got those down right. i showed numbers of 56 hundred for public, 17 thousand for otherwise affordable and 4 thousand for inclusionary is that our present stock or did i misinterpret those. >> commissioner antonini we have built with a in collaboration 3 thousand units of housing for incorrectly o chronically homeless we have a policy that 20 percent of all

the developments in the new construction developments we do we bring online have a 20 percent set aside for homeless housing i don't have the exact number of all the supportive housing units we can get it to you but that's our policy and in addition to housing for homeless individual, of course, we do housing for development and disability mentally ill residents and seniors, etc. >> that a subset but as i drive around the city for 50 years i see a lot of public housing project and then in the western edition you have some sort of supportive housing they're not projects but a large part of the western edition to the east and, of course, the inclusionary so i'm trying to see 3 hundred and

70 thousand units inform image i'm not sure if that is accurate but pretty close of that number what is presently somewhat supported not counting rent control. >> some sort subsidize. >> or some kind of interim control or you know because we have to know where we are before we know where we're going my superstition it is higher than people think it is there is quite a few of the units but good to have this questioning answer not today but more than the thirty thousand on the screen. >> okay sorry i misunderstood the original question over mohcd portfolio is over two thousand those all have regularity recreations and permanently affordable and have as a

management requires, etc. in addition housing anti that there is affordable housing that is not part of that 21 thousand for example, there is hundred of units in the w we're fined in the 60s and 70 and early 80s by hud not all have city restrictions but regulated by hud all loan programs calls section 236 and, other section, etc. those will be affordable housing sites the city is actively working with the ordinances the residents, the stakeholders to make sure that those stay affordable but they were developed with hud money a different category than the mohcd portfolio and it would be good to have a number overall not just the city's involvement some are produced federally and

some risk their affordability expiring but it is good to know what we have in place but thank you. i have a few more comments so oh, the other question we talked about the money you're getting and what percentage do you think of your funding for the housley goals comes from developer fees projecting what we're hoping to build in the future. >> so the current percentage i think from the slide was 17 percent yeah. >> then we have cycles, of course, you know to depending on the economy and the market rate housing building you saw the low production levels that co-related with the recession and previous years so right now 17 percent is sort of a high mark and it ebbs and flows with the

economic cycles. >> yeah. that's good to know and, of course, it is upward a fifth of our funding if we discourage the funding of market rate housing we'll have less money to use for other reasons. >> right we're at 17 percent right now. >> right the more we build the more we're going to have thank you. >> and the other thing i want to suggest it funding f rehabilitation i spoke again, the outlet for families because of sorry states of housing stock in san francisco they pay a lot of money for that even more than they ever accident address spend a future to try to rebuild the seismically unsafe for wiring, for room arrangements it is typical of older neighborhoods so we can keep for families if

we loan money regards of their protection levels and living in the place we say a low homeownership rate in the city and have a more stable city if we had more over occupiers with families and may be a conversion from a rental unit but we have a single-family program and your homeownership teams administers it we'll give you the information and the typical loan amount and encourage people to come i found historically during my times opening statements think commission i thought about rental rates were 60 percent of ami and ownership was hundred

and 20 but it seems like practically the ownership is the 90th percentage actually and the 55 percent for are rentals support is that on the average. >> there are two categories of rental there is below grade that are generated in the inclusionary program and that protect level is 55 percent of medium income on our mohcd supported developments where we go and leverage tax credits it is typically 50 percent of ami but we can go up to 60 and do in some cases and the 90 percent homeownership is our inclusionary program but we also have our dauchown payme

payment. >> we try to met the needs from homeless people all the way up to people earning hundred and 50 percent of ami. >> i encourage that we have the hourglass population of the high income of a large and lower-income and few in the middle you know looking at over occupations and the percentages of what necessary make i you know have to be lower-income to quality it is difficult when opening statement i have two wage earners in a household it is easy to jump over a hundred thousand even with the modest income levels most people are priced out of it i think we have to address policies that help people to help themselves to provide housing for themselves within the city by making it more affordable to them to do it

themselves so that's kind of my view thank you. >> and also thanks a couple of the comments a number of people talked about not having the density in parts of the city i'm a wedding's recipe but see the need and the idea to increase sdepts on commercial strips moldering that make sense to put the retail on west portal and ocean avenue and geary all those commercial and terryville adding housing out there and you can they have to have the appropriate parking needed and things like that but it is close to transit they can ride out of their house and west side has some i'm very much in favor of that so, yeah he thought everything was very good

presentation i'm not sure on our retiree social security i think you're taking a low amount depending on up to 367 thousands a year it is not a lot of money but lakeshore a lot more than 14 thousand thank you very much appreciate our report. >> councilmember johnson. >> thank you, again thank you staff that presented all the fog information and the prior information just a few things i appreciate many of commissioner antonini's comments i'll start off by one particularly around the development regardless of where you're talking about in the city i'll point out that could fact more development on the west side we need to accommodate more denser development no way around the only way to get the critical

mass for the transit we want to talk about expanding muni if you want to build an eco system that as levels have been affordability you need to have more units so that whether or not you have a particular policy that will restrict costs for certain units whether or not you have that you can have more of an opportunity for a eco system we have strength so the only way in my mind there's a lot of things we have to do from a policy from an implementation prospective but starts with accepting we have the denser development neighborhoods need to go up more up or sideways or whatever be more soy definitely support anything that side that just you know want to talk about the implementation really quick so

density in concerted with infrastructure it was talked about we have to look at muni and ask the questions and a transit person i agree with a lot of these that i'll push forward we need much more integration how we think holistic about development i'll give an example of a situation i encountered in occ unheard of here; right? so when we were looking at the hunters point shipyard development we were looking at the hilltop and as it happened the fire department said wait a second your streets are two narrow we'll not get a fire truck and people will die in buildings so because of that we had to have a discussion will we widened the streets and shorten the lots fewer units what do you mean for the number of units and for the triplet

transit and the population and just not a tax but a concrete example of something that we should be doing move more of in terms of the holistic approaches in addition to mohcd fantastic with work we need to have more conversations how to facilitate those holistic xhfbz it needs to be more than the commissioners are calling for we need to change. >> our san francisco infrastructure part of our process to cvs those discussions be more well-rounded and i'll continue on that (laughter) so you know say what kinds of infrastructure we're talking about transit but we've mentioned schools and mentioned fire departments, we've mentioned others public servant infrastructure like post office one of those things we talked about earlier he think we need to as a commission and then as a

city build that infrastructure to have a conversation we're not getting petroleum eldest from the same conversation and a couple of other things mohcd appointed a few things from the office of economic workforce development there are like pages of programs to support rental support and down payment and small business owners small businesses that is part of the neighborhood stabilization we can always have no more money but not lack ideas how to assist people but a martyr problem i'm hoping that will be part of what we talk about since the new legislation how to improve the infrastructure so people know those programs existing i'll tell you right now i get lots of information and the population we want to keep there which we

talk about neighborhood preference don't know about it what happens the populations that is better organized and has strong community leaders that led those people to sign up they get benefits and everybody else is left out and we're saying we've worked hard so marketing is key just a couple of questions when was presented today so one they know is i'd like staff to go into a little bit maybe specifics i know we'll see legislation how to incentivize the affordable housing program because whether i look at the state density requirement and look at it what we not to do locally it is fantastic but i right now - i remember seeing the simulations given the lot

size and the local affordable housing bonus program doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference how to fight against people that point new construction not just what we know but taking into account the new program and really being incentivised to do it i'd like to hear staff maybe kirsten maybe somebody >> this could turn into a whole discussion we have a future item i won't get into detail but a short version we have tried to have a positive state program but have a loophole alternative that ups the incentives and kirsten we'd love to get into that we're aware the exact issues. >> i think gil is trying to

keep my comments short and i would recommend take a look at at the barker study they've looked 12 sites and show like a number of sites in the city of san francisco that were zoned in the late 70s so their zoning capacity is much less than the height allowed there are just be able to have more density on that site is an incentive for a project sponsor and especially in place where we didn't center the benefit of a detailed area plan we matched up the escalate improvements in support it doesn't work on all programs it is difficult to make a program that works for every single site and created did two options. >> thank you thanks. >> if i may quality of life

pickup on commissioner johnsons thoughts first of all, this is an initiative work i applaud this is a smart way to build a road pap map paw along about commissioner johnson the schools need to be ladder on top of the fire department and others obviously transportation is a key piece of that but collectively could be a gage for san francisco i do like the diversity we're talking about a affordable level. >> market rate housing la will come up i like the direction we are building multi stratus fear and the map is spread anti hopefully one area of san francisco doesn't feel the weight and pain we've suffered more recently commissioner

richards. >> trying to take american people over arching view this is a fantastic first step and recall facts and figures figures one of them being i don't know if it is a housing element or the housing inadvertent in november 1st fact sticks in my head the affordable housing percentage needs to be 61 percent do we actually were to solve it would be a $7 billion problem i think through two 22 or 2025 from the next two years from 2 and a half billion dollars i look at the need and what we're doing and saying who is going to be losing we need a $7 billion solution the question i have i looked at the sites program and the evictions here on the next item and is looks like the need is groundbreaking

faster than the need to respond i'd like to see in the next hearing what are the projected needs and solutions it looks like if all the databases it would be going down our needs are out paced the niece if so the needs in isolation look great but in terms of the needs it tells a richer story. >> couple of other things 64 units what was the total population that we're at reflex how many buildings were sold at this time the reason i'm asking we had a 5 m hearing last week and small business prosecute the stabilization fund sent me an e-mail here's the buildings up for sale in selma 19 are 25 wow.

those are sold quickly are they getting resulted from more often owners or other evictions looks like why wouldn't we want to put our money on those bets and build and probably cheaper maybe another questions i know it's a balance for the needs of change is the question another question i have is we we're here every week and approve projects onsite or the 12 percent or the 14 verse the 20 percent we're always saying put them on site put them onsite onsite is that diversity should we create more units or not i don't know what the right answer bus ready and online it gets

built we tend to go to the 12 percent business maybe a troifd for the bmr units onsite those are questions that keep coming up i guess a question for the mayor's office so the rehab units are towards the 10 thousand if we want rehab will th offline. >> sophie from the mayor's office of housing that varies depending on the the units a number of unit rehabilitating that could very well come offline in the near future. >> not habitual creating. >> it rages the amount of need and also want to note that the issue of counting rehab units that's come up before and it is consistent with the jurisdictions deal with in their

housing goals and assessments new york the goal to produce 2 hundred thousand affordable housing and of those hundred and 20 thousand will think rehab and 80 thousand will be new construction. >> i want to make sure you don't think we're gaining the system by trying to understand what happened and not included so that is a perfectly good explanation one of the issues that comes up and resonates i hear vacant units 80 thousand vacant units i know people say why some or are sale and some held off the market and some shortfalls can we incentivizes those as part of a solution has been been thought about people that come to me we should drive

an amnesty program and maybe we account laboring look out it, it is a significant conjecture which afternoon he echo commissioner antonini's comments on density i was tow reading are the chairm- all nei innovating need to take their fair share of growth where in twin peaks and lastly the numbers we have in total rent-controlled units in our pie charts are fantastic we saw the challenge of the 5m mapping out the city so we can see change over time i'd love to see i've talked with the staff and we'll have a beer to talk about that

i'd like to see that expanded and have a interact active map look good work. >> commissioner wu. >> i want to thank staff for the presentation and encourage us to push in the discretion cart or starting what the way mr. kelly outlined it and digging into housing most as quickly as possible as we can and he on the partnership is mohcd is great i ask we learn more whether the rent board the people in the affordable housing currently, i think we've often asked questions we don't know the answers and i was told a presentation soon to i'm looking forward to that the information is great and the portfolio is you know it is

robust it is 20 thousand e.r. above 20 thousand units but the tools of looking at commissioner johnck's talked about in terms of need versus what is projected or exists e.r. the balance we already have the affordable housing and the housing element and the series so i'm not saying bring on a new report but use the report more robustly to give us more ways to think about how to do the work is that we want to look at certain percentages of grow. or we want to push to look at diversity because of looking at balance i know that sometimes those notations are controversial but really think we have to push the envelope and give within counter point to commissioner antonini's point the people i work with day to

day can't afford to pay the rent in a 50 percent ami affordable housing they're living in sros and the family are in sros they're struggling to make end meet for every one story there's another story. >> commissioner hillis. >> just puncturing on commissioner richardss from the small site program which i like and wanted to continue and advocate for and explore it is go good a read about the full name do i have a sense how many units are we trying to acquire there a number to that or is there a budget that's looked to small sites in the fire chief and if not, i think that would be a good you know good exercise what allocation of affordable housing funds are dedicated to small sites when you make the

presentation you're talking about building inclusionary i think it is an untapped area that has huge potential and expanding to larger buildings. >> we agree so super briefly we started with 3 millions with a slow start and worked with the developers and we made changes and then we you know we spent that $3 million and another 17 you know over the past year so we've now spent all the cert funding and next year's funding and anxietyly awaiting now funding to continue and broadened that i'd like tell you that it is more expensive then we thought. >> generally how much per unit but. >> with the goal of acquisition and rehab $250,000 per unit on

the tax leveraged housing and done better in some of the buildings but worse up to even 450 a unit that is hard that's a lot of money but a lot of the buildings we're finding need extensive rehab we're working with the developer partners to you know relook the programs has been a fluid thing i want to tell you know one of the reasons wear getting sites that are more expensive and greater rehab needs working through the city program is age slower pan than the market it would be great if thirty dazed do a cash cross we're not prepared the mayor's office is working hard on getting the housing accelerated funds off city financing tool but it is pursuant to city goals

an expanded program getting developers buy and rehab larger buildings would be fined through f this program really well, so yes, we're kind of in a life without parole we're trying to close the last it is challenging of which the buildings we're closing all of those under ellis act notices but we want to put more money into that and try to do it more efficiently with this new program. >> in the 2015 reports this is cash or also leveraged. >> that's leveraged. >> okay. it is - there are loans they tend to be loans from the city or conventional. >> whoever is putting in the

land use. >> that's our subsidy so if we're seeing that in some cases the combination of the first mortgage loan from the conventional lenders plus our money requires us to come in at a higher subsidize amount not only a function of some buildings being in bad shape but a lot of people that have been in rental units housing and have very low rents and incomes so - it is complex we thought we would buy a lot of buildings but it is challenging. >> your buying buildings under the threat of ellis act or will that drive up the price and you know get ahead of that curve. >> yes. >> that's he helping the process. >> yeah. we want to go forward

with a new funding that will come in and expand the program and get out front and implement more nimble funding so we can do better on the costs. >> can i ask a followup question my understanding one of the challenges the acquisition program compared to new is the low finland not available. >> we paid 2 hundred and 50 thousand per units for the tax units leverage against tax credits those are only a first mortgage from a con - it is don't think on the rents. >> the price is generally depending on the rent the rents are lower and the price that is how - when somebody buys an

apartment building what they pay there is a difference. >> this is the squeeze with vacancy decontrol the existing rent e rent maybe low but a buyer comes in i - and right your that's the threat of ellis act you're paying a - this drives the price up. >> anyway, we want to, yes expands and bring more units online. >> appreciate that and then on the density bonus you know i don't know is there more outreach happening give us a thump nail sketch. >> the outreach coming up we do are are website with all the materials available and on the 22 of october we're doing a webinar so people that can't make the september 26th monday night and city hall can participate our line woouk u

walk through the details and after completed that will be online if you can't come and all the contact information is available. >> we're starting to get e-mails he mean clearly it is complicated statewide and know it doesn't effect rh1 or rh2 and not displacing existing units people will start hearing all that so it will be clear what is it not so when it gets complicated the david bark barker and even if we dive deeper to show what the real life examples of projects on terryville what it will look like with architecture units under existing zoning and what it looks like the density i know you have some of that that is great for me but mother the most intuitive not last week like we

are adding units this makes it more difficult. >> this why gil said me to keep my comments brief we're truit trying to move to a less technical but what if this building were on this site how would the building you - >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm critically expressed and have to admit there is a hell of a lot more when i hear the details the program is quite amazing and i think that is gives a wide variety so many nuances and how to address it so i'm also very pleased to hear you have (microphone feedback). >> i'm pleased to see you ray

have a lot of support and as the commission said i'm interested to hear more about the small sized program and actually like to ask we could have another discussion to brainstorm some of the interesting exchange of ideas what the limitations are and what you, do and pushing the envelope of what is possible as to the housing density bonus the work with the architect barker i'd like to ask the department finds some basic standards which deal with the owner of liveability those standards are site specific and general because that will be in the discrimination of those general standards people will have a much larger level of consistent of gentrification of the absent

is more that the purview of a more qualified architect and personal opinions but we're at&t that have the codifying the capability this will be a strong tool to talk about in a constructive way now i support what was said by other commissioners and thank you very much commissioner antonini. >> one additional thing i think everybody acknowledges the affordable housing is not limited to san francisco is it as regional problem parallel the coastal areas of california i know your cpr building on vacant city sites as a possibility to provide more affordable housing often in conjunction with market rate housing that is a great strategic he think you should work with other counties as far is and know alameda county is

one of the large in san mateo county those could provide housing not only from san francisco but the jane counties that should be explored to see what is possible and the approvals you need to get for that. >> commissioner wu. >> can i ask would be one more question on offsite do we have to wait for the next budget cycle for more money both that or some special allocation. >> we're hoping to get good news on the ballots from november and bridge from there. >> i want to make a plug to look at including sros into that as well. >> director ram. >> i'm glad you raised the

regional issue we didn't talk about that a whole looting lot but it is a integral part of addressing the regional issue of housing development and i will say pubically how frultdz i'm seeing the small community are isn't it true not stepped living this has been a great partnering and to the staffs work well together and understand each other's work and thank you to the staff from both agencies for that work. >> the commission will take a break we have a fairly long agenda so we'll make it a.

>> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regularly hearing for thursday, september 24, 2015, remind the public to please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off on there our regular calendar for item 13 clarifying and creating preferences for affordable units this is an administrative code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioner

president fong and commissioner my name is mapping can mohan planning department staff to recommend approval for the housing preference i will tried tripod a brief overview and we have the mayor's office of housing and community development additional robert collins from the rent board here to answer questions as that remote to the rent board jurisdiction last week it donated the changes i mean, i'll go over additionally the department got four letters i've submitted for your review commissioner serlina or call roll the affordable units applies to the program to find an all programs related to the provision of affordable units by the mayor's office of housing and community development and included not to exceed tax exempt bonds currently the city administered one for the

certificate of preference and the cop holders are residents that are displaced the cop preference is the western edition and applies to the head of hourly displaced and eligible family members and at the time of displacement after 2008 second preference established in 2013 is give to displaced that tenants for the tenants displaced die to an ellis act evictions cops o cop holders get hundred percent of retail and initial cal's sales and displaced tenants get 20 percent of the residential development process until 20 percent of the

building is - to summarize if a hundred apples and oranges were there 20 units would be available for displaced tenants the proposed legislation recommend is removing the difference of preference and comploeld all the preferences in the administrative code the legislation transposes proposes two changes a displaced and a third preference for neighborhood no change in are the cop preferences the first recommendation is combhutd 1k34 the substitute legislation to expands the supervisorial district and a buffer from the project the department supports the supervisorial district because they're similar across the ami levels of of levels and the same can't be said the planning

district and planning neighborhoods canada that includes the tenants that are living in the adjacent district it will address displaced tenant it include all no fault evictions and tenant that are displaced as of natural disasters and where affordability has and then and include of in recognizing the shatter 45 percent if 2010 to 2014 and the number of evicts filed with the rent board the section second is towards the displacement half the units will be available for tenant displaced from the neighborhood rivera 50 percent for them offices the most preference to live in the neighborhood with a new affordable units are are to be built and the next is 6 years from the date of displacement to

provide all persons that are displaced a minimum of 6 years to equaliqualified. >> in please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, if this was hundred affordable units available and 10 units to koch holders 20 are available for displaced and 10 to displaced from the neighborhood and three which will be available to tenant in the neighborhood that ordinance before you greatly expand this and talks about the preference with the affordable units are being built we ask the planning commission do you want the attached draft and now from mohcd will talk. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission sophie from the mayor's office of housing and community development and i'd like to go over the ordinance in two parts first i'll describe

the property neighborhood apprehensive and second the expansion the ellis and where their offer laptop to be clear we want to state and all say it again, the draft offenders keeps the certificate of preference program ungo changed a apprehensive that is placed incidence since the late 1960s to e multiply the displacement and the cop preference will remain in place and continue to apply to all affordable units in its first. >> let's so the first chapping highlight to the neighborhood preference that claets creates a new third lottery pretty sure for the neighborhood residents and applies to 25 percent of the units as described and this will apply after the displaced

tenants and after the cop holders from the western edition and just to give you a little bit of background where this came from the residents and stakeholders, developers many people are wrong advocated for a preference of affordable housing for people in the neighborhood. adding to our supply of affordable housing you've heard in the last presentation is a key priority at mohcd but we want to other people it is the neighborhood reliant that bear the brunt of is where he means to not to exceed to the effects of skwugs we've proposed a preference we believe provides tangible opportunity wasn't a skrefgs impact we're trying to balance the affordable housing for current neighborhood residents with our responsibility to insure equal and fair access to all income qualified san franciscans

so we are admittedly caution of it when it comes to fair housing as noted in her presentation you've received letters if a number of stwrrldz suggesting to two primary amendment the definition of neighborhood be amended to 34567 what people consider a neighborhood and the second suggested amendment is so increase did the percentage dedicated to 25 or 50 percent from 25 percent to 50 percent or hundred percent and with sailed approached this with a carve eye towards housing this data illustrates we we know we're a diversifies city but sect that means the smaller

geography area it done the neighborhoods the more likely we're to begin an area innovate diverse and that's because our neighborhoods are fairly dedicated and we've didn't understand it as a supervisorial level provides an opportunity to have a denied boundary that is equal if the demographics across income levels please remember we're looking at the income qualified applicant for housing the second comment request that the commission expand the preference to apply to 50 percent or more of the units we've found that limiting the preference to 25 percent also limits the risk that we will disappropriate impact any one class of people by limiting the reserve grace to 25 percent we

don't anticipate disproportionately impacting any group not represented in that neighborhood as proposed the preference applies to 25 percent of new rental or ownership the second component of the ordinance deal with these the ellis act apprehensive and the ellis act become effective and since it's start the mayor's office of housing and community development has issued hundred and 41 certificates and they've experienced the preference we've proposed expanding the preference in direct erroneous this is heartbreaking from qualified tenants that have lost their homes not through the permission of the ellis act this

preference will remain applicable to percent but expanded to include tenants who are subject to any no fault evictions and would be expanded to apply to tenants that are displaced due to fire or natural disasters and tenants that currently live in affordable units that have restrictions that have expired we at mohcd we're challenges why a tenant evicted to the ellis act should have preferred provision over a person that has lost their home through fire or other processes the preference in the expand preference is not is an anti slooeks eviction the increase in no fault evictions is not isn't going adat mohcd we can control this effort that capacity neighborhood preference is in no way a substitute to be for the

other programs in the presentation including direct fuchdz for anti eviction measures rent to subsidize and the small acquisition programs i want to highlight with the substitute provision two components of the legislation overlap ms. mohan talked about the measures but one of those in proposed a three percent neighborhood preference and i'm sorry yeah. a 25 percent neighborhood and in the substitute legislation we also identified with half of the displaced tenants preference that is 20 percent half of that would be reversed for tenant displaced from the neighborhood effectively that creates the 35 percent preference for the geography and then second we

expanded the geography we have to innocence satisfies not changed the boundary for the supervisorial district but at a half buffer around any prestige that are affordable units coming though the lottery so that means if you live near an affordable housing affordable units introduce the lottery not north necessarily in the supervisorial district one a half-mile buffer of the available units eucalyptus you'll be eligible for the preferences i'm joined by our deputy director kate hartley and charley when conducted the analysis and joined by vanessa who is the front line of receiving the calls from people that maternity meet the qualifications based on the form

of eviction that concludes my presentation. but we're all having a available for questions >> thank you. >> any other staff to comment at this time and opening it up for public comment. >> go ahead if you - good afternoon, commissioners aim kathy davis the executive director of bipolar disorder we are currently about to open up the housing for the new dr. george center hundred and 20 unit no bayview unfortunately for that believe we have preferences for

certificate of preference my husband spent time getting this a neighborhood is no a supervisorial district a neighborhood is a neighborhood the bayview is advocated to be available for the seniors in it's community for many years and the difficult circumstances that obviously seniors live through for 20 years is the reason why they got that building it is part of the choice building initiative district and prop a units we have to expedite cheat statewide we have to redefine what a neighborhood it it is no at supervisorial district and if they're not enough diversity add one or more sdiblthd to get the

diversity for the high diversity index i want to make sure that people know it is important seniors be able to angle in a place in their neighborhood they don't go across town or different neighborhoods they need to be able to live in their community and communities have fought for many years for the access to the housing they have and then they people that live there don't get it i'm asking you increase the preference for the neighbors to at least 50 percent i'd like to so 70 percent that is what the needed and make sure that we talk about this displacement. i work primarily with african-american seniors who are on redevelopment 3 the certificate of preference for people displaced in the 70 and between 2008 and 2010 the city

lost thousands of african-american before you go to 2010 now adding the ellis act for displacements african-american we're around 3 it is important to think about displacement if we're going to rebuild the shipyard we want to rebuild for the community we need to make sure there is a displacement preference that is targeted from the people who can't afford to live there and left he have to delve in deeper the city tsa has taken a stab we need to take a risk i don't think that hud really wants to push people out and at a general if i had neighborhood so we can have a integration i think hud would support the things i'm talking about thank you

(calling names) >> policy director at chinatown redevelopment center i wasn't planning on it speaking but i share the previous speakers concern and those concerns it is surely correct it is a miss not onlyer to call this a supervisorial district and it is a far cry from the type of policy the community wants i want to speak to the part of the legislation weren't to the displaced tenants and i worked closely with supervisor chiu and the mayor's office of housing with respect to the adoption of the ellis preference i'm hearing to medications one that doesn't work and it is too in charge and the narrow and i'm not sure which to respond to the staff report is very, very weak it

doesn't provide the public or this commission or the legislature with enough information which people will expand the preferences to all the displaced people one of the elements is this is going back to 2010 for roughly 6 eviction categories that is one thousand evictions only 4 hundred this past year or 3 hundred this past year and gone up thirty percent easily we're going go to create are preference for 2 thousand folks and it is not clear there is no decision in the report how many units will be available that we spent a lot of time with planning department staff and calculating a program that was

target not to knock out people but address a need we don't say a process in this legislation this is legislation that came down from the top down not the bottom we were innovated included some preferences doesn't make sense the capital improvement plan the capital improvement pass through but an eviction that is a temporary eviction yet you get a certificate it gave us a perch applying for housing how does that make sense there are other preferences not clear and not addressed in the staff report that is you know we worked where respect to the elisa we very specifically targeted based on need people had to live in unit and disability and connected to

the elisa it gave us a disabled or senior to relocate within housing. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> tommy i agree what was said i want to add to some of his points i agree with everything he said i live in district 8 i work in the mission and live in district 8 the current eviction the work no looking at the evictions my district has 2 thousand evictions including

ellis two thousand evicts if 2010 with this preference as said we're looking at a whole lot of evictions far more in the units are available the concern i have we're going to be giving people a piece of paper but a what is it worth if no units you'll have a piece of paper but the unit didn't come up for 6 years what happened it inspired it seems to me we're creating situation where people will be put on a waiting list and the expectation they're not going to get a unit at the end of that 6 years what are we setting up people for it is unfair to set people up for disappointment and waiting pay waiting and waiting for something that will not materialize

the greater emphasis the city should be number one preventing evictions the city needs to put effort into how to stop the evictions i know the city tried to do work in sacramento to stop ellis but a way of preventing evictions and how to prevent people from needing to be on the waiting list how to protect our rent-controlled stock our greatest stock of affordable housing how to protect people that they don't lose the reynolds this is the thing that the city needs to look at go with a lot of effort and the other thing the city needs to be building more affordable housing in the neighborhood the track has no slated housing excepts laguna that's it for the

neighborhood the neighborhood needs it we need more affordable housing in every neighborhood how to deal with the housing crisis and ends by reawe firmly the community groups were not involved in the process of coming up with that legislation we were not niefld to the table and input for the solicited i think this is really unfair thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm tony rob let me see a community organize with senior and disability action i'd like to submit to the commissioners a letter from a number of different community boos organization that are very much concerned of the housing preferences ordinances this has been signedcy the displacement coalition and the tenants

coalition and human rights and senior and disability action and housing alliance i'd like to submit first of all, those letters to the commissioners i'd like to urge the planning commission to advise the board of supervisors to delay advancing this distracting and flawed tenants pole and continue to put attendance where it is needed in the preventive policies tommy spoke about to preserve the city's excited rental sthok stock and of the the funds for affordable housing wear concerned the organization and advocates were not at the table and when it was con accepted the approach in this from our prospective was it creates a system of pitting one

group against the other bumping rights, if you will, pits groups against each other that makes things worse creates conflict and tension and many of the most needy of the displaced attendance that effects don't have the income to afford the bmr's the below market rate and this proposal creates a false hope that is really unfair for people who have been displaced or forced from their homes timely comfort to be taken in having the preference position in a lottery system which this year precious affordable units coming online that may not be agriculture to afford to begin with so again, we urge you to advise the board of supervisors to delay advancing this flawed

displaced tenant policy thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm zach with the san francisco foundation and i just wanted to come up here and also urge you guys to really look at it and evaluate we've heard from the community members that the function annunciation has supported and it is important to look at what it means to be a neighborhood and what indications it creates if you do decide around the district rather than a certain neighborhood i want to urge you guys to step outside that place of privilege to see when this means to the community thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone.

again commissioners peter cohen from council of committee i'm down to 2 minutes we submitted a letter on neighborhood preferences i want to start off by e cigarette or orleans what you're heard from zach and kathy be davis this is is a popular yellow light you'll find it is now come a time to have some kind of prioritization for the affordable housing in the very community that need it the most and actually done a lot of hard work but it raises the question what is a neighborhood the proposal to use is 37 notification that kathy mentioned make sense that is how you as staff indicates to the general public comment the radius around a mr. star project of folks folks that want to know what's happening it is the same

neighborhood definition we've proposed for the offsite radius in the inclusionary amendments which you get that in front of you'll see that proposal come forth a number of levels that could be useful i want to spend the rest of my time on the other piece an entirely different proposal not neighborhoods preferences and not out of two or three years of conversation or organizations being at the table and co-designing and chow chow knew nothing about that you get a 22 signed organizations letter if affordable housing and tenant services to legal assistance none has support this 0 none was involved let's talk about the mass rather than - you've heard from the staff they think theoretically this will work only 10 percent of the

displace people will be actually not housed this is worse than false hope 90 percent of the beters that don't get their money on the table setting up a system ups of one thousand holders of 6 categories that will be eligible to stand in line behind other preference holders and hidden them and all feel in in front of the general need wade for 4 hundred and 50 apples and oranges a year that's right commissioners we produce 4 hundred and 50 bmr's and hundred percent affordable and middle-income is sfoornt you're setting up a system of one thousand hollers to that 4 having that doesn't work i showed you the housing chart in 10 years the city produced 6

thousand please affordable units and lots of 5 thousand 43 affordable units we're not able to get ahead of the evictions we need a much better thinking reject this portion of the proposal thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> good morning, everyone. commissioners a mission and working from the mission i want to mention that the proposal today, if the neighborhood it is the intention is shortsighted and it is affordable housing wear lucky to have affordable housing and we would like to have it for for our neighborhood a working-class family but, yeah it is true we've seen a lot of families with a piece of paper

trying to get the hours we don't have housing and the problem with citywide is they don't take into consideration this is the case of mission district and we want for us is housing issue that anybody that want to be in the mission didn't need to make too much money to be part of the neighborhood and this is the housing issue not something - the thing now is displacing all our people and nobody can get into the neighborhood if they don't make 75 thousand a year it is impossible and we'd like to consider more resources and more talk and action for affordable housing in the city of san francisco thank you.

>> okay is there any additional public comment. >> whew this is a lot of making the perfect enemy of the good i'm combresz comblesz you guys have the choice of setting you up a flawed system and a lot of times times we get a little bit better things that commenters want the city to prevent eviction and build for affordable units nun it is foreclosed you can do both and the idea we shouldn't do it gives people falsify hope the lottery itself gives people false hope not to give people false hope let's not build any

affordable housing or have anyone in the lottery it is about chances something is evicted from their homes and put themselves in the lottery i think they will appreciate a slightly higher chance of staying in their neighborhood the comboblts to foreclose the housing act with you have the option of adopting the 37 neighborhoods that maternity survivor fair housing and wait until it comes because the challenge is possibility and losing doesn't mean anyone will bring that suit i mean what o will challenge that on fair housing grounds what that have we know the - we may have more

options that planning initially gave you thanks. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you a couple of questions first, i think this has been answers by want to verify this will apply for poor people with no fault evictions but not apply to people that didn't pay their representatives or broke the lease and other things sdroidz the apartment or whatever so the other thing i want to ask any consideration given many of the payoffs are quite substantial and if people received a large pay off will they be eligible if they're living someplace else i guess not eligible if they're located

someplace. >> from mohcd the eviction documented trot rent board is not pay up through the - >> it will be an actual eviction not a pea out. >> deputy director slfk but the pay out will be in some cases considered income so it might effect he mean mohcd can speak but it may affect depended on the army and the terms of payment. >> the other question the percentages were a little bit confusing i think it was you know there is a percentage that fits within category but then another percentage another category but what is your net total 40 from the general supervisorial district is it 25 percent or higher. >> the current residents that

will be 25 percent residents displaced from the area it could be up to 10 percent. >> okay. so you're giving small business that used to be in the area and not under. >> there the substitute legislation we included a priority for people that had been displaced from the geographic area since 2010 that's 10 percent. >> about it applies another 25 percent that are currently living there but displaced. >> the first is 25 percent of the units for people in the area who income qualified. >> all have to income qualify go. >> i say because you happen to be in an area and not displaced

i mean i'm not sure why they have the preference it seems to me that you can point to the other categories the cop preferences and the evictions and the ellis are evictions for people that are forcefully moved but people that happen to be living in the area are no different from people that the area throughout the city i'll be more inclined to limit that category and bunch them into the stoet for reasons you know neighborhoods is a big shifting sand dune and for favor one person that lives closer over someone else with the same income challenges i'm not sure i'm supportive are that thanks. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much again, i appreciate all the hard thinking from the city staff

level i mean yes there were prmz that said parts the proposal thought organizations were not part of but those issues are circling if a long, long time i'm glad at least this first stab has made at some sort of proposal rather than going under circle i appreciate that one other overarching comment and about the proposal you know, i also i mean i don't understand why we're alumni in other proposals we have on the table to create more units to prevent evictions and do what we can there and to create more equality i'm not sure why we're alumni that we have to do

everything parallel that's where we are not about doing somebody something for the people who are overcrowded and staying in their neighborhood talk about creating new it is about maintaining existing housing stock and housing programs like rent control it has to happen at the same time perp in my mind i'm not mexico those together a couple of things so there's okay. so - >> i've been looking for a really long time the certificate of preference came around by the time i got involved the program was fading the first families got their certificate now have children mid aged that was a program for loots reasons fading and that's where the

neighborhood preference he appreciate we're trying to spread it citywide but call attention to the critique but definitely things not in the proposal the first one is how people get the preference to begin with so with the certificate of preference program people from redevelopment agencies knock on doors and say who lives here they wrote down their name and they got a certificate of you're a baby out of womb and if you were cousin whoever who in georgia for the summer your name, again go on the list and didn't get a certificate and hard to prove you lived in the

neighborhood when i translate that to today clearly a clear not a population ten times what it was in the 60 and expanded more in the city and more neighborhoods we're not going to be able to have people knocking on the doors and adding names to list so i'll challenge the city staff as well as the supervisors to think about you know what are the infrastructure we need to put in place to manage this how do people prove they were living in a unit one of the things part of neighborhood preference as i'll say in a second the neighborhood preference to be clear is not a program designed for people that are displaced maybe you can is imminent displacement by people that live in the neighborhood see an opportunity in the neighborhood to live somewhere newer or less

than 5 people in a bedroom but they have to prove that we say to seriously think that i've had so moved so many stories from people at hunters point when i did on the cca this doesn't need anything i graduated from elementary and hunters .30 years ago and the education department didn't have my readers or records there are all kinds of stories when you multiply that citywide is kind of a big issue to make sure we have this infrastructure and on as infrastructure the affordable housing lottery itself it is a system in need of some reinnovate that we can't work with what we have not not go forward with the proposals but it means to think about this right now the affordable housing

lottery is kind of a black box i think in some ways we're adding a black box on top of a black box mohcd manages the program but individual developments management housing lottery if you're a person looking to move into our neighborhood you have to apply to every single building in that neighborhood and have your name 20 times for the opportunity to get one unit what are some changes we can make right now before the affordable housing lottery and who manages it and how the names get in there one to reduce the names that of people don't want themselves on this and to help the city a california brat those numbers we're surpassing the availability but there is a

funding i can tell you how buildings have lines of the same people they've figured the system and keep on going until they get their units i don't know how fair but certainly in terms of infrastructure how to give the o out the preference and wellness their other than the roles who managing affordable housing lottery regardless avenue what sort of tearing system for what waiting you get if probability the lottery we are saying instead of everybody having an equal chance we need to look at how we are managing that in terms of the daytime piece it is interesting so i lolove the.

>> i do think there is some thinking to be done on what types of displacement and the reason he is that for example, with like i think one commenter talked about the capital improvement you get to come back but 90 days a lot of things can happen in 90 days if you don't have a place to come back to and owner move on and fires displacements and things like that we should look at that list and see which of those what about e admitted by changes to policy and which ones we cannot

do with a lot with policy to make sure we minimize it but have that ability to have a tool to rather than saying instead of some chance with affordable housing good luck and maybe we'll try to find something else let's talk about displacement and displacement preference at that particular time that's saying wear innovate doing anything right now this is not good enough but those require more policy macro owner move on in and some types of eviction we need to maintains something around private property rights we can't limit those but create a system definitely a little bit of thinking there and then also totally i agree with parallel thinking about

other systems and challenging and question them in terms of are they strong enough can we do more rent-controlled and how we run the lottery there maybe i'm looking forward to other comments and i think the one thing in terms of change and looking at the evictions preferences and what types of those and in terms of the order of neighborhood preference versus displaced i think we should look at that as well i understand the legislative change of adding that task of those set aside for displaced tenants who are from the neighborhood in the last 6 years but i think rather than making it super convoluted decide the policy matters what are we trying to accomplish to make sure a net for people that lost

or eminently losing their housing or maintain the individuals and the character specific to the neighborhood that is something we can do both of those things one of the things at this point has to be more important than the other and i'll not say which one thank you. >> bear with me i have 8 pages of notes i apologize ms. hartley thank you. i nepgsz the very opening comments i think i've missed i assume commissioner antonini you mentioned in the original kind of discourse about this displacement as a result of gentrification can you elaborate on that. >> well, i think that

gentrification is a very complex topic what we do know i don't want to speak to the whole idea of gentrification. >> but we know is that we have reported levels of evictions, we have people leaving the city and in some neighborhoods we have rising income levels the data is some complexity but generally speaking a movement out of some lower-income people. >> absolutely and i can't disagree can you give the profile of a general affordable housing lottery applicant looks like do they have housing currently or not housed we're going to have different groups i know commissioner johnsons issue about group housing so a general

applicant versus displaced applicant what's the difference arrest for our blaufts a strict affordable the typical hours is working lower-income and typically from san francisco we see many households that are in overcrowded conditions or have a residence burden we are talking about working people preschool teachers and health workers and landscapers and construction workers so we - so our typical applicant is low income san franciscan. >> so it looks like you know last week he used justified i think someone has another question - sorry. >> i think this is good thank

you. >> last week when we went over the 5 m project one of the reasons he voted yes on balance all the other things being equal i knew that was coming and that the neighborhood with would after talking with ms. has to do with ward and people get a preference wow. we'll have 2 hundred and 70 unions of affordable housing and some displacement of gentrification and they should get preference that was a winner this is still a winner especially the displaced folks they don't have a place to live i like that idea even better and commissioner antonini's point maybe we reverse the preferences order someone didn't have a house and eastbound maybe a timeframe on someone that was on the list getting preference need to be throughout through my social

goal to keep as many people in the city as we can i know there is overcrowding a rent burden but like to have anymore people in the city then the other way how do we order those things to get more people housing in the city i agree with one of the speakers kathy davis he on the 37 district i think it was eloquent the notification district make sense than a supervisorial district i look at my district 8 someone could live on waldon street clearly a different neighborhood around the lower hate 55 laguna were an applicant they should stay in the neighborhood sort xavrndz around the 37 is better than 11 i lining like that idea

and someone else spoke i think ms. trous let's go big and take a risk you know there are theoretical risk bugs let's put something out there that has a reasonable expectation of not getting challenged and holed up no court i'll defer to the city attorney we have to figure out how to you double down there was an issue with the outreach efforts sir, you spoke about that what were the outreach what type of outreach efforts on this. >> the neighborhood preference actually was initiated by community members and as commissioner johnson said this is not a new idea by out there

for a very long time we were challenged by kathy davis and other neighborhood advocates 40 to say a why we were not doing a neighborhood preference and that started the forest city staff said okay. we'll do our homework and research and here we are today with respect to the displaced persons preference and the expansion of the ellis act in terms of you know there was were acquisitions today of no outreach to the communities i do want to think about what defines community we at the mayor's office of housing and community development we received calls every single day from people individuals households and families saying i need help you have an owner move in i want to stay in san francisco my kids

schools can you help me i've heard about this ellis act apprehensive well, do you have proof that - of an ellis act violation we recorded to those communities members that asked for help to whom we said no, because we had a narrow definition of the ellis act preference so that is where this came from and it was really with the intent of responding to community requests for help in no way have we ever thought about this or talked about that as a solution to displacement it is not we're trying to help people who have asked for help. >> so if i'm a person that was evicted and make slightly above the rent but all of a sudden it is 4 thousand for one bedroomer 2 bedroom 45 i'm out of luck.

>> there are a variety of housing types which have the ellis act perch now. >> and okay. >> and if there were legislation were to pass the new preference so our affordable housing with tax credits 60 percent ami cap that is one here this will also apply to the bmr inclusionary housing for homeownership that is 90 percent ami for for homeownership and 55 ami for rental and in some developments and public housing this preference actually applies so if you make hundred dollars a month and your displaced from your rent-controlled units you get get a priority from the housing

development it is a broadly drawn program thank you. >> is mr. rob less still here in i have a question that exists me mental and he lives - mr. kohl do you have a second okay. so you threw around the term 10 percent it is that the 6 thousand number. >> based on exercise the certificate of preferences are issued folks eligible for certificate of preference and how many of those preference hollers receive housing in 2014 there were 17 so about 70 or 75 cops issued and 16 or 17 actual units were places on the ellis

35 e.r. 40 that were issued and 7 were placed to the point american people assumption a lessor replacement and vouchers. >> you mentioned he quote you, we need to do much better thinking what do we do or should we do. >> interesting conversation the point what do you do with someone in a desperate state and that's frankly what all the many of the organizations who signed that letter do they're on the receiving ends of a hundred and hundred of clients distancing that are in a position of being evicted or lost their home they're helping them get legal services and understand all those code and bureaucratic processes that's what those folks do they're the perpetrates in the field if in their saying

a flaw i highly think you think this through you potentially open up a floodgate of folk that think somehow this will be how their saved and frankly not the units on the receiving ends and just the mechanics how this system works needs to be carefully throughout through before setting up those hopes the flaw the false hope and the implementation delays. >> for example, you heard commissioner johnson talk about the neighborhood preferences that's been discussed and middle around for several years and taken staff look at of careful thinking of legally and technically that level need to be done if there are an expansion and the gentleman talked about last year amendment for creating an ellis preference we were uncomfortable we

imagined this would happy opening up the floodgate a narrow category for circumstances for which the city has inform ability to interventions ellis is under the state y where commissioner johnsons pointed all the other categories there are local interventions before we assume you'll ellis is the same b are there other things to be done that was done in urban renewal people died with a voucher in their hand. >> thanks that actually was an interesting little speech looking at their people are on the redevelopment especially, when in their infants that voucher blows any

mind the preference help me to approve and perhaps to commissioner johnsons point and commissioner antonini's point i think we might want to take the displacement discussion and separate and a understand the policy goals in terms of the hierarchy if i'm the guy and peep are flooding out in the bottom of the ship your first and second and third no. your first and second and third on so many life boats coming i think we need to understand be maybe look at this hierarchy who gets the life boat and who didn't i'll support splitting the two are the first one is clearly the neighborhood apprehensive they're all good not fault but i want to make sure we get it right because i don't want to

create a sense of false when i buy a lottery ticket and see the odds holy heck the odds are crappy perhaps we should print the odds here's our odds of getting housing there are so many unit a here's where you are. >> commissioner hillis. >> a couple of questions and thoughts i mean first, we don't think anyone building this is any kind of solution to evictions he think people said this we still pursue i don't understand why the state didn't respond not to try to reform it's those own ellis act and setting up a legislation and certainly the city on its own can pursue changes, capitalizes ami and owner conversions and

certainly i encourage that. >> but that's just kind of a comment i guess on the neighborhood preference i agree with the sentiment that supervisorial districts most people don't know what supervisorial district they can tell you why they go in a district i think the europe sunset is in district 5 it very much different neighborhoods i think we need to change that kind of supervisorial district definition to more along the lines of the planning department 36 neighborhoods maybe twooeshg or the consolidation of neighborhoods i'm not sure but i think we need to move to a more

specific neighborhoods but i also think that kind of plays with the percentage i think if we keep it at supervisorial we should increase i but more the neighborhoods in planning i might be comfortable with the 25 percent it seems a little bit low a question on the list the current state of waiting list how does that work how many watts lists per bmr housing is interest a waiting list for bmr or a senior hundred percent projects how many lists and how many people are we talking about on waiting lists. >> i'll take that i'm veneskey doyle with the mohcd so it is kind of a complicated question and no really easy answer for the bmr inclusionary program no

wait list done through a lottery system every reremedy or resale unit we had a separate lottery and for - >> just if i can interrupt you if a building is constructed and released to a bmr unit you establish a lottery. >> yes. >> someone who was ellis acted and they'll get on the list and likely to get one. >> the list is not a lottery system but cop will be given the first preference and ellis act after that we'll first pull the cop tickets out of the lottery box and pull any ellis act and rank that in order and so 10 units for the inclusionary projects you have 3 cop holders on that list in the lottery

they'll get units. >> right as the income qualifies 1, 2, 3 exactly. >> you'll move down. >> then ellis act ticket in the box and pull those keep in mind that the ellis act preference only applies to percent of businesses in a new project that for 5 bmr units so just keep in mind. >> other things affordable housing not in the inclusionary program those do have a water list to cop and they're given preference on the wait list if there is a water list cop holders can apply any time of the wait list it closed to other applicants and they'll be given the first priority and then the list second. >> why are the wait listing

list closed. >> each building has their own wait list because they have so many people maybe hundred or thousands of people on the wait list for years projects close the wait list to deal with the people on the list before reopening. >> each individual project has it's oozing own citywide. >> right no citywide list each building has its own list. >> what is the list generated in the project development. >> when a building is initially reached out there is a lottery and once anyone then whether be on the wait list under recent arrest lottery system whatever number once we close the building all the people on the lottery list will wish the wait

list and that's how the wait list it is initially established. >> thank you. >> then on the this definition of kind of what is an eviction or ellis act eviction or no fault evictions what is the universe of no fault evictions this is a question for the rent board we know there is owner move in and i mean what else on a no fault eviction and responding costing are the san francisco rent board so what are the second set of 8 the way the legislation outlines the section subsection through 16 and 8 is owner move in and you've got owner move in and capital improvement and condo

redondo sale condo conversions and the rental or dpooshl a unit and led abatement and, of course, ellis act is number 13 and the good snarn justify cause used i don't know if you're familiar i can expand and you've got the redevelopment agreement i think i've not missed one i'm sorry the substantial rehabilitation this is extremely rare. >> of those you know in the last 5 years i mean what are the bigger categories. >> the real big categories are owner move in and you know ellis and to the stent you don't you're not demolishing that units or capital improvements i don't have the exact numbers some are rare.

>> thank you and then the proposal adds on to like fire and destruction of property and people can be displaced by that i mean, i too am torn on this i kind of agree with the sentiment people that are evicted we see people here who are being displaced a lot of people don't know the type of owner move in or an ellis maybe we limit this to owner move in but people i don't think so why we wouldn't expand it to include on top of ellis they're similar types of evictions driven by housing crisis being increased and landlords and owners want to take back control of the units so and i am not i see why people

call and say why are not i included in some of those as o m i versus the ellis act as displaced by a fire i don't get the disagreement maybe a need to talk it through with the folks that administer how on it's face i don't think so the policy rational ellis is fine o m i is not we get both of those people being evicted saying i'm being displaced it is typically those two types of evictions ellis and o m i if we want them to stay in san francisco in the neighborhoods i feel either should be eligible

for that preference so, i mean that's generally where i stand i like adding o m i evicts to this process and would try to limit the neighborhood preference fine-tune the neighborhood preference to the issue. >> ask commissioner wu. >> can i ask mohcd san francisco aging & adult services commission right now what is the administrator process of getting the ellis act certificate do you go to mohcd? >> to apply for the ellis act people come to our office or get it on the online it is a straightforward application 4 pages and we have a record of all the of intent to where a that have been filed with the

rent board's since 2012 we look at that and establish it was in fact, an ellis act eviction from the households moving date has been list on the notice to withdraw we accept that as prove how long they've occupied the unit otherwise prove an owner ever occupancy in order to get the certificate or living there for 5 years with a disability or life-threatening condition and then at this point we issue the certificate if they meet those requirement and have to be at least 18 years of age. >> that's helpful the notice of intent is that a different form for o m i. >> that's correct commissioner wu the ellis process is different from the rest of the eviction

process because it is regulated by the government code and the government code expresslyly permits us to collect certain information about the building as you may know the rent board does more but the ellis act the rent board actually causes the notice of con stringent to be recorded with the assessor-recorder so it becomes part of the title it is clear to any future purchaser that can't be rented out for 5 years we have a position of - the one that is similar and not processed the same to clarify i guess i should say any eviction notice that served open a tenant if san francisco with the exception of a 3 day non-payment of rent notice needs to be filed with the rent board those are

similar but the ellis act an additional notice of aware is significantly different and the next one is the owner move ♪ which case our office also causes the notice of constraints on that property so therefore we have a bigger hand in the process we're capturing for databases and the rest have less data points >> that's helpful the policy rational is that for the expanding the displacement there are other tools because there is more local control ellis the we can do but anymore tools we can pull to work on o m i last week there was accusations a project

sponsor here that said they lived at one location and had o objection m i at another location and i just think there are more tools to been how to prevent that kind of gaming of the system i'll be poster of the commissioners hearing the administration the ellis there are a lot of details to be discussed the age and the longevity of how long you lived there and if there's notice of tntsz to withdraw it was helpful to hear the list ever possible no fault evictions i want to ask for natural disasters does that include earthquake a.

>> (laughter). >> so there's 16 just cause to evict a tenant and what it comes to natural disaster no eviction which the eviction calls for eviction so. >> that legislation included natural disaster; right? >> that i'll let sophie speak to sorry. >> no problem. >> this is i believe the situation is in a natural disaster with the building inspection has been red-tagged the buildings or said you have to leave the building. >> likely a lot of building will be tagged. >> right. >> all the more reason to separate and continue to work on that piece or concept on the geography for the

neighborhoods preference i've supportive of looking at the 37 neighborhood notification areas or some other geography we've already used i think i've seen other planning documents there are other categories of what a neighborhood is and i had one more point maybe not right now i'll come back. >> commissioner moore. >> there's an stealing difficult and complicated subject matter he appreciate everybody's trying to be clear while i have affinity to some ideas all ideas are great some require more research the part of the neighborhood preference is highly commend work i think

we're definitely ready to embrace with with a caveat i'll support the neighborhoods geography with the boundaries from the basis of planning is indeed the 37 neighborhoods with neighborhood notification maps it's definition that feels natural and most responsive to human needs that is displacement there's a human side i strongly identify with and really the familiarity was placed was innovate exactly reminding the district boundaries with the administrative with that said, the displaced tenants preference while it is an idea i think just based on testimony here today might not be quite ready because i think what i look for is it

the state which are the 17 organizations that have helped define much of how the housing policy in working groups over and over the entire history of what is in front of us should have been more involved and should be supported in order for me with less i think depth knowledge have to be sitting and voting against what they're asking us to do there are issues about adding further concentration and pitching people against each other because we need to find it in a timeline when the need occurs but having people step that in front of others is not necessary as simple as putting other people in front of others in other words, to make the line longer i look for additional

tools as commissioner wu said there maybe local tools that are visual last week with owner move in in a situation in front of the of that commission i'll support what commissioner richards proposed to split the legislation into two pieces and take two votes or to recommendations hi of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a i planning department staff i think about splitting the files one thing i'll note only the board of supervisors can split the file if you the president to have further dialogue my suggestion to continue the item we have submitted an extension legislation extension until i believe up to october 28th to

hear it again. >> other alternative to recommend that the board of supervisors split the file. >> okay can i just add took him deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles that will pass this legislation out of commission and from the board doesn't split the file you'll not have an opportunity to reduce it if you continue it you will have dialogue on both aspects is that clear and helpful thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> okay. so given that i move to continue the item to october 28th whenever that. >> commissioner richards october 29th meeting has been cancelled there is nothing how about the 22. >> the recommendation the commission should make i think

on the first thing where we are centered around the neighborhood preference and a grander approach i think others second one i echo commissioner moore's thoughts those are not theoretical discussions they're affecting people lives everyday the faster we move the better we need to sit down in the number of weeks and get feedback and come up small business someone what post a discussion around the second set of preferences for displaced people should look given the fact they seem to go together but different levels of intervention so i ask the planning department to hold that with the groups in a couple of weeks you know it will be absent tight but we've only got three weeks to go that's my motion. >> second. >> what's that. >> what is the motion.

>> to continue the item. >> to october 22nd understanding that it seems like we have item one pretty much agreed it, it is really item 2 we're looking for a little bit more clarity on the planning department hosting the meeting to get the 22 city officials to come up with a list we may not agree but. >> commissioners i'm advise on october 22nd i've closed that hearing because we're having a joint hearing with the health commission and a number of other items on the it 2 just want to brought to your attention not suggesting not to but the times given we have to reveal. >> we have a hard stop on october 28th. >> family october 28th the 90 days is up?

>> can we get an extension. >> susan cleveland-knowles and passed the review times overflow room that would expire this week you have an additional two weeks so it works in that timeframe. >> not later than that. >> i'll defer to the staff it is too fast. >> could you do it by the 15 and your having a joint hearing with the rec and park it will be long i want to point out we're in san francisco lengthy hearing. >> the 22. >> yes. >> was there a second. >> there was a second from commissioner wu. >> can i bring up one thing if

it is hard for us to do that maybe the commission will consider a separate meeting on this item own e okay. we'll do the 22. >> i'm not sure why were you fit it in. >> jonas would we be better off schedule it for a later date and if we need to reschedule. >> the only october 8th is the best. >> is that don't soon for you. >> it gives one week to provide you with a case report. >> don't tight; right? so the preference between october 8th and 2 it is the 22. >> my preference is october 22nd but if so too full

we'll do the 15. >> i mean, i'll not recommend. >> we could move the housing policy discussions we have control. >> on the 22 there are several items we can suggest moving. >> (laughter). this goes into that problem with the items >> let's try to motor through. >> i'll motor through the communication i'm happy to put hi thinking cap on i'll vote no, because i think suggesting to the board splitting the file and kick something back is a better onyx with the displaced peep program we need to be tarnishing high to eliminate certain types of issues by creating or endorsing for local policy that discussion is more than three weeks we'll end up with the same

discussion and have more in depth discussion but on the 22 end up in the same place to ask the board to spirit the file and not be able to come up that new. >> to continue the items to do one and two on the 22 to the board together and i understand number 2 that some thought issues we've brought up today leeds us to say in general that this policy needs to be thought more thoroughly through i think that some of the ways to address we'll not be able to get it and be in the same place we'll feel like the displaced person apprehensive is needs more work and end up in the same place to ask the board to splits the file. >> planning department staff if you need to look at this if you

agree we will continue. >> i object to that. >> city attorney. >> yeah. and i think everybody thinks this will clear our second discussion and con if at any point it it sounds like your ready to come to some agreement you can reopen that but allowing staff to prepare the draft resolution as to the portion of legislation that deals with the neighborhood preference and then wouldn't pass that into the board and the next hearing will be basically con if i said confined. >> i like it. >> are you all the time your motion. >> motion of intent to pass the recommendation for approval. >> right. >> on the neighborhood preference. >> with modifications. >> i'm expecting staff to come back with.

>> no modifications the staff have asked are included in the revised ordinance. >> we're talking about in the supervisorial district and give us list of choices. >> the neighborhoods preference recommendation he heard a few things and want to be clear about the neighborhood of intent nobody likes the supervisorial going to the 39 neighborhoods identified on the planning map is one incision another i heard was preserving the ability to look at that or combinations of neighborhoods to make the numbers work and is analysis i wasn't sure where you lands on that. >> we have to abide by fair housing i saw you didn't two different tests could it be you

run the tests on the 39 and see how that comes out is that overly burdensome. >> the mayor's office of housing recommends if you go with such small neighborhoods in their not very many people of a certain ami in those neighbors they're very small categories of people so they're for a number of reasons including fair housing you may want the discretion within the legislation with the mohcd or other bodies to expand the number of neighborhoods eligible for the preference for a lottery or certain projects so it wouldn't just be the one neighborhood. >> yeah. i think if i may i think that is staffs recommendations if you want to go to a smaller geography but

our recommendation to add depreciation. >> e discretion. >> start coyotes smaller neighborhoods and until it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'll support the continuance i was okay with the as present to be honest i would have put the ellis he higher than the displaced and the preferences but you know, i think not what is not before us and this is improving the city's ability to slow down the displacements or evictions i mean, that's an important issue but not part of this legislation whatever advertise it is there are only so many units and more people than units it it all about who is getting preference

this we've talked to taebt. >> people are i'm should have the same rights as ellis this is a simpler to do than the neighborhood preference it gets into the complicates that commissioner johnson talked about there are people a calling that have displaced it is kind of a one thing to grant not an eviction control but we should strengthen eviction control but people o m ied we can get them on a list i don't know we're not adding percentage this is simpler which is very complicated to do especially with our organizations and lists i'm not sure where the recommendation he will go the option way.

>> commissioner. >> split the fill but we'll deal with the implementations. >> people are displaced you get a higher preference than peep in the neighborhood supervisor bedrosian brought of up that resonated with me i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> i know the point we want the analysis just adding o m i is simpler than fire and i am not ready i don't think the analysis has been done. >> commissioner wu. >> if you have more. >> commissioner johnson. >> one other thing real quick a motion on that table we've added the modifications and staff is

looking at neighbors as designed by the planning department and some sort of expression to add in multi units you know multiple districts into one lottery the only thing i'll say i'd like to add the draft policies roadway is the number of draft policies how you have to market rate housing i'd like to have you add that it is clear how people going gets on the list and then just real quick do we never mind i'm done talking. >> commissioner richards oar one other point the 5m last week someone was in the tenderloin a

quarter of a mile from 5 m have the department do logical boundaries i know the buena vista includes the hates so you folks figure out what neighborhoods are neighborhoods. >> those boundaries are established i think what you're saying to look at logical in terms of what neighborhoods are addressed. >> right. >> commissioner moore. >> do we get a map of how the boundaries fall in planning there is a science is creates a quarter radius over a neighborhood a half-mile dynamic and physical tools to have the

influence of one neighborhood to joining neighborhood and how their - the medics of the definition of how does the allocation of affordable housing go beyond the physical definition as expressed in the neighborhoods can be reasonably expanded to identify a larger adjourning district. >> right i think just to be clear the neighborhood map wear talking about the 37 or 39 i think that is 39 their established their neighborhood boundaries i think what we are saying if you're in neighborhoods 32 you could add 333 or 34 and be part of the list at our discretion does that make sense. >> yeah. we'll get you the map.

>> we have run the numbers on was 39 neighbors they didn't pass the fair housing analysis so we know this already some neighborhoods do better than others we started with a an ambitious goal and brought it back down we want to be fair housing stock compliant i don't disagree with the idea it is good to be ambitious and that we should pursue what communities want we've heard more so i do understand that and even agree with that but also 80 want to let the commission know in the past year we've worked hud to convince them even our rental assistance projects which are rehabilitating and housing

people in the buildings they already live is not a fair housing violations because those neighborhoods had not diverse so the idea that hud won't take action against us is not something that not an idea i would take lightly we have a tremendous or tremendous amount of fund coming from hud and don't want that in jeopardy this issue is not uncomplicated and maybe a broader geography smaller than the districts but bigger the neighborhoods works and do our best to find that sweet spot we have had run this quiet and starting with the neighborhood that's our original goal. >> commissioner hillis and i just want to clarify what's the

motion. >> continue. >> (laughter). >> just continue. >> no, no a resolution to adapt. >> we centered on item number one with the neighborhood preferences but have to come back with something that maybe between the neighborhood and the supervisor district. >> it sounds like you're suggesting a smaller geography than supervisorial district but learn the 39 neighborhoods something that pass muster that's the motion an intent to approve that part of legislation and continue the second part ask staff it hold the meeting for the stakeholder. >> why can't we ask them to hold that meeting interim. >> we're asking between now and then is where he a fully baked cake. >> that is including the

displaced person. >> i don't want to try to do this in commission. >> put it on the back burner. >> i don't see why separating not a clear depiction of the motion of intent is adopting a recommendation there are certificate of preference. >> i amend my motion to continue to october 2nd. >> there's a motion to continue this matter until october 22nd marry commissioner antonini marry commissioner hillis commissioner johnson snow is commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes pals 6 to one is commissioner johnson voting againstals 6 to one is commissioner johnson voting againls 6 to one is

commissioner johnson voting agains 6 to one is commissioner johnson voting again 6 to one is commissioner johnson voting against6 to one is commissioner johnson voting again against. >> shall we move on. >> commissioners that's on case 14 proposed commission sports interim controls related to the commission action plan 2020 i was going to suggest because there was a request for an interpreter to allow the public comment for interpretation to occur by your interpreter had to leave ass 5 o'clock i apologize to the people we didn't expect this matter to be called this la

>> good afternoon, commissioners claude i didn't department staff. >> this is a presentation to go over the rice interim controls that are in front of you for possible action and then give you an action plan update and go over brief next steps so you initiated the interim controls and all seen this slide a few times before i'll not read it but provide it for background the proposed interim controls is still the same the blue line on the map or the smaller groerm and as reminder the interim policy covers the red line on the map

the original controls that were drafted on apply to pipeline after january 1st an 2015 only sxachd 2 projects and 58 units wlooi while there was an action of the issue of displacements in the missions that were concerns with the original proposal the most important or the key concerns that the original proposals would have limit impacts and meaningful acknowledge in it captured more projects in the pipeline we heard there was changes to the pipeline and looking at size thresholds based on past or meaningful thresholds we're asking the cocktails be as simplified and any studies be as clear soap we believe the revised proposal addressed 4 key issues on this slide those are

the biggest changes the most significant changes we've made to the proposal the application of the control of pipeline was discussed among you but no broad agreement so staff proposes no grairt date or within the piecemeal we've also modified this to increase from 6 to 9 months now we're including the whole piecemeal and increasing the length we ask the extension of the projects that meet the promotions to the prop c goals r are 33 percent in order to challenge the affordability goals there were other smaller changes and under the loss of rent-controlled unit the original resolution require the replacement which a loss of rental units require a

replacement with rent-controlled units we changed that to a consideration we couldn't have it as a requirement not a non-consideration but further considerations with the city attorney and realized you can acquire not rent-controlled units but that's not in our resolution you can add that or have that as a separate item if you want a large discussion we want to craft the language for that specifically what you're asking but we have clarified the issue right now only a consideration to replace rent-controlled units as far as the thresholds we tried to simply it or if i it there was a lot of accept this and that but we just if you're 25 thousand square feet or more and the project involves an additional or change of use or

removing certain uses your subject to the additional use it? the code it is what triggers the code in the eastern neighborhoods and a project that is less than that the intrrmz the conditional use will only be interested if you're not replacing a displaced person we added a depiction for a tenant displacement as far as the required study we looked at two studies in highlighted specific finding the prong would have to do so that would be more clear what the study requirements that projects we looked at the controllers study we did additional research

and another study uc berkley through the center that talks about urban displacement and a case study in the mission we looked at the research and pulled out those specific finding and so projects uses those studies and get their firm to do that one of the last year and specific to san francisco the specific fshtd we saw the other studies were analyzing the demographic changes and total production affordable housing production as well housing preservation and those are for projects that are producing housing or removing displacement of housing or tenants and then for projects that are demolishing or changing the use

of assembly recreation are entertainment or institutional uses they would have to do a additional study that is related to jobs and non-residential displacement but first, we will look at we'll ask them to discuss whether the commercial tenants are being displaced if they are if they're being provided are relocation benefits according to the relocation act. >> if they're being not relocating the non-residential use they have to do additional finding jokes and economic profile they have to look at available space in the mission for the space that is being demolished and that kind of

space available in the neighborhood they are to look at the affordability and we use the term community building they have a definition for the neighborhood uses it is well defined something that not designed includes things like childcare's and about community uses and also discussing non-residential displacement as far as the study ross are the basic changes to the interim controls since you last saw them you have asked for an update on the mission action plan 2020 i'll give you a brief update the last one we've been working with the brrld set of organization and the long term

permanent solutions to the hockey's and the displacements problems in the mission i want to especially recognize the staff for working on long term solutions and providing the services to the residents and families the nonprofit and art that are struggling with displacement but also acknowledge them for starting us on this collaborative process as a reminders this the goal of the mission action plan when we talk about the lower-income we're talking about working class families and seniors and people with disabilities we're talking about the local businesses in the communities based organization that serve those households the artists and culture institution and first responders and teachers and social workers this is what we need and why the focus is on low and mirrored

residents last time we talked about the solution in those areas everything every everything from protection to job program so in the last month and a half to two months we've formed the you know what i mean a tenant and housing and preservation working group and economic development that is small businesses and pdrs and nonprofit it is broad and established monthly meeting and started to meet with other groups on a regular basis to make sure we include others not part of the process and present to spur and sf and have a plan for the outreach to other groups we've not been to reach out to we hope to have more drafts to workshop up you and have started to have the larger community meetings in november and in january and a draft final plan

in early winter. >> so those are the some of the solution egging merging for consideration as well as for the study in housing small sized program and the rehab program are very important pot community you've heard earlier if deputy city attorney hartley that those programs right now are no funding it is important to how to make sure they it remains a viable and well funded program the acquisition we're trying to identify specific sites and public sites in the neighborhood that should be more affordable housing or other nonprofit and a or things that are ideal for a hundred percent affordable housing we're cpr that is under study

tenants internal revenue service right to purchase those d.c. has legislation we're doing a little bit of research is that working in d.c. why or why not and the problems or something that can work in san francisco we're flourishing that out whether it, it is something that works we're looking at strategies for affordable housing for low income and moderate income households whether a bonus or up zone we're still looking at for what that is exactly then something that seems a priority other changes either to legislation or to guidelines in either there was a lot of conversation will the wait list and the application process to improve housing access to make sure that people are clear how to assess the affordable units

and to promote family and childcare units it are there guidelines to other things that can be made under economic development we've been working closely that the office of economic workforce development and we're looking our pdr zoning and enforcement how to strengthen that the zone is working how to make sure that the rules are being followed where we're cpr the zoning changes we can make to obtain the affordable spaces artists performance is tricky no expertise we started to cocking talk what the artists community and brainstorming we are exist exists to understand and the reason why it is challenging artists have sometimes not businesses and not nonprofits so their it is really hard to capture they're not necessarily

beginning the code leave instances but we're excited to be tackling this on or about issue and the other ones are ongoing and continue to make sure they move forward as far as next steps if you move to adopt interim control staff recommendation is to do so with the modifications and as a reminder have both the policy on august 6th and the controls in place and have them reinforce each other as director ram stayed in the past interim controls are not we'll continue to work on the long term solution and fourthly ways to have innovative solutions to the country that concludes my presentation.

if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> open up for public comment two cards tommy and tony rob less. >> hello, again from housing rights committee we really appreciate the efforts of that commission to come up with the interim controls we're glad that your listening to us you've heard the cry of the mission for some relief in the commissioner president makras that's destroying the neighborhoods one thousand people to city hall on may 8th and another hundred on june 2nd forced everyone in the building to listening listen to us our neighborhood is being devastated and people are being evicted and

8 thousand latino families are displaced in the neighborhood within the last 10 years and people are displaced everyday and the people moving into the neighborhood have higher income than the people pushed out this is creating a totally different neighborhood and valencia street 5 years ago and walked down valencia street understands what is happening a stark contrast and but the reality is with that said, happy your listening we don't feel those interim controls are strong enough this is b the billion they're not strong enough we wanted a pause we want the development to stop a period of time we want a period of time in which the activist from the mission and the nonprofit housing developers

and the mayor's office of housing and can sit and come up with a plan how we're going to deal with this we don't feel those interim controls will go far enough which to produce hundred percent affordable housing for a period of time and stop the market rate development we need 24 to 3 thousand units to meet the need in the mission the only way that will happen by taking this pause and couple of with a plan there is no plan right now i want to say we appreciate our effort but want to push you and you to push to make those stronger and to make a plan for something that is really going to change that is happening in our neighborhood and save the mission thank you. >> is there any additional public comment come on up.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i think most of i remind me i'm john sxhaurts in sf bart a federation i want to flashback in time to the last time the committee heard this i think that everybody probably remembers we were one reason to continue to wait for ted egons report on the effect of pause for more turn on housing in mission i think there are things that in the meantime are important that meta and the mission started projects so we've made progress at least one of those happened since the last meeting i also want to bring up the elephant in the room in one month anything you decide today could be supercedes and it

creates confusion in which those things over laptop and things that seem good the groups that started this process by talking to the planning department did not follow in good faith they put a ballot measure they want it to be stronger so anything any compromise that is made today been forcefully and eir revoking ruined we believe we should discontinue this until after and kill it there was something i didn't understand that was one of the slides saying that nothing will be controlled if it is under 25 thousand square feet and i know you canned answer i'm asking this out loud and under 25 thousand square feet and none is evicted for instance, on pdrs land might not be controlled and

another thing that was it also of the or right of she said that projects were 33 percent affordable will not be controlled and there is other vague mention the density bonuses and how that overlaps to you where we will think we should wait until after november to figure out this and most people in my groupthink as well thank you. >> >> is there any public comment. >> if you want to speak on this item line up here. >> i'm a land use attorney and a number of clients in the mission district on page 13 the proposed controls in our resolution and that is the interim controls into through a number of considerations with the commission take into

consideration with the land use hearing and references the controllers report and references uc berkley report on page 13 indicates in order to do that project applicant need to hire independent professionals it seems overkill you've got those studies and the controllers and uc and the data the applicants can provides on behalf of one client we've tried to fund independent professional to carry out those consultant and we've been turned down we don't do this we don't have the means it is too vague to do the independent studies on the fear to hire economist you're doing paperwork this is money down the

drain for things self-of the you have data and the controllers report, etc. but the applicant can put together the information you cancer in our conditional use hearing for the controls going forward didn't seem necessary for the independent professionals to do those documents for you thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay public comment is closed. >> oh. >> good afternoon good evening, commissioners shawn residential believes association i'm quite shocks i was reading staffs report an saturday and anyone's monday and tuesday indicated there was a grairt sole practitioner yesterday, i realized this was not a

grandfather progression i'll put this in context of fairness and certainty at the we need a healthy climate to provide housing imagine you went to a restaurant and someone changes the prices of the food avenue your offered it our members and the communities direction we implemented your eastern neighborhood plan and what thanks do we get we get staff that never took the time as a courtesy to notify your members that the rules were changing i noticed there was during the presentation outreach but where is our notification do you know what an impact if you're in the pipeline for 1, 2, 3 years and have the rules and come back as a conditional use this is serious stuff.

>> this is your plan we attended 44 hearings he attended every single one and those groups were here, too i'd be delighted to blow this up and continue after the election but there are serious problems florida if under recent an issue are people occur developing to get out of pdr gets this out of here and have a citywide conversation let's not do it ad hoc not neighborhood by neighborhood there's a pdr loss provision in here which one of those sites were not formally industrial land pdrs on every single one of those are we kidding ourselves every single one is going to have a component of an industrial a use their formally

industrial sites we need a more nuance approach 25 thousand square feet at 8 launders i built a 14 unit it was 24 thousand square feet we can't have a one-size-fits-all i haven't here one not displaced and evicted by any of this so it at least the big question what are we don't go here who's going to be helped who will benefit what's the rush? this is not rights now if we can make it right a different story but this is important stuff thank you >> good afternoon and thank you

for commissioner we'd like 0 appreciate what the staff is doing and the commissioners but i think from the fritter the interim control we are asked for something that was good for our community i on the interim control we are asking a long time agree kwhurp talking about that this is not enough for us now we are in the middle the campaign to have a house we've had a slow down process and we will continue to come here to spot stop the project and we need accident interim controls we appreciate commissioner moore and commissioner cindy to be listening to the communities and voting with the community but we

don't think this is something the community wants right now we are focusing in the proposition i and think just keeping those moving and deciding about it creating a lot of distraction and distrust with the communities there have been involved in the mission plan because we don't understand what is the logic to keep this in interim control and we appreciate the work but the community doesn't need interim controls we would like to have to long term solution for the neighborhood. >> oscar still here? is there any additional public comment okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini and yeah. i agree with a lot of the things the gentleman said but i do agree that we should move forward with some controls if

possible if they can be in the right form i was in favor the policies and still am if we can formulate those in the right manner with fairness and not slowing up projects that looking at ted eagle these reporter market rate housing lowers not raise the values or nearby properties he everything in if report points to the fact we want to encourage market rate housing projects that do not displace anyone i think that the commission has done a very good job of considering issues carefully not every project is the same we have to be able to look at the merits of each project instead of being located into a into a legislation that cause size fits all staff has taken

the grairt it was alarming it was grossly unfair the projects gingko for a year or two under circumstances we told them to abide but we're changing the rules but there is a way around that have a date of today to put those controls in place but i think we're going to be fair by dividing up the projects by their sizes by a number of units we all acknowledge the impacts if big projects are much greater than the impacts from smaller projects and also larger projects have the ability to make changes bringing them into conformity so, yeah a give you a little bit of background first i'll talk

about egons and the mission district only the 15 thousand only 5 hundred are planned in the mission, in fact, it may not be less than that it was said that only 3 hundred and 69 are planned and 2 hundred and 85 are proved regardless of who is putting the numbers relative to citywide is small and a smaller number very few built in the mission we are having problems of displacement not what we're building only 7 hundred units were built in the 13 years from the year 2000 to 2013 he building maybe 2002 to 2015 but 41 percent were affordable so again for those who say wear not building affordable housing the majority were in the missions were affordable not units that can be beauty or rent by people

with larger incomes their income restricted they displace other people and buy other units we need to address by address those projects that displace rental housing units, rent-controlled unit those built only vacant sites i mean, we is don't have to have too many controls i'm proposing a smaller group one to 20 units to have a large project authorization and the rules they'll have to follow is simply if they displaced a rent-controlled unit or more than one rent-controlled unit whatever they'll have to reply o with burglar units in 10 not displaced not put that in it make sense they follow that rule and like to suggest we increase the amount of time for the

controls to one year instead of 9 months because i think if those are properly fairly pout together that's a fair amount of time the mission will be 2020 will be done so that's the first group not change much and the second grew up from 21 to 59 units i feel they would as all the projects will have to replace any units they eliminate but have to do a displacement study now a good point was made if there is studies in place they could certainly use those and show that their project is not detrimental by using the additional studies and quoting things from there, i feel given they're larger they'll have to do that and optimistic those will be subject to our policies i mean, we can't demand a higher

amount of affordability from those projects but we certainly could give perch to those who voluntarily decided to increase the affordability and other things we're looking for so i think that was where policies going could into place the larger group the grew up over 60 units we have to have the full controls we've been suggesting going to the conditional use process, they'll have to do, of course, the kind of replacement as all the others do but have to look at serious if fair displacing any active pdrs or r q or institutional and pay for in their relocation in a nut shell it is fair and allows the promotions with the wherewith all to make the changes their

doing as i'm hearing to privilege those in to confirmation and this leg problems that are at a later date a little bit marrow in keeping with the impacts this is kind of what i'm proposing and also i'm agree with the speaker i think that was the gentleman talked about the density if a project is 9 units and the zone will allow 11 i think that a jump to try to put this policy in here what it is what their pope proposing and one to 20 is under the same controls if their displacing somebody they have to replace the rent-controlled uni units. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much yeah. i actually agree with what a lot of commissioner antonini wanted to say i want to put in a cooperative couple of

things for today, people don't, myself actually commissioner wu as well question get our staff reports online lynn like everyone i had the same issue whether i downloads i got the report from july 23rd and wasn't agriculture to assess the recent reports anyway, i goat do late not okay and the public needs access to a the changes innovate just grairt but a capture of changes to the staff report i was two seconds sacrificing u saying i was not prepared to talk about that today the actually wag what commissioner antonini is saying i'll strengthen that not to the controls to say that certainly, if we're not to go to subject

smaller unit and mid sized projects to a ccii progress i think as as commission we need to be looking at our policies carefully and put that out there, there will be a number of intents to deny if this project don't look at carefully at policy and the environment today but overall i agree with the sentiment of not necessarily having the projects if the piecemeal going back to square one and one other quick point i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say and other changes we've not thought of there is talk of continuing after the ballot in november and if that comes up on the commission i certainly support that the only thing if i read prop you are are projects coming to us and he think whether before and after we need to move

on some sort of interim controls to have to fraction to think the projects that are coming to us and provide some sort certainty or framework for the project manager to this is why i'm okay with moving something today but waiting it is where we arrest after the ballot measure i'm supportive of that as well. >> commissioner richards and i agree with mr. schaurts i think passing anything today when the ballots go out in 6 weeks this will have an effect is an exercise in futility, i.e., recommend we come back and determine whether or not something like that is needed that will cause confusion and

let the voters decide. >> commissioner just to thoughts to that to be honest i don't understand the communities interest in not being involved if the conversation we're back to where we are with nothing in hand and it schmooze seems to me to pass the interim controls and from the ballot didn't pass in the advisory committee of 2020 plan hopefully i'm just a little bit confused why the community doesn't want to engage in a conversation about interim control. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm interested in both sides of discussion i find commissioner johnson comment interesting but i do believe in responded to what what was a

said we've done a lot of substantive work that needs future massing but can sit son the shelf for is another couple of weeks we have only one project in between and the november date that subject to the interim controls i'll take it on i take it own i believe that the mission action plan 80 together with the really broad discussion we had on almost all the aspects is i'm a little bit disappointed and alarmed by what the gentleman said i have never heard him speak with so much control emotion and frustration

throughout the years baej i'm alarmed we are rushing something not pushed around for last minute approval because the devil is in the details and that's why i believe that we owe ourselves a little bit more incarnation respect summarizing when the interim controls pending so i would move that we continue to after the november date and then pick up the 12 or 19 and then do what we need to do depending on what we need to do. >> second. >> either the 12 or 19 commissioners

i don't have have the advanced calendar. >> the date works. >> i say the 19. >> second. >> okay you're going to take that vote. >> we'll speak to that. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm speaking against the continuance that was continued until november; is that correct. >> that doesn't make sense as i said before it is not an either or discretion worked well with the commission you have to look at individual projects and apply the policies and we need something in place and those who are considering the ballot measure can make a choice they can see what we've proposed if they think this is better they'll make that decision i'm not going to talk about 9 election but make an argument. the fact that putting something

out there make sense i think i've spelled out something that is fair to all considered and you know continues on the policies we've passed earlier and it did put serious controls on the larger projects or the ones that everyone speaks against they're concerned about those projects we've approved a number of smaller projects in the mission and to be in limbo didn't make sense so i'm ready to vote on this the only possible thing i'll be supportive of a week's continuance for notification reasons but not i think it is clear we've been studying this thing for quite a few years what i'm proposing and staff is proposing their simple and we know what the thing is the one thing in staff recommendations as well my motion that is going to be made if we debate the

continuance projects have been approved not subject to the controls their you know they're past the bridge >> commissioner wu. >> i can support the continues but heard from a number of different groups they throughout the continuance was helpful at this time still trying to work through what interim controls are my read the ask for an additional report the report what about considered in the cu but don't give us new tools for the cu. >> for instance, if i don't agree or like something written in the report that can't be the basis for disapproving a report

a emry rogers the intent to identify the proonlz that the community and the commission feel need to have for review and in which case we've late out the finding and our intent in language you could use it is the duty egons report and the uc berkley report or if you wanted to do your own study but not have to we view the eric's any of the mechanisms can satisfy and go through and either make the findings on demographics or comedics all those things those will be presented to you this commission hears the dialogue from the project sponsor and this communities whether you were actually understanding the impact of the project on affordability and on the neighborhoods and then after hearing that comment you'll also consider the

project at the end of the our report i'm sorry the end of interim controls on page 13 to 14 it discussed when you would do if you're considering a disapproval of a housing project in this case t you could make certainly finding you were doing so or russ the density of the housing because you have substantial evidence in the roared advertised a direct and unhave been able impact based on the written public and health safety standards relating back to the public safety or public health or conditions that effect public health under the circumstances you could disapprove the project. >> but does that the commission has that ability already without

sfwrrmz. >> you do you're not having the additional dialogue and it is. >> it is just without the benefit of the report. >> yes. >> i'm going to support of the continuance i would recommend to the director it so ask mr. flores and rogers that that have done a lot of work not to work at all on it and focus on mission 2020 a commissioner hillis. >> i think going back we've got policies my hope those interim controls just kind of codify our policies with no teeth we adapted them but not bringing projects back my hope the interim controls mimic the policy and i agree commissioner president fong we should if

there's an issue the policies basically saying weigh take into account closer at the promotions and study their demo or displaced tenants he think their simple could they be capacity from the moratorium didn't passes or whatever happens in the elections and sure but and but it is telling projects that are out there we have responses and come in for a review if you're demoing projects or existing presidio's commissioner antonini's point about the smaller projects i mean, maybe this to rise readvised instead of the 25 thousand square feet or whatever that number was or having it's all wear saying the project that either has more than 60 unions or displaces pdrs uses or

displaces a rent-controlled unit comes back for us to me that's not that complicated i see no down see to this so i could do that give it a week to talk to you know if there not been outreach to the folks in the pipeline a change to kind of get those those and see what happens i can vote on it. >> director ram. >> a couple of details i think i wanted to point out the 25 thousand square feet are projects that come to you but only a conditional review secondly, to make that simple and i mean, i feel like we're going back at a complications to be honest commissioner antonini i don't know what the proposal

is my normal rule everybody hates what we do i'm not sure that applies i'll be happy from the commission wants to continue and happy to tell ya and other folks not to work on this you hear frustration i've not slept much we tried to simplify but wait to see what happened in november commissioner richards and director ram you summarized up my thoughts thank you. >> commissioner antonini and in case the motion to continue is dpaeltdz i mean, i'll say basically, i broken the educators into 3 by a number of united i realize over 25

thousand square feet certain things apply and the commission uses anyway but regardless projects one through 20 units is large authorization and from 21 to 59 a displacement study and over 60 units have to have the full representations of staff as well as cruz regional housing summit of l.a.'s lost pdrs but all projects have to replace any displaced units with a rent-controlled units the best by having bmr less problems about you know concerns over legal challenges on that and i'm increasing the period of time for the controls to one year to make them more meeting they're not just a quick thing in place for a full year and no matter

what happens at the ballot box it is basically the sum mansion of my plan i think that is fairly simple and fair enough to let the promotions with the wherewith all to make the significant changes outline those projects are is sob elevated under the proichl of our policies any policy will be requested as to their affordability that is what it is if if is still there to vote on. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. real quick i'm going to support the continuance i know the department you guys did great work to being simple i'll tell you this if we are in a universe with the planning department and planning commission has it take over that

rule of taking control over the mission we need to think about changing the rules and something a little bit more nuance so maybe has a little bit more confusing you know that's what we have to consider skae wait until we find users in that word perhaps our policies are enough and nullify inform us to know from a no to a yes and do that with the policy right now but we'll not know that for a few more weeks. >> commissioner antonini. >> i want to know there is a motion for continuance but a shortly continuance take preference over a longer continuance. >> i don't believe we can take that in order. >> my motion if it is defeated i'll make a motion or passed for a one week continuance.

>> very good commissioners there's a motion to continue this matter to november 19th if that happens to fail or commissioner antonini will continue for one week. >> commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner hillis no commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong no that motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioner antonini commissioner hillis and commissioner president fong voting against commissioners that places us on 15 ab amendments to the general plan 425 harrison street and a did you not project authorization.

>> good afternoon commissioner planning department staff the the item before you is the downtown authorization and legislative amendment absorbed the proposed project that includes a 23 story residential twenty-four hour with units and off-street parking under the downtown authorization it is seeking modifications to the planning code requirement for a dwelling unit and twenty-four hour bulk and tower spaikz this includes the general policy under the policies of the rincon hill and to allow the modification of tower bulk and scoping for the project site in the planning code and under the

zoning map to decrease it into 564 to 45 slash r it includes this obligation of second floor industrial building that is currently used as a night club and a 23 residential story that will be 32 hundred dwelling units and retail and hundred and 3 off-street parking and 1 hundred bus bike and class two bikes it includes the mix of 9 three or four, 2 bedroom and 42 studios it includes 15 thousand square feet of open space 55 private balconies and such the below grade are avenue harrison and have the installation of a

signal lists pedestrian cross-examination with harrison as well as sidewalk widen and new street trees and corner bulb outs as a followup to the initiative the planning commission conducted a design review the project at the public hearing on june 18th and in response to the commissions response the project sponsor retook a redesign on harrison to address the concerns to better lane e and then the project to the platform that is a slender tower and reduced tower plate and overhead square footage specifically the height of the project was increased into 4 hundred 73 to 50 and the number of dwelling units under hundred and 79 down and off-street

parking to hundred 3 as part of the revised plan that was reduced if ten thousand square feet plus to 8 thousand plus within the boundaries the roefb area plan and is tower in recognition of the vision zero program the developer about conduct r conducted signal and addition pending approval if caltrans the nationalized will be along harrison street project sponsor has length the code in the section and the project sites located with the zoning district it 12 percent dedicated to the inclusionary affordable housing program and they will is a sovereignty at a rates of 15

percent and the project cantonese 2 hundred plus and the project sponsor will provide 31 affordable housing on site which will be available for rents as part of the project the pardon has entered into a basil_hawkins and is working with the city attorney's office is finalize the details of 15 percent and address the fablt offer by the project sponsor in addition the project sponsor will address the pending transportation sustainability fee and the department is requesting an amendment specifically and he passed outs copies of the preeptd 39.1 the department is requesting the addition of the findings regarding the sustainability fee that reads the city is considering implementation of a transportation sustainability fee that will apply to large

project like harrison street the board of supervisors file was introduced on july 21st, 2015, substitute legislation was introduced think july and september 2015 the prepared t s f provides the residential and pdr uses may the t s f on the transportation network including all modes of transportation and projects in the pipeline as the was discussed and possible amend it is unclear of the and i mriblt with respect to the project the commission will include some way to adjust the burden of proof that will have the transportation network this is a large project that is a burden on the transportation network and appropriate it pay some portion from the t s f is adopted the department will ask

for a addition constitutional and transportation fee that goes into effect appear to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the project sponsor will either one pay $3.87 square feet that is equal to 50 percent of the t s f to be applicable to apply with the t s if whether whatever is applicable non-pdrs will be subject 0 the fee at rates for the planning code and as well as any other applicable fees. >> after analyzing all aspects

the department staff recommends approve it is consistent with the policies of the general plan and amended the project is located in a zoning district it is permitted and the project will appraise a new upgrade and common open space and sidewalk improvements and adds hooufrts and the project will construct 31 not onsite affordable housing for rents and utilize the rincon hill and pay the impact fees the project sponsor is present and has prepared a short presentation that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you. >> project sponsor please. >> i've got a this is our letter to the supervisor kim i don't know if i have to hand that out. >> that's not it

good evening commissioners cameron senior director we're the project sponsor for harrison along with our investment partner i've call and try to ucsf's to them to provide an update and the enhancements to the project as a result of feedback from the commission at the ethics commission and the informational presentation hearing we want to thank the commissioners as well the many members of the planning department staff that helped to shape that harrison project to be a great edition to the rincon hill communities and the landscape i want to let you know as was said working in collaboration with supervisor kim and her san francisco aging & adult services commission the sponsors will increase the affordable units into 12 percent up to 1 percent as well to participate to be impacted in the transportation we request i

recommend to the board of supervisors amendments tattoos planning code amendment document to document this increase we are advised the city attorney will work with us and in the supervisors office to make the proprietary amendments before it go is to the land use commission hines prides itself on developing high quality additions we are proud of your track record in san francisco that includes 101 california and 342 and the california supreme court office in the the jp morgan chase building and harmon that started construction and the salesforce tower we believe this that will uphold the standards thank you. >> good evening commissioners

i'm are solomon we've been working on this project about highness for the last year's i'm here to give you an update where the project stands today following our first meeting on the 28 of may we heard our concerns which were the given the housing crisis we should maximize the number of units in the project we're concerned about the bulk of the project particularly the tower and this is the downtown corridors thirty how it relates to the rincon hill neighborhoods and the just a few minutes neighbors i ask we look at the graph in activating the grown wall that resulted in a concession an june 18th we came back and had a meeting e

meeting with commissioner president fong and following that meeting on june 18th a more focused meeting are commissioner moore and we got into the details and where it lies and followed up on the 28 of july with a design we talked about the solutions to address the concerns ambassador while that that was gingko we had a couple of meeting are lacey to look at this proposal adjacent to the site and as of the last meeting on august 11th we found out a solution and accommodates them what you see on the screen is a sxarn where we were with we first came to you and where we stands today as you can see primarily the reduction in bulk on those two diagrams as you can

see we're pulling away from the freeway and a desire for more units in a taller building with smaller floor plates with the height limits and then we have a series of exhibits that helps we had along the way as commissioner moore on this first exhibit first of all, the corridors on the coming off the freeway and the facades to this freeway as you can see seeing reducing the bulk opens up the corridor to downtowns that red area was reduced so as was desired here you say the massing as it relates to the original proposal the language of the

building there is also an incidentally cell reduction in the height felt p of the platform that helps increasing the heights the lobby space and putting in the used of harrison street we are looking at harrison street and the reduction in the bulk this slide is really addressing the concern the building as a single element presented to harrison street it was not in keeping with rincon hill and the requested that the towers of the mrumdz is the prominent language of the neighborhood that is provide a break distinct the tower component at the tower platform mass and here we see a slide that is showing on approach to the rincon hill neighborhoods heading east in red the building proposed on june 15th and here

it is as it stands today, this slide is about how do we address the change in scale from the top of rincon hill to the adjacent neighborhood the top of the building was designed not at all enough maybe a 2 hundred to three hundred foot range a couple of aerial shots shows the massing this is looking down on the harrison street facade and the project places the freeway showing the space between the tower and freeway ramp and i don't understand essential what it means the two exceptions in terms of towers and mass and bump one of the tower separation exemption we realized to 88 feats and the plan requires hundred and 15 that happens 248 feet an

harrison the bulk is within the acceptable bulk whether i mean to say we are working on the bulk limits and as you can see here in section of the building each the 2 hundred and 50 feet the parking is below grade and sea levels using the mechanic miss parking it is on harrison street and as you can see the bike shop and bike rooms up harrison street the ground floor the paperwork and activating harrison street the pronounced is 14 per floor the top of please state your name for the record increases the requirement for open space that has been met

by increasing the space and back at that level you'll see the large amounts of open space and the roof of the building the balance of the open space this slide summarizes the location of the open space across the project and in terms of the language and he is architecture response it has not we've changed since we came we're looking to our more industrial neighbors to sort of the brick and masonry of selma and the adjacent neighborhoods we want to apply it in a fashion of rain gene using the tunnel in more appropriate to high-rise and allows a beautiful facade and better adds quality to the building here the slide of the change on harrison street on the left the

building as it stands today, the renderings lower right shows you the streetscape along harrison street the amenities spaces and transparency facades offering light to the streets and finally as we concluded this exercise in the ends it happens quickly after so much work there is a little bit way to go we will be working with the planning on that but the marge's we're happy with the way the please approach the podium and the tower is more slender with the streetscape. >> thank you for your comments. >> thank you. >> open up for public comment. (calling names) >> okay.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i have with mia stack of petitions from the sf renters federation 60 snatches of signatures we spent in past summary looking for projects in selma that would be appropriate to advocate for a group of rerntsdz we obsoleted on this project others 5 three harrison and been studying it, it's progress and changes in the past must months we're credibly happy but 31 as well as 2 hundred and 5 rental parmentsz not luxury condominiums you've got an initiative parking and essentially bike parking for this neighborhoods more than just a bart member he work in a

building at second and harrison one block from where this project is that area is not only dangerous with there being an on ramp but beyond the business hours like the lunchtime hours the workers coming out come on out of their offices and people choose to work to the ball park the area a lacking in life i feel last week as well as many of my fellow renters if this project will revietsz this corridor and you've heard the streetscape improvement with more pedestrian improvements especially along that intersection with the off-ramp i know it will make that more enjoyable and we fully support in project and urge your support. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners

rob fool pooling with the housing action coalition thank you for the opportunity to speak we're tuning into sfgovtv and really enjoyed the presentation on the affordable housing we think that sfgovtv is doing tremendous with work we saw that original plan of 19th street h plus units one of the comments that was pretty agreed upon by all the members wow. there is more opportunities for a lot more housing it was zoned and we didn't hear a lot until this past summer the changes happened in the last few months have been positive over 20 more units the boost in affordable housing is a tremendous boost 15 percent is not that easy and this neighborhood is growing it is

evolving not designation but obviously noted save for pedestrians and i and this project helps to correct a lot of the waterfront to make it take advantage of an underutilized site not residential not a lot of people living there but over the years this neighborhood and this kind of project will be more attractive so you know has our full support i think ultimate they lowered the parking lot ratio within the guidelines so we hope you support it and approve tonight. >> hi i wanted to stay and comment on this item and add to what marcus said in general the

people in our group with we have 3 hundred people on our mailing list and 17 hundred people on our facebook page the comments i here continuing from our people why isn't that 10 or 15 stories taller we could have this housing now if we asked for that and the other thing i'd like to add in relation how can we get the occupying density bonus that applied into those projects on the fly well, they're off talking about off things in the hub a sgents bonus that increases the amount of hoosiers in the market octavia and add laugh affordable housing as part of the bargain you know how, we work more proactively to get stuff done in the in the meantime i'm glad that project

came with more units and worked out the ac transit that's a concern i didn't sign the petition but if they had a rob are the trends i'd be happy if it were 20 stories taller and more units a great ends solution that's all thanks. >> is there any additional public comment. >> good afternoon danny of office of supervisor kim's minded to let you know we're proud that the agreement has been reached is hines as you may know there was a tower expectation that was riders the tower extension sat a at the core the rincon hill the tower was possible and code compliant and none of us wanted to have a

20 foot tall tower thanks for the consideration this is a good fit and your office is happy to endorse that with the 15 percent all the evidence and the sponsor as commented to the pipeline requirements in the current form of the legislation as well we on the much needed pedestrian at corner of fulsome the sponsors will make this a much safer pedestrian requirement rich said it well the ask to build into the recommendation to do so the experience work with our office and is city attorney to protective lit watt the obvious of a da for the terms of the project that has been agreed on

i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. that is another project that has improved as it went along and like the changes that are made and increase the number of units and the taller building and the sculpt and the snavl the crosswalks and is onsite affordable units higher than required percentage so all the right things and i think that it will ends up being an attractive building i'm partial to 460 mission it was pointed out auto at the historic preservation commission meeting and i'm also like 101 california and hope to like the salesforce tower i'm anxious to see that come out of the of the grandson

i'll continue to be careful with the colors on the outside you want to make it interesting but not which i am sal california it is stately looking it is residential would be good still interesting so i'm going to we have other commissioners that will move approval i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner richards i like the project e involved over time and the project sponsor and the commissioner moore for actually putting something forward in terms of taller it is more eloquent and fitting with the plan as a result of the slimming sf bart i do more a better design i use toronto as my whipping child's that would be an ugly please approach the podium making

brutal the street this is more units go together i really like the project i'm happy to support that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'm going to end with a motion to support but i just a couple of quick things to 70 bart man thank you for staying of this tower were 4 hundred feet you probably wouldn't have gotten that more unions it would be a slender more slenderize skinnier tower you can finesse with a different block with that said i appreciate working with commissioner moore and supervisor kim's and the project sponsor it looks great i'll make one more plug. having targeted development agreement to implement the city to implement those itch more frequently if we had the agreements we wouldn't video had

so many last minute changes i'm happy the supervisors of supervisors office is making the changes but frankly the agreement right in the beginning but finally just real quick i like whimsical colors and the other thing i appreciate the streetscape changes you maintained there but the transbay had a number of changes on fulsome but not as much on harrison i'm glad this take the opportunity to make that more welcoming and more people walking around and not just driving their cars or uber's or helicopters whatever they do overwhelming to make a motion to approve with conditions >> oh, what are those ffshtd. >> one was is a finding and

workplace a condition. >> just so a point of clarification an ad a finding for the thirty 9 point one and in favor an amendment to the legislative your recommendation for the regular testify amendment other than the planning code you want to make sure you cite that. >> i gladly support the motion. >> is that a second commissioner moore. >> yes. >> before you call the motion thank you to the project sponsor inform meeting with me and pulling back from the freeway and finding solutions to go skinner not taller thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'll say a couple of comments the discussion was kifkd by dwam director ram there's a joining of clear minds

including a developer and architect that rows to the champ to reduce it and as core and that's the resilient and well formatted call for the plan and it is particularly the supports of staff that it is from jeff and others that came to a meeting together with the director we challenged the project to the core that wasn't easy in the beginning particularly if i see a smile from one cultures of how we discuss building and he think we all came to conclude that the mandate and policies for the rincon hill plan are indeed what we need to carefully consider which designing this project all and all dot all the i's and cross the t's in response to the follow-up is responsible and

thought fell i'm very happy to have been part of the discussion and very glad to support the project that is not as much about height but about creativity determination of how this particular building fits into the context in which it is the whole area a con south side of it is a great match i'm really happy to see the response to the bills that address the larger you've been with a few corridors in clearly see the identifiable downtown. >> there's a motion to approve that matter that conditions both the amendment and the downtowns project authorization. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis excuse me. commissioner johnson commissioner moore. >> commissioner johnck's commissioner wu commissioner president fong so

moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero that placed you on item 16. >> jonas the commission will take a break here. >> stretch my -

>> at 399 a conditional use authorizati authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission that the planning department staff that is this is a request for as skwufgs from one formula retail to another it was previously operated by valley total fitness and a twenty-four hours good morning. it is located with the the ocean view shopping center the neighborhood rezoning it includes the change from valleys juice bar to a twenty-four hour hour fitness are if the court please it closed down new signs with with the confusion the

planning planning commission is considered to look at the following criteria with the conditional review understanding the exit concentration of frurlz and the similar arguments and 3 the capability of the frurlt with the district architecture character and is existing first and foremost and the daily needs regarding the concentration within the ocean view shopping center four other uses total of 5 formulating out of the 11 retail fronts four to five percent the other retails are chase bank and subway and extreme pz&e regarding it is mapped as a cabinet in the commissioners packet showing no vary used within a three hundred

foot radius with the overheads i'll show you that map the in the matter gym is one that 2 millions daily center within the in the matter is the twenty-four hours fitness at 1850 ocean avenue and regarding the capability is what he believe with the aesthetic character no exterior entertainment commission proposed, however, the department worked with the signage for berries signage the shopping has four vacant storefronts with the thirty percent vacant if we analyze the vacant usable space the stool pigeon the vacant rate is 59 that he is of the thought vacancies are large tenants lake

the former albertsons and walgreens not received me letters of support or opposition with that said, the project is on balance and necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood for one this auto oriented shopping center has as high concentration of retail by the frontage dedicated to formula retail use will not increase as a result and two the project will activate a large tenant space within a shopping center center with a high vacant rate and allows twenty-four hour fit fines to for a gym in use since 2002, the employees will work and most are local residents the department recommendations you approve with

conditions this that concludes my presentation. and i'm available to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> a 10 minute presentation. >> if i need it good evening reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor i'll be brief i know it is getting late the staff well covered the issues as i heard the continuous the valley is twenty-four hour fitness and a continuation of the operation negative declaration a area with a lot of formulating f first story vacancy and people are realignment on having a gym and definitely supportive of the continuation and want to see it continue i have todd who is the gym manager of the location if you have any questions for him and other than that i'll answer

any questions. >> we'll take public comment first any public comment? okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner moore this commission has always been supportive in formula retail and like replacement in a space that is already a gym i don't think that was a big issue inform not see the place i've see it is beneficial to our neighborhood that had thirteen years to find another one of make up for the retention of employees he move to approve >> second. >> commissioner clinch. >> yeah. i'm in favor i live a couple of miles away in center is a little bit isolated but lots of residents and it is a little bit of a distance not

only in terms of million dollars but freeways i have to get around to get there. >> there is a motion and a second to approve that matter (microphone feedback) sorry to that are conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president fong excuse me. chair commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 17 at 1981 sutter street a conditional use authorization. >> commissioner. i another new planner that is wayne wayne

joined the department if january of this year for the northwest quadrant he served as the santa fe self-south san francisco he owns a va and inner studies from planning state of where his course work within focused on sustainability. >> all right. thank you detector and good evening commissioners wayne planning department staff before i begin any presentation i'm to distribute to the commissioners 3 conditions of approval aim recommending be at to the draft motion those are standard and inadvertently not included commitment draft motion those are for noise control thank you - one siege that encourages the planners to be respect and to appoint a committee liaison. >> this until the time you is a

request for conditional use authorization to establish a approximately, one thousand plus fourlt on the commercial trait distinct fillmore and webster the accosting certifying is vacant and the last use was a retail grocery store it is an institutional arts studio and considered formula retail use there are one hundreds hundred locations hufr this is the fierce in san francisco no interior alterations are proposed except new signage for article 6 and the nicaraguan bar uses are permit within the financial nc t 95 commercial storefront 21 w are storefront

this amazes to a concentration of 22 percent of storefronts or approximately thirty percent of total commercial street frontage the introduction of the pta let will increase the although the planning department has not received public comment a total of 5 members of the public has voiced opposition four by e-mail and provided for the commissioners considers those are recommended to sell alcohol and the playing of loud musk the planning commission has outreached to the public and 3 conditions of the approval recommended at the beginning about further insure the proposed use will not have an

inverse use this is meet all applicable issues and is compatible with the fillmore district it occupies a site vacant for two years and only increase the concentration and street footage on the street that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> good evening thanks for having me, i'm the owner of the pat even though franchisee a resident of san francisco for 025 years i live at franklin and jackson so i'm concerned with keeping the district stribt of that neighborhood what is our mission we trying to bring art to the city it is a fun entertaining night

jefferson speaking we run from 6 to 8 or 7 to 10 and no alcohol served before or after with a 42, of course, no byob so this shouldn't be of concern either and then also i see none under the age of 21 will enter the premises and we make the point of ushering own out at 10 o'clock as far as community february not only nationally sponsored charities but work with nonprofits that's a from way of assisting the market and giving back it the community if so a big focus of the business

as far as supporting the local economy going to the restaurants and bars under that area we hope to bring people in this is the first paint studio, if you will, in san francisco with my franchisee agreement he have the city locked up and no one else can come in we've b be doing marketing aaron social media that creates a buzz for the area generally speaking the layout i can only get thirty folks not 60 folks so that will pretty much element eliminate no byob and it end and 10 and the music is turned adopt and people have to get out of there that's all i have thank you. >> thank you.

>> any public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini and yeah. it sounds like a good project inch familiar with the area not too far from the houses a nice little neighborhood and sound like they've added conditions of approval that should address any of the concerns of those who contacted the planning department about possible noise control and soumentdz it is going to be fairly controlled situation peep are trying to paint the wine is incidental to the wine i'm in favor of approval with conditions. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson

commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes announcing 6 to zero and places you on items 18 ab as well as items 19 ash for case numbers intuitively 21 cu a and v and 2013 cu ab for 22 and 24 order courts previously discretionary reviews that were modified to conditional uses as a result of interim controls you'll cancer the conditional uses the zoning administrator's will consider the variances please - >> please note that was brought from the police station as a public discretionary review and continues to february 2015 may

2015 and june 25th, 2015, and august 2015 after the item was continued the interim controls railroad established in march of 2015 requiring the conditional use authorization as proposed jonas just to be clear kwhaepd to golf street. >> to what. >> number 18. >> i'm sorry we'll be hearing that under the discretionary review calendar. >> oh, those were the wrong - and i apologize commissioner moore you - >> i have a question to the zoning administrator this item is listed as two separate projects because they're mixed can say we hear them together. >> i called them together for that. >> - a. >> it is one large project. >> thank you very much.

>> good evening commissioner president fong and members of the commission the the item before you is 9 conditional use authorization to speed the lot to increase the square footage to succeed more than 3 thousand feet and hundred to increase the zoning administrator sdrrmz the project as the secretary mentioned the public initiated the question for the discretionary review for 2 permits an order court and 8 hundred vertical and horizon of the existing sfrmz and the new construction of a two-story family unit the third building permit propose the new construction of a sfwnlz an order curt with no proposal for the existing building at the moment the projects are were heard 2014

and continued to february 2015 at the hearing the planning commission made the request to reduce the new construction and rear the construction site including the removal of third-story and the architecture design and the parking between the two proposed new improvements at the hearing of the lost of street trees at the rear of the court was race dpw issued a removal, however, it was appealed and has for the been issued at the time of the december 4th hearing and february 2012 of 12 the planning commission heard that and the project manager had changes that included much of what the

commission asked for the removal of garage and greater dlaechgs distinct 0 two proposed building after public comment testimony they voted to continue it to march with two option to mutual the trees and further differentiate the building with the new construction onion order court on march 9 the board of supervisors passed the interim legislation with the controls our the geographic areas in which the projects are located they asked for a continuance to continue the design and the surveillance for the rear yard all the cu will plan that over after the commissioners dliebz

order court includes to building with two below grade levels and it was recorded 31 hundred square feet and includes the setback of 6 feet from the rear property line a rear yard to approximately 7 hundred and three perris of block coverage rudiment in 70 percent or 15 percent beyond the thresholds obligation the proposed structure an order court is 24 thousand u hundred square feet with the setback of 12 foot 3 inches from the property line and preserved the two mutual trees there is also a rear yard 25 percent block coverage of 64

percent or 9 percent beyond the threshold the interim controls required the commission only grant the conditional use authorization luger the 50 percent lot coverage that makes that infeasible without spending the lot coverage and there is an exist building on the opposite does it would be infeasible to add it and the interim controls sdrelg controls a definition of i am practical or innovate easily assessable as described under greater detail by the project sponsor as well as an opening statements that didn't exceed percent of the square footage and the creation of you think usually open space due to

the significant slope the two properties to date 8 letters opposing and other letters the letters of opposition expressed the desire to have the interim controls i have the letters in hard companies if anyone want to review them i have revised the motion about corrections regarding appeals and any person may appeal to the conditional use authorization to the board of supervisors rather than the boards appeal indicated in the motions that were pushed jonas if you don't mind the departments recommends the approval for the following reasons it meets the criteria and does not result in the loss of any dwelling unit and not a net gain and no tenants are

being displaced and no capacity to the street and the arts zoning control allows a maximum of two dwelling units lot that recently more than currently now that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you dr requester please project sponsor please. >> thank you and good evening. i'm allen murphy on behalf of the property owner first goes over the to show the history a little bit visually so you'll see the changes to the project and the initial application preapplication hearing in october of 2013

so first in objectivity of 2013 as you can see those are the two structures on state street the rear of the property here those were third floor and second-story not differentiated from each this was an original presentation the preapp meeting computed included the renovated expansion of the court next as you can see in by the variance hearing there was response to the neighborhood concerns a reduction in one of the building down to 2 serious stories the other than was that stories and at commission in 20159 other building was recused in response to concerns the project team heard from the

commission and then finally we get to the current proposal the renderings showing two buildings with the presentation of who mature cypresses trees and the project team has come up with an initiative plan signed off by and arborist to protects so those with a setbacks 2 it order court that is the home that protects the trees has a 12 foot setback and recused the skoormg as you can see open slide perhaps hard it is a suspected driveway and walkway it is a initiative project and it protects the trees and we worked with the oovrt arborist to have

a protection plan that>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> comfortable with and hope to preserve those trees that's the structural kind of basis for that plan here this is 22 order court now a 6 foot setba on this property to representative the 12 foot on 24 order court rear and aized footprint and 22 order front no changes the total expansion is only 8 hundred and 24 square feet a might have to provision finally the court is not part of the project no plans whatsoever to expand this beyond the envelope that slide is not updated mr. tilly chang wants to

only probably do minor interior alteration there were elderly tenants living there they've passed and they not given up possession before you, you soon after he gets position will go and maybe interior modifications not structural not part of this project not able to see inside the house but wanted to represent it to some young people that need affordable housing we'll have have more to say if you have questions moving to outreach there is neighborhood involvement into october 2013 a number of responses for frankly have been concerns we've heard over time and at first, the real focus on views over time reduced 3 stories to 2 to trial to accommodate those concerns as

you may know true preservation was a concern we've added there initiative work and now a movement among neighbors to actually not have development on state street or limit development on state street to what we've seen in recognition to a chiu's we've done to go out to the neighborhood radius and do a real compass we have a good half of people unavailable on the pie chart 23 percent of people stored or supported the project or neutral or positive not jumping up and down in support at a hearing but 20 percent were neutral and counted 14 percent opposed so we can say safely the neighborhood is split you'll hear from a number of

people that are opposed but a difference of opinion as a result of the offer outreach in the community over the last few months additional outreach one with the land use commission and the neighborhood association one with a representative the corona heights and with the discretionary review applicant group we provided the commission yesterday as tina mentioned letters of support and a packet available in hardcopy and as tina mentions they're available and finally i'd like to talk about where we are now and the most recently question we received in neighborhoods to come up with a project not needing discretionary review that mass both the 24 frontage

as opposed to to the street footage and this relates to the conditional use requirements require that the commission find that if it is going to grant approval for greater than 45 percent lot coverage i need the lot infeasible without exceeding 45 percent coverage so tina mentioned one definition of feasible and one a synonyms for being used or dealt with successfully and merry yes, i am weber stare is likeable which people hear infeasible under noting no probability can it happen but the dictionary says it has to be suitable and reasonable that means infeasible

is not likely or suitable this is important to keep that frafrmd would the commission want to prove brave those under keeping with the city's policies getting into the percent lot coverage it is simply infeasible e feasible to add the unit without studying 55 lot coverage very significant sloping as you can see this is a steeply slope to develop any usually square footage they're lost the square footage if up and down state street down to lower levels a lot of square footage is lost you end up with a house that takes up more of the lot that repeating really is the prime reason it is infeasible to

develop a smaller footprint and in addition the exist single-family units coffer the significant square footage the lot you're not dealing of dealing dealing with that much square footage you'll see from this diagram this show you the highlights a large number of multi proopts are rh2 or rh3 developed with dwelling units based on a quick survey is clearly above 55 percent lot coverage there are we didn't have time to identify those but as you can see a large number of these actually are already developed in over percent lots finally another request pie fables to mask two units that is infeasible and we did a whole studies of american people

alternative that would do just that it showed from a shadow study an entire study this shadow study is is from 6:50 a.m. substantial blockage of light and shadowing other than the building on the become left savior shadows up to the property line that has few windows for the units they've developed on this frontage would that cast shadow and eliminate open space on the middle of those lots on both parcels it is infeasible to develop i'll be happy to talk about that more later. >> okay opening it up for

public comment. >> good evening commissioners i'm chris parks i would say in the neighborhood for nearly 10 years you must be tired of this project therefore attempted to approve anything you've spend o spent so much time we're suffering like you, we have full-time jobs and other purities but have felt time and energy and thought we've invested over years for decades into care of for the neighborhood that is open space and small-scale and we work hard to see this project was incorporated into the new

sgrrment legislation for two develops were written by us are for project in from the property project is approved no point in the sdprrmz so we ask you to project to look at this project under the standards of legislation to save the open space in our neighborhood an august 12th we met what was a fair compromise given the requirements of new legislation the fact the new legislation specific applies to pipeline projects and findings of harding park and the simple fact it was a process before the new legislation was written may i have the projector please. >> thank you this is just a very simple proposal

you'll see it here displayed the neighborhood to support this postage the two 0 lots not the other with an one what about code compliant and two units will be allowed on both lots and moma the feasibility eir availability i don't know any neighborhoods that is opposed to adding square footage to our neighborhood i the president to add i'll apply some additional signatures over 67 signatures garter and also some additional materials to sport what we want to say i expect other speakers to talk about details just to give you within sort option for how that layout this is one with you have

two units added to i'm sorry two units added on both sides it could be done a might want way i ask you to keep in mind if this legislation means anything it can't be approved that make a mockery of new legislation >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> quart here. >> commissioners good evening i live on state street in the neighborhoods for over 3 nature years i wanted to say that to approve today is kwufbs makes the new legislation useful as it was written in parts for in and in whole for projects just like this the section of legislation it applicable to those lots see

page four of the interim controls line quote that the planning commission in considering a conditional use authorization in a situation where an additional new residential unit is property on to through lot which an existing building on the footage will only grant it is unfeasible to add a unit to the lot the owner states why putting two units is infeasible he states is it so inner feasible it build do units on the either court building each lot is 25 feet wide and go steep to build two units we have to ask ourselves whether two units are on loves over three feet i don't think so are all unlevel lots and non-occur on

steep lots i don't think so those feasibility are ridiculous you putting two units is entirely feasible thank you for your time. >> good evening my name is mary ann i've lived on this court for over thirty years and practiced law in san francisco during most of that time quite a bit the case law for the civil courts cases they hinge on whatnot the developers professed scheme makes that developer more money all of the courts have dismissed that standard but rather by give consideration economic and social and he technical metrological whether a pursuant property owner will precede with the alternative so here we would

ask if you were to disapprove the new building on the court would a resemble prudent owner precedes and a at the front or that owner to see that is infeasible the owner will not precede given the turning of the buildings from one unit to 2 units occurs all the time in san francisco the objective answer is yes, a reasonable prudent owner will proceeded to turn a current house into two units if so commission disapproved the new building at the rear of the lot on the court at previous speaker noted the lot with the typography didn't prevent the edition the sponsors rachel norton that is infeasible to add a second unit because the new

proposal casts a shadow or block light into the court is simply not true and laughable the current this on court sits within the side of the building and thirty court so therefore there are currently no entry points for light into those two buildings from the east side of the courts additionally the developer sponsor here as proposed two building one each at the rear the 22 order court and one in the rear of this order court both will cast huge shadows into state street your supporter don't believe what needs to be built is any less than 4 units that is the same amount as the developer we're talking about the standard is a alternative that make sense in the context of the neighborhood the same

number of housing units by the developer but medium size and not oversized thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i'm joseph butler i have thirty years of experience as a license architecture designing residential dwellings the neighborhood living in the state street project engaged any services to determine the

feasibility of having two flats at either 22 or 24 court i made a variety of sketches one was turned into the site on the screen that show us the buildings can accommodate a second unit with minimum shadows cast the standard lot and 65 feet of buildable makes it as 2, 3 bedroom flats i understand the proposal before i for both variance and conditional use involves with only who 22 order court front and wraer and the rear yard behind it facing states street the existing building on 24 court has been left out of the application goous boosts location of the open space and the two monterey on state street as well as the

steepness of the site the common sense compromise to have two units at 24 order in the front building without development and rear and two buildings on the 22 order court site as we show you don't have the authority to make the developer produce two units at 24 the front building you certainly have the authority to disapprove the proposed building in its rear yard from the developer then choose to come back with a proposal to turn 22 to two units on two levels over the garage with minimal shoovd we can do see, however, they don't have to more disbrawl is supported by the fact it is feasible to develop two units at the front of 24 order court and

this is the key standard to determine this can i it is necessary and desirable for the neighborhood i think that four family sized units has shown in the site plan two 4 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms go to guess the necessary while saving the open space and making the project two combined 55 percent lot converge or coverage is desirable while the lot coverage on the building with on the site with two buildings 55 percent didn't require a variance and together they only come to 54.9 percent will the coverage feasibility is clear thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners my name is ricky live at state street and in the neighborhood for 8 years i want is i'm glad the developers after having to disclose the trees and later at the first hearing the trees were unhealthy now see the light and the trees are healthy and in fact, preserving that's the good news the bad news in anyone knows the proposed house will keep those trees as is are foolingism the project sponsor shows the trees in light shading it was hard to see how much it will block the house if built it is had a as huge window looking at the trees and 0 so close the trees will reflect the light we expect the new owners will trim

the trees our efforts to safe the trees will be wasted one of the reasons behind the compromise it will insure the trees they'll on the the continental approval the trees be maintained wurt the proximate of the house and larger windows no reason for the owners to cause trees damage one tree will be added to the 24 court and the developer will get a separate building at the rear it is a win-win for both sides the developer gets his four units and the neighborhood gets to keep to have the rear yard and preserving the open space and maintaining the views for the homeowners and you visitors to enjoy please issue a win-win not another win for that the developers and a loss for the

neighborhood thank you for your time and consideration. >> good evening, commissioners i live an order street the project sponsor believes that the current proposal came out of the last meekly that commissioner moore and commissioner richards it would be approved had the zoning control that ruling it would be understandable but today such a rule flies in the face of legislation this is not a 3rd but a hearing other than the quite frankly application a conditional use is not required because of size and lot coverage and the feasibility planning are not required for the lot coverage sxooed 45 percent and for the street frontages the finding the sponsor proposes are

inaccurate a 25 foot lot as in their which is the standards with the rh two lot it is saying it is infeasible to put lots is two narrow is infeasible so design a car it only has 4 wheels we need to make the project sponsor is live up to the rules it is only subsequent for the neighborhood and the neighbors that working hard we've bent over background to agree to one of the developments for the cu and variance in challenge for the cu or without the cu or variance what we have proposed is more than fair what the sponsor mass present didn't meet the conditional review feasibility and never meet the harding park and circumstances i

perp described 4 hundred and 50 flyers and innovate met a simple person that supports this application thank you. >> commissioners good evening. i'm tom smith i live on museum way this developer began that project by marketplaces the trees on the plan to having them considered this the tree legislation and the attorney declared the trees are uninhabitant and not put the autobiographies because 25 is too narrow the lots two steep he is a pattern of exaggeration and misrepresentation and guess is the sponsor strategy to wear you down and

tired of hearing this case and give up regardless of what it development do ask the neighborhood and the variance requirement regardless of the fact that 22 order court bend from a assistance as a asking for a second bit of an and not meeting the zoning legislation the proposal meets the developer halfway and he gets an embarkment of both court facts this is perch giving away the store and prefered two new units neither would have required a conditional use but for the sake are unity i've supportive of the fees and variance please don't

disregard the legislation it didn't comply with the legislation and simply wouldn't be fair thank you. >> commissioners good afternoon. i'm july 4th will be speaking for myself toy the property owners proposed project you know about what it is and leaves the smallest building untouched not having a permit application leaving auto the court once the tenants passed

away in april seems like a ploy we don't have high-priced lawyers we're not entirely stupid we feel the developer is trying to milk the lots and goals to get the 3 units somewhere and come back and say you know 24 court is tiny compared to the building i'd like to enlarge that and it is please look at that this is the neighbors have offered the project sponsor to develop order court and to leave the rear of 24 court undeveloped he think you see when is which and the rear of 24 court not developed this leaves the cypresses untouched and guarantee tests survival it you approve that

you'll approve the various applications and allowing the developer and deny the conditional use for the other lot we can address those order court and but an option a 2 unit building we've told the project sponsor we'll support another alternative we consider to expand the existing building an order court that one, two, two units leaving the rear yard of order court undemonstrated and authorize the conditional use at the rear of 24 court as the project sponsor would last week this will excessive the goal of preserve open space excepts on the court it compromises the interim controls zoning controls please deny the fee and approve

within of the alternatives wear proposed thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm david cannon i own the building on state street just a few houses down from the project i've also ♪ neighborhood for own or owned this building over 10 years and in the castro over 4 years i've never seen a neighborhood so gal invented over an issue as over this on or about of development on in corona heights the last time i came to a meeting in

march in the city council chasms over 50 speakers supporting supervisor wiener's controls on development in corona heights one speaker against it everyone i've never seen to many people get excited over stopping this developer from going forward with that project there was a mandate into the city council or the board of supervisors to put this on hold until there was a conference of plan to control this kind of development in our neighborhood now if you go ahead and approve that i mean it is create a cynical attitude towards government in san francisco no wonder the people are so upset i've never eaten seen not met anyone that supports in project i've owned

over 10 buildings since i've lived in san francisco and magnify of them were on 25 foot lots i'm a thousand square feet help if this person needs help i'm i object to help them out i'll show them how my house is situations i specialize in small hugh's you know what that is san francisco self-this developer brought brought a piece of property and can't develop it he should have done his homework. >> hi i live on falcon streets speaking on behalf of mire neighborhood and from the

president's from the neighborhood association. commissioners the planning and ludicrously the recidivism has reviewed the permit properties on the court the eureka valley saw that passed in 2347d given f this project didn't meet the scale and size determined by the zoning controls there are feasible alternatives that respect the zoning controls we ask you deny this request for the conditional use permit >> commissioners good evening. i'm camille we hopefully, you'll support over proposal to approve

the 22 court conditional use variance with the attached changes and deny the conditional use for order court for a compromise so the materials submitted during the dr for the requesting you we wish to submit the following document and forward them to the board of supervisors with all the materials an appeal to the board be unemployable that concludes portion of our presentation and the moscone on 3 lots characteristic of the neighborhoods and the affordability to the projects like this the developers has refused the lack of variance for the project and the previous variance through order court that causes us you how many surveillance is this property going to get we want to emphasize question of worked

with the board of supervisors that makes that clear what kind of developments are property we've prototyped the developer with a compromise that meets him halfway and the modest conditions can accommodate his project thank you. >> good evening commissioners i dike i live on state street and my residence is between state and the court i've been in the neighborhood for thirty years i love the neighborhood i love about the neighbors a lot of vegetation and a lot of trees and there's a lot of birds and it is like feeling in a wildlife xichl only

many petersburg kins is for the around i've been here since 2 o'clock i'm so tired i didn't royals you must be exhausted i'm here because i want to support my neighbors. >> thank you for letting us speak on my neighbors on behalf of thank you for being here tonight. >> is there any additional public comment i'll tell you what you guys come on up and line up and cue up, however, you want. >> nominees a keri i live on the court and lived in san francisco a a long time for 40 years i'm not going to say much but and support any neighbors in within of the alternatives proposals that we made to the developer thank you very much.

>> good evening commissioners my name is gary i'm the president of the corona and on the eureka valley association it is within the boundaries the organization in an e-mail he received from the zoning administrator scott sanchez that all variances are approved by that commission he said there is an extensive process the sponsors revised their project or don't meet the plans for varian and therefore rejected the inference those requests that come before the commission are by the nature that have that process virtually a done deal and if this is as true as it appears to be is the

public feeling duped go the variance request i spoke about supervisor wiener could offered did interim control legislation the purpose of the protective to limit over in this f this neighborhood and is limitations but the interpretation here is the legislation redid i understand in order to over build from the case of 22 to 24 court there is a large continuance of neighbors that have contributed an newcomers amount of time to protect this from polarities the project before you is requesting two surveillance and two conditional use permits ask can you please let us know despite the option by heights neighbors and the

erect and the new renter zoning controls that there is some god-given rights for the developer to receive the gifts those permits will be which numerous option are the alternatives thank you very much. >> good evening dear commissioners i'm sonya at order street i want to state i support the development that follows our interim controls legislation and that addresses our city housing priority that legislation is disprorment large development that clashes with the neighborhood character you're looking at the textbook protective i've disappointed did proposed development were not common with the interim controls

why would we can exempt from the law i'm worried about the conditional use authorization would render our interim controls newly especially because the case your hearing it under this legislation what it means for the other loss the conditional use applications are already in the pipeline and those developers are watching the presentation controls please don't reopen the floodgates for over development across our neighborhoods he respectfully is you support of the interim controls legislation and deny conditional use thank you. >> is there any additional public comment okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i make many trips on state street and order

court because it is a very pleasant street and ongoing that we will eventually hear this again, i'm confused about the opposition bus order court is a narrow court and you know they're asking for more density there as opposed to state student the development is much less dense and trees block the views from straight street and those trerz trees radio protected anyway, i don't see the view issue and on this so the other thing is that as far as the size of the unions which have been brought down consistently i have the sequencing the developer gave me they sounds reasonable 24 back and 21 hundred square feet saving the trees and 22 court

modified quantity and 22 is 2371 and 24 is would remain in its footprint temple if this passes all attach a notice of restrictions that would you know not allow any expansion of the footprint of that particular residence which is still pretty small and good even with improvements on the interior will remain more affordable i i don't see those also a large homes this is remarkable the neighborhoods felt it is too tall they brought the height down then they were concerned about the trees now they've saved the trees he know that

legislation occurred at the board of supervisors in the interim but i really don't see what is gains by not approving those modestly sized homes on state street which are technically the rear then the large edition to the residents on 22 court so i'm thinking this is a good project it is everything that's been asked by the neighbors and previous hearings has been granted i understand the concerns of they're not being other projects that fill you know both on court and on straight street i don't know how many instance the same might be true of museum in the states that's above states museum every case names and addresses tobacco look ated i

heard with the neighbors and the developer modified it is a great project and acknowledge two floors above state it is exactly like the other smaller unions that are some on states that goop as much as 3, 4, 5 floors but most one or two flairs above state so i'm supportive of project i on the each time that alternative is reasonable at any rate not before use it adds nor congestion an order court by alexander don't additional units or an additional unit and an enlarged unit as opposed do to the two units on that court. >> commissioner richards and i guess mr. butler i have a question for your please arrest you so the revised home you have

on 24 court in our proposal is an sxangs of the light house chases the square footage there. >> on the front building on 24 court. >> yes. >> the front building would be 31 hundred and 50 gross secretary skae skate the garage the 22 is one thousand 56 square feet gross 3 bedroom, 2 nature bath and elevators and the one on 26 court is 3 bedrooms and 2 and a half baths and an elevator a lot coverage is 1209 plus 1770 oh, i'm sorry part of your question. >> that's fine you you know it is interesting maybe some feedback from the neighborhood

groups it didn't hurt to call out ahead of time the thing i went with the property owners team this level of additional review we have with the conditions i read the legislation he was like oh, there's a restriction call infeasible we define infeasible if different ways we've heard different versions of it i see you've shown us something that is feasible and thrown mia bit i never noticed this thing here which is in this picture this kind of. >> interests an above pool. >> i thought that was a structure. >> that's correct that's the rear where the new this goes and it will i would say mimic

existing conditions arrest; correct and expand if building and this building but that's our proposal the one issue i have to be somewhat fair i the square footage 22 hundred square feet than the property owners project sponsors i see the conditions and give the project sponsor more square footage how much on 24 so they can program the building reasonably the same amount of square footage. >> that's up the zoning administrator it requires the 55 percent from the fronted property line to the rear wall of building we didn't want to come in here and present a larger project but if you went to the end of the building adjacent on the court it makes thing more come did you say and i don't know whether the

neighbors will accept that. >> is the projector architect here maybe we can talk about that. >> you've looked they're your name. >> brad taylor. >> you've landmarked the proposal for the building police vehicle making if bigger and the thresholds not the varnls i want to be in their fair at that time, developer and upgrade or workout how much to get that additional scheming. >> part of the series of illustration that have been prepared and the follow-up tote february generateds both settings they're part of the shadow settings to position the team to react to the charge of looking at the feasibility building as opposed to coming up

with self alternatives coming to that charge we couldn't hold all the required programs a in the space to something that would be that small. >> great but would you be willing to take that building back a. >> to take that back it was one of the things we remember looking at all options on the tackle and prepared to look at if there were the case whoo what would the shadow impacts of that and especially adjacent to the project we were looking to abut that building directly with windows looking at ousted that. >> can you talk about the shadows impact on the building at 24. >> the difference we've done a number of those projects in all parts the city with respect to the larger massing building into smaller pieces that are better stitched and the solution i can

speak most intellectually we've prepared but we did in the interim between if he february and now and provided the number of the numbers ballads with the matrixes and what that yields and how to solve parking all those things and concerns but that was basically, the classic intuition by breaking down the buildings being a benefit of the better solution frankly by breaking them up even with the smaller building a product of that setback for the protection tree protection measures to be put in place that was on the table the very solution we are that considering this abandoned after a number of solution with the shadow studies we took those

to the initial meeting about the offline and generally summaries the direction we should continue to pursue with mitigating design tools that for the buildings into the underground and came up with the solution that made the street a better street. >> thanks maybe mr. parks i'm sorry, i have one other question. >> so i understand what the neighbors are trying to do in terms of remaining retaining what is interest if you put a house on 24 in the rear what are you losing to a safe the trees you still are going to be losing some square footage here of open space but still not contusions enough a real issue with adding a house a.

>> a couple of concerns one it does decrease the overall open space to it exceeds the conditional use criteria and in order to put it there it is on this 7 and a half feet and the structure of the roots go down the hill i've learned from the oovrtd even a proposed memo about preserving those electronic devices we have additional information that talks about the concern of preserving those trees. >> you don't have that. >> i'm distracted can you turn that off i met the project sponsor and see the backyard the open space and trees what are you using this backyard for .

>> yeah, so there's actually a previous hearing a number of months ago we presented several pictures from the neighbors that have sloped hills on state street and actually, their amazingly beautiful they are views and open space and they very much enjoy and appreciate them so but we lose that there and like i said terrorizing a big concern of the loss of trees when other options available. >> my thinking on this till having come back and read the legislation. the first time to be honest i'm xriend to grant a fee an 22 and expand the building on 24 and keep the existing pattern and not worrying about whether the trees will die and give the

project sponsor the footage that's my thought on this project >> commissioner hillis. >> just a question for mr. butler did you have elevation to the company did you look at the elevation he wanted to see. >> question lived in the expansion of 24 court extends the base upwards and an 22 court they could remake the elevation we shaped the top floor the building it will be able to capitalize on the views and often can we have the overhead please jonas and we shape the floor plan with the dining room and another in the living room take advantage of the setback of

the order court the view towards the bay would be quite a spectacular living room and the kitchen is behind or at the lightwells and in the back of this plan there was room for a family room and den and with two full battles. >> i agree with sxhifshgs given the legislation that hats off to the has been passed i think what the neighbors has property is reasonable they can august we shouldn't do what was proposed on dwu court but the compromise works well, it got a large building massing and preserving the trees and get two units on and on on 22 order court you may lose square footage but you know

that's - that happens he agree all support the compromises in the neighborhoods what in their prepping and recommend the proposal 22 court and deny it for 24 court. >> i'll move that second. >> commissioner moore. >> i said it make a couple of comments to close the circle here when those on this proposal was first in front of of us the height and configuration on those buildings on state street street as completely unacceptable the work commissioner richards and i spent with talking with the project sponsor to find a way to reduce in size of the building that at least in the absence of other considerations create more appropriately sized building in

context of that street that is primarily a single story but nothing that was before that in and of itself was not an intent to tease this project for approval because the using the interim controls was never a discussion it was never discussed in the larger context of entire site there was never discussions with the considerations about square footage, coverage, etc. etc. now that much is much to my surprise the project comes back as two cruz together with additional variances and i see the approval into the variance that is where i go forward b