test, test, test, test

>> disruptions of any kind. 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 moore and we commissioner richards is present and we expect commissioner johnson to be absent. >> did i call you commissioner hillis. >> thank you commissioners, the first item on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance we have no items proposed for continuance, however, just minutes before the hearing he received a request from the dr and to continue item 15 for case

a discretionary review they just asked it be continued to the next available hearing he discussed february 11th they're in agreement to that dates the one item proposed for continuance. >> okay any public comment on item the one item proposed for continuance? i don't see any public comment is closed. commissioner antonini and move to continue item 15 to february 15th was that correct jonas >> february 11th. >> oh, i'm sorry february 11th. >> commissioner wu on that motion to continue item 15 to february 11th of 2016 commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under our

consent calendar all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered 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 case n judah discretionary review authorization item 2 for case 2015 at 1111 terryville discretionary review authorization and item 3 at 24th street and 1205 alabama discretionary review authorization and item 4 at 24

ordering court conditional use authorization please note this item was brought before the commission as a discretionary review item and continued to august 2016 interim controls were established on december 24th after hearing the public comment with the disapproval and continue the item to this date. >> that i am on the 4 items on the consent calendar i don't see any. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> second. >> they're all approval motion with exception for item 4 for disapproval. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve items 1 through 3 and disapprove item 4 commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to

zero and place you under consideration of the dprvt for november 12th and 19, 2015. >> i don't see any public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for that 2016 commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> and practices you on item 6 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to thank the staff on the andrew perry for an update on those on the commission on plymouth avenue we spent a discussion only it was

an innovative way for adding residential over an active pdr type of use and for whatever reasons this is new converted to residential a nice package was included and i appreciate being in receipt of this kind of an update and the second point i'd like to do to ask the director at some point probably not today to speak to us and comment on at article in the paper about the online tracking system that is according to an article i just read the day before yesterday that was very sad this commission not only wholeheartedly and enthusiastically supported the department in joint effort working with dbi but what happened i assume the criticism in the article speaks more to

dbi and something fallen before the cracks and want to see an update we ourselves see that step in the right direction so explain. >> comment probation officer now. >> thanks commissioners the article described the details in the system the planning department went live in other of last year and dbi has been detailed due to some process issues between them and the vendors we've set up a for lack of a better word a work around to wait for them to become live one of the issues we'll have to address in the coming months when we go live with the public assess xhoenlt of the system

what we're considering that at this point. >> could you at some point i explain to us in terms of how it might make our own work harder or if it doesn't matter it will be good to stay on track for whatever additional work do you have to do nerd to help with the best results. >> i'll be happy to do that thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i know not within our jurisdiction but would like to get an update on what parking and traffic has planned for mosaic avenue you've heard stories limiting the number of lanes of traffic or eliminate the parking and put in bike lanes that's the only conduit north-south by car it moves fairly well but still crowded if they minimize that state will

make that difficult for people to get from one side of the city unfortunately, no public traffic that moves north and south so people get into their cars i'm interested in hearing about that the other things i've brought up what we're doing with land in the livermore valley near the city of pollutant it on the city owns this land for years and years public works and the spring valley water company talking to a friend the city of san francisco sold month to the city of pleasant ton i'm wondering we deal with land use within the city's possessions of land outside the city what is it sold sea how much and what was the thinking i understand a portion of that land still owned by the city of san francisco but not a very large portion but

certainly it being well-developed we could could have done that ourselves so, now interested findings out. >> commissioner richards i'll be brief on the online tracking system director rahaim between activities between planning and dbi that could be looked at this is why things take long it is a good overview why buy a permit and into the ground it is a valuable tool can you comment on that. >> sure yeah, the system allows us to a very detailed time keeping potential where every step the process is logged in essentially not only between us and dbi but the city and the project sponsor and so every step that is. >> revolutionary what

understanding what goes on. >> commission i'm sorry. >> i think before you're arrival to the commission a few of us did by the time to testing we sampled the field and an opportunity for you to understand the benefit you're right on track. >> a couple of more things why when we were on break i experienced trying to get into the bay bridge one morning to deboss to the actual bridge took 45 minutes we're approving the projects the project sponsor has a transportation issue not catching the way the process works with potrero hill we agreed with has a right one by one parking a lesson we cannot add residents and parking make sure the transportation catches

up and people start right lane and people use the cars not more regular daily use especially the super bowl coming up another thing i read comedian did an article on the density bonus program what is a comedian doing this was in the capillary on sunday the 29 actually on target articular that covered issues by the community and if you have not had a chance to read it look at it i saw the mayor a encouraging an update on affordable housing we've been struggling and further and further in the hole i read an article an exchange for a give back to make the process more efficient i'm wasting in terms of public review or lack of public review maybe efficiency in the system once a permit

tracking system up and then lastly i applaud supervisor wiener for calling a last minute meeting not there for the people in terms of register but fertile ground in the stent of the problem and this is a well-thought-out idea i can't thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> - (inaudible). >> the volume lower than usually. >> one point on the directors long list of issues the commemorating and emergency erroneous during the tour bus minds on union square the entire city 10 blocks literally came to

a standstill i was concerned this means in an acute emergency of whatever consequence perhaps raise that question at some point. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move on to department matters directors announcements. >> thank you jonas a couple of issues in the written director's report the central soma we're conducting on open house next wednesday the 9 from 6:30 on mission and the specific purpose of the open house to talk about the public benefit package and the trade offs of the benefit packages we're proposing in the plan and spur from 6 to 8:00 p.m. on december 9th, and,

secondly, public meeting on the air force bonus program on you're calendar for today next thursday from 10 to 8:30 other than fulsome street so those two meetings with open to anyone in the public we encourage you to attend thank you. >> board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners aaron star planning department staff i have two reports lecture land use commission the citywide transportation sustainability fee was heard at land use commission the tsf is one that replaces the tsf the original approval for the modifications of the ordinance the original ordinance was approved by the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor and taken up on

december but the duplicated file was - the duplicated is the provisions that subject all hospital projects to the percentage of net new license and impatient beds and additionally the fee was amended for health services for $11 per square feet the hospitalization council and the chamber of commerce thanked supervisor cowen and staff for working on the final language supervisor cowen thanked the staff for working on a compromise after they vote to the full board with the with a positive recommendation also the general plan planning code and zoning map from harrison street to

accommodate a proposed project on harrison street if included the construction of a must 20 story i residential tower with ground floor commercial and retail and one and 3 below grade parking on september 1, '24 the planning commission recommended approval the proposed amendment to the lincoln plan to address the tower saying that and bulk requirements and the planning code texted amendment to allow for exceptions to the upper tower scoping and saying that requirements for the subject property and a zoning map to increase the feet for this property at the land use committee no public comment and supervisor kim expressed support and asked for the inclusion from 12 to 3 percent because of the

it was sufficiently increased after comment the committee voted amazing to with a positive recommendation full board thanksgiving the full board hearing was cancelled this week the catalyst heard the japantown sponsored by supervisor president london breed it creates the mcd between geary and post from fillmore to lang street the commission harder this on september 2nd and voted for approval with modification to the board the commission proposed modification to require the 5 foot bunk land for a 25 feet this recommendation was incorporated into the ordinance reviewed by the land use commission at the land use commission two members spoke in support and the members of the land use commission thakd the planning department staff planning department staff and

congratulated their work on the new mcd the board voted and with a positive recommendation to the full board at the full board this week the notice to the demolitions sponsored by supervisor wiener the general plan zoning map and development agreement for fifth and mission and the administrative and planning code amendments for the housing passed their second reading the planning code and zoning map amendments to rezone portions of ocean sxhornd by supervisor yee and the zoning map for 525 harrison street and the citywide transportation sustainability fee all passed their first reading also at the full board was a appeal for order court for the conditional use authorization to permit the new construction of a new second floor above grade

house that was a structure of 31 hundred square feet and the commission held a total of 3 hearings as well as the next door permit the commission requested the changes to reduce the bulk and parking at the second hearing the commission shared the removal the church on ordering court the commission requested the sponsor to have an alternative to keep the tree in march of this year, the interim controls for the neighborhood and in addition to the standard fee they require alternative projects based on the testimony the conditional use authorization for 22 ordering court and passed a motion as intent to deny the other project on ordering court the proposed with the trees would have been

removed the commission will hear it at the board hearing this week supervisor wiener announced an agreement that allows the project to continue and the boards imposed the conditions because new conditions on massing and ground floor use and the roof deck the rear yard setback and the tree protection plan for any construction on ordering court that is under the trees on ordering street and finally an appeal the subdivision at 40 berry natural through a subdivision approval is done by dpw the issues raise by the appellant the proposed subdivision will divide it into had the primary concern adding four houses is out of scale and staff relied the subdivision creating 3 lots instead of 4 may result in 3 larger homes the

planning department contend that believe more homes is better for the neighborhood and on code complying lots is better because of the housing crisis accident issues raised by the appellant are best as part of the review and not part of the subdivision request all 40 homes will be are reviewed by the planning department for the planning code and the residential guidelines and notices to be sent to the neighborhood in discretionary review is requested staff and the public and the commission can contribute to the discourse on the mapping as supervisor campos home within 5 hundred feet he was not participating and commissioner avalos lead the inquiry and agreed with the staff the subdivision should be issued for approval since ceqa appeal went to the board only two things for the dr requester and the appeal of the permit and

no introductions that concludes my report thank you. >> commissioners i don't believe there was a report for the board of appeals the historic preservation commission met and the historic preservation commission reviewed a potential facade retention policy in the works and realized in most stance to be resolved by a case by case basis and suggested i suggested that 10 examples can be brought bra the historic preservation commission to see if there was any common strain for consensus the architecture review committee met and encouraged the project sponsor to strengthen his preservation alternative the cultural heritage assets committee met and received a preservation from the san

francisco arts commission which discussed potential for a cultural heritage district if there are no questions commissioners we can move on to general public comment time, members of the public may address the commission on items 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 several speaker cards. >> okay. thank you. >> (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners may i have the older please before the holiday there's no overhead oh, there it is that one is not work before

the thanksgiving holidays what's happening is that see that and then that those lots are sort of probable double the size of san francisco in noah valley lot another one there and another one there i guess i brought them to i think their shocking and sometimes seeing something out of context in our city it is more shocking i think there be shocking i know if you see them in person in the neighborhoods their shocking but there's san francisco on the overhead there's that one and there's that one behind the tree, there's that one, there's that one and those are all remodels they're not demos in what

they're doing demos i don't know what the rules but those are remodels i've shown you these they should have triggered secti section 17 and most of them were flipped under that number the 1.5 that should go up i guess my point here is i wanted to show them in la i found them shocking they're no different than up here except the lots are bigger i can imagine we'll have a large house similar to these in la and i guess the question is the overhead again is this what we want in san francisco single-family homes in noah valley and people concerned not only about the facades and their rear yards and their lifestyle i

thought i'd brought to your attention thank you very much have a nice day. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm mark a principal and we're the project sponsors of one 50 van ness is a project you approved a few months ago one the conditions of approval to come back after the demolition start and tell you how it is going staff has submitted a report this is not a calendar project we're 2/3rd's thought way through and 6 left the one condition of approval recommended e related to demolition asked us to come back and not demolish the wall adjacent to the school port while the school is in session we're complying with that go as a result we're doing demo on the

weekends not making the residential people happy but demo is loud we've studied 3 techniques that are to this construction and choose the quiet itself and the quick i would and made an agreements to put up sound like box and put those on before demo starred and put in other points in the classrooms and the data points between demolition and during demolition owe charles the associate acoustic engineers conducted the noise level between 50 and 80 december malls without and with construction no difference there conclusion quote awhile construction noise is albeit in the school not above the voices of the children

several complaints to dbi most by residential neighborhood i believe in the general and most about the weekend noise dbi has investigated no notice of violation and dbi verified the occasion has been conducted in compliance with the permits and finally dust control we've spent time and effort managing the dust control we created a construction dust admission and monitoring plan that was reviewed and monitored by the department of public health and we've put in a new air facilitation and every twenty-four hour data is taken no instances of the threshold criteria in the 13 thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is charley head with the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods and with the sunset height for are not only people like to speak a minute about outreach at the november 5th meeting i'm glad we don't have an overflow no overflow room available the subject of outreach came up i remember one of the commissions said to the planning department staff she'd like to say district citizen asterisk public mergers and as far as that's concerned one before that meeting there are a couple of schedule for this week or in the next couple of weeks that's just a four

districts out of 10 and we need time to have more meetings fortunate the items on november 5th were postponed to january 28th but other item coming up today but this issue - about this issue and the fact not many more - much more time to have the meetings i contacted contacted our supervisor a few weeks ago we wrote me a short note thank you for your suggestion period so no december 7th meeting scheduled at the present all to again speak for continuing the items schedule for today about the

affordable housing bonus plan and hope you'll consider rescheduling that for january 28th thank you very much. >> good afternoon. commissioners i'm with the responding community association and also with the c s f n several comments sunset meeting in the affordable housing bonus i'm not talking about the concepts but like to mention that meeting and many planning department staff meetings in the past there's a presentation portion of the meeting which really didn't go into a lot of depth especially for complicated plans and typically what happens the audience gets an overview of the

plan, and as i say the problem is with the details in the plan so a lot of the details are not discussed and they're not given time for discussion the q and a that follows the relatively short presentation is limited and the meeting is not long enough for the public to answer all the power questions and i like to ask that in the future such meetings will provide adequate time for presentation and especially adequate time for q and a and if there is not enough time that evening or that afternoon then a followup meeting has to be done there was an open house several weeks ago and there was a he

isal for people to write questions on and perhaps 8 to 10 pages of questions and i'd like to ask if those questions can be made available for the public and answers for each of those questions the reason why i say see i thought i asked very good questions and other people and i don't think they've been adequately responded to so in the past - in the future can you have staff provide those questions to the public and their responses i read somewhere oh, the answers were provided in the discussion well i did not see all the questions and answers so, please provide them in the future oh,

one more comment begin staff they're very youthful and young in the past you've had staff that were experienced and knew the history of the neighborhoods people that knew all the different cases that came up where is that experience? >> is there any additional public comment general public comment? >> is there someone at the podium you're up next. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is sal the executive director of la port schools wanted to comment on the one 50 project it's been going under

construction on fell street this school serves children from 3 months to 6 years old last 3 months have been very, very uncomfortable and disruptive to the children and staff has been noticeable we experiences sixth ground vibrate shuns and remain concerns about the air quality with the demolition of concrete close to our playground we recognize this is a demolition project the project sponsor has been very cooperative and through the executions and a constructive dialogue they having also are transparent sharing the data as well as the quality data we also have dwaejd in a nuking number of efforts in minimizing

construction and the noise vibration, however, some of the scheduling changes we were working with them have not yieldsed yielded did kinds of result, however, hope to continue our domiciling with the project sponsor and looking for creative solution and mooigs circumstances for our children thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> thank you, commissioners and i don't want to waste our time but i come from a different kind of constituency we are facing a housing crisis i'm having trouble with the students at san francisco state

university for getting kicked out of their homes i've gone and asked this request i've not gotten answers to it from different democratic clubs please, please begin to me what affordable housing rate is please is it one and 9 thousand because to me and students that are getting out of school someone like me has a hundred and thousand school debt i don't know what the health care of affordable housing is i've asked one million it is over 6 figures not a reasonable thing for people to deal with coming out of school and i just i'm only here to make that statement you don't have to answer is it so tough for us guys. >> is there any additional public comment general public comment

not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> two things first, i know i've been trying to have a meeting with the zoning administrator mr. sanchez i know he is incredible busy but those are appearing to be demos the other one director rahaim in terms of what the gentleman said perhaps all the same questions were asked in the same forms and combined into a website and people could don't have to be asking and if i may commissioners they are on our website. >> they are? thank you >> commissioners, if there's nothing further move on to our regular calendar affordable housing is a principle use

planning code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and fellow commissioners i'm from the planning department staff had he here to remedy the approval the elimination of the large project thoshgsz for c district for the principle use of affordable housing please note it supervisor wiener is here to speak about the legislation and i'm going to turn it over to hi >> supervisor wiener. >> traffic jam. good afternoon commissioners and thank you for hearing this item today. first i want to thank planning staff [inaudible] for doing great work and analysis and

recommending certain amendments which i agree with and will make amendments to reflect the planning staffs recommendation. commissions as you know as well as i do, we are in the middle of a intense housing affordability crise jz need affordable housing yesterday mptd it isn't good enough to set aside money for affordable housing if it takes too long to create the affordable housing for the people in san francisco who are struggling with housing today. this legislation will streamline the permit process for 100 percent affordable housing and allow us to dliferb affordable housing more quickly, which is what we know the voters over wemingly want us to do. over a month ago the voter uzpassed the

affordable housing bond. one the bauds had not passed in menany many years. this one didn't just pass it passed with flying colors mptd the voters adopted the affordable housing trust fund. the voters get it and understand we need to invest in affordable housing. we have to make sure wree are doing our job in city hall so after the voters provide wus the money which they have repeatedly done we utilize that money it deliver affordable housing. the legislation that i authored and before you today responds to that crisis and to the voter mandates by expedites the aprovel of 100 percent affordable housing project. to be clear, the legislation applies to developments where one00 percent the units

are affordable. this is housing that is being built by our non-profit affordable housing developers. the legislation eliminates any conditional use requirement for the creation the housing. the housing still has to go through the design review sknrauss subject to discretionary review subject to the project. now we know all most all affordable housing project in san francisco go through a conditional use process. it adds significant time and expense to those affordable housing projects. the fact is when we look at conditional use in san francisco, we typically apply conditional use whether it is a type of project that we are not so sherbet. maybe it is good,

but needs extrascrutiny to see if it is good. we do that for formula retail and banks and housing particularly market rate housing. there are various situations where we say we don't want to prohibited something but don't want to allow at right. we have concerns and it may or may not be a good thing and have conditional use process. we know for affordable housing there is no question about whether it is necessary and convenient for san francisco. it absolutely is. there is no skepticism about whether affordable housing is important and needed, we need more of it and we need it yesterday. so, this legislation will streamline and expedite the approval of affordable housing. it will provide rez dents of neighborhoods with opportunity to weigh in and if they want to to

oppose the project through discretionary review. the legislation has gotten strong support from the people who are actually building affordal housing, the non profit affordable housing developsers. you should have letters sof support for the legislation from bridge housing, mercy housing larkin street youth service and booker t washington and commissioners i courage you to support the legislation and happy to answer any question. >> thank you. one clarifying note i wanted to make, supervisor wiener's legislation initially including affordable housing in p districts severed from the legislation so this legislation is looking that entitlement processes so i want to make that clear

from the public because we received comment on that part the legislation. currently the planning code requires conditional use or cu for sev rf projects, some related to land use and others the physical form the building. this legislation doesn't change voter nanidated cu's and specifically formula retail. projects of substantial size in and district our downtop town district require planningdition [inaudible] projects that are 75 feet or above or net addition new construction of more than 25 thousand square feet are required to go through a large project authorization known as the lpa. the ordinance says any project where principle use is housing comprised of housing restricted of 55 years for families low and moderate income is exempt for cu requirement relate today the housing.

project defined would not be required to go through section 309 review and section 329 or lta process. [inaudible] informational hearing on later today. staff included discussion because the nob projects that have 30 percent or more affordable housing on site. the draft entitlement process for the ahbp includes a hearing for 100 percent of affordable project that take advant object spinge to the affordable projic in the program. note the case report states the following on page 6, the entitlement process and zeening modications outlined in 328 developed in consultation with the counsel of community organization and the mayors office of community housing. the correct reading should be as

followed: the invite titlement process developed in [inaudible] and youth input from 2 meetings hosted by [inaudible] in november and october of 2014. plang staff recommendation. the propezed legislation extemps affordable projs from the [inaudible] eview but not a clear administrative path for [inaudible] offered by the processes. the modficaishzs in a pud or lpa may be helpfuled or desired to help insure better design or increase the number hof unit. stuff recommended drafting a separate code section. this code section would include the following characteristics: [inaudible] 120 percent ami and not apply to districts with a residential use is prohibited by the zoning. the modification of [inaudible] would be available

to projects that trigger these code sections. project under had new section [inaudible] would be entitleed to the modification in 329 and not entitled to the modifications in section 309. the elimination of cu's voter mandated or increased parking. the process wim not require commission hearing and subject to final approval of director of plannings. the projects are [inaudible] 311 and 12. the code section is tied to the buildings permit so the projects are subject to discretionary review to members of the public. newly constructed 100 percent affordable project trigger a preapplication meeting prior to submittal. meetings are required when the project triggers [inaudible] the director of planning is responsibility for review of key issues relate

today the divine oof the project and divine condition in code sections mentions, pud, 3 op9 and 329 would be subject to his final approval. staff received over 20 e-mails of support and 3 letters. one letter from bridge housing as well as rec and stree use and one this morning from spir. the department also received a letter from coalition of neighborhoods and speak for a letter of continuance and a letter ain opposition. [inaudible] this ordinance could reduce [inaudible] provide certainty to the entitlement process. staff ask dh planning commission recommend approval with our recommendations and the attached draft is wishing to that effect. we are available for question. also [inaudible] from department of

housing is here for questions. >> that is the only presentation? opening up to public comment. tess wellborn, charles head. if you want to line up on this side the room, that is great. paul weber. [inaudible] michael murphy. elaine broken. christie wang. roger whiter. scott reaver. joseph smoke and donald [inaudible] and george winsburg. if you are ready. the best thing to do is everyone that i called your name or not if you want to line up on that side of the room and form a line and coordinate yourselves, that would be great. thank you. who ever is ready to speak first. >> good afternoon. pat scott

and sure some have seen me many times over the past 10 years. nearly 10 years ago, and nearly 25 years in terms how much i aged sinss this 10 year process started. a booker t washington was planning on affordable housing complex based on planning session we had and the question is whether we were after 100 years of service going out of business or whether we could operate and provide services in the 21 century. we looked at what the needs are in our community which for housing particularly for transitional age youth and looked at statistics which showed while the african american population

is 4 to 6 percent according to who you are listening to, the foster care population in the city was 72 to 74 percent. most of these youngsters i run across on a regular basis had no house, they had limited family contact. some of them have been in 10 to 20 placements sinss they were very small. so, we decide that we would build affordable housing, ree build the center and provide youth radio and other services to help our young people move ahead and be successful adults. this process and i speak in support of scott wiener's proposed legislation, anything that will shorten the process will be helpful for affordable housing. it has taken us part of my inexperience in trying to deal with this, but the cu process, the

eir process, we were in cort for nearly 5 years. we spent more than a half million dollars in attorney fees and the project which was originally budgeted as somewhat under 26, 27 million dollars is now 36, 38 million dollars and that is because of the byzantine process you have to go through in san francisco to build affordable housing. this affordable housing is 50 units of housing and half of the cades aged out of foster car and half for people that reach ami of 55 percent. so, i really am in support of this. that anybody should have to go through this kind of process in the city of san francisco to build affordable housing, it doesn't make sense. so, i urge you to support

supervisor wiener's proposed legislation on conditional use. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is george [inaudible] i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. primarily i'm here to ask once again for a continuance on proposal number 9. this proposal was given to us the day before thanksgiving vacation and moving very rapidly and piggy backing on

the [inaudible] which you were kind enough to prolong to january 28. it is very complicated, we need to be able to study it. we are very positive for affordable housing, especially for low income affordable housing. we supported the mayors bond and we have some major concerns about this legislation. we see that it gets rid of things like threats of appeal for the board of supervisors. threats of appeal for the planning commission. we see it gets rid of conditional use. this all concerns us. as we look at you guys, thaz wall that supports us,

we look to your knowledge to help us and when you are out of the system i look at it as it is not a good thing. i know this is a prolonged process, but there is a reason it is prolonged because it makes it a better process. one thing i noticed for different things, it is always let's go faster, let's go faster, let's do things faster and what always seems to happen is that the neighbors don't know what is going on, things get passed and we end up losing all kinds of things in zoning rights and upzoning of the whole city. so, we don't believe that it is a bad thing to support affordable housing, but we definitely want this

[inaudible] at least january 28 so it can be considered at the same time as the [inaudible] we can look at the whole process in total rather than piecing it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my name is ianima clain from the sunset district of san francisco. this legislation is going have a significant impact on the city. could involve indirectly the expendsure of quite a bit of money by the city. now we are being asked to consider it as

san francisco rez dants in the midolthf holiday season. this is not the time to do this. the modifications you are looking at today presented by the planning department when issued on thanksgiving eve. thanksgiving wasn't a good time to look a at it, we had fmly and friends and black friday and small business saturday, sunday church, nfl football and then of course we had cybermonday and here we are on thursday. this is not the time to do this to the residents of san francisco. let them have a chance to look at these modifications and to look at this legislation with the opportunity to consider it carefully, to ask questions and get answer. then the people can perhaps understand what is

going on here. prop a and prop k didn't say anything about removing conditional use permits, not a word. basically it said you [inaudible] affordable housing. i don't know anyone who doesn't favor affordable housing. it is how you implement it is the issue and the people of san francisco-the ones paying the freight-when i say that i mean owners of property and renters too because when they pay their rent they pay property taxes. they deserve the opportunity to take a look at this carefully and have a chance to come back on january 28 with a continuance till then. thank you. >> good poon froon tess will born with [inaudible] action. i will

speak the very small part of thisism affordable housing if we are going to define it as the zero to 120 percent then you need to put in tiers otherwise all the housing is built at 120 percent housing. we keep using huds ami and san mateo and muarine counties have very different income profiles than we do. we need to use san francisco ami's and make the adjustments. finally, when we talk about what is affordable, we got to talk about what people are paying now as current tenants, not the new rents. if you look at what people are paying who have lived here for 10 or more years versus new rents you get a different profile of what san

franciscans can afford and what that compares to when you talk about affordable housing. if we say a lot of people are paying a thousand, some are paying 2 thousand for a 2 bedroom unit but market rate is a lot higher and if you use huds ami you will again kick a lot of people out of san francisco. thank you. >> the clock is still going from somebody else. thank you. ilean [inaudible] resident of district 4 and also requesting a continuance until january 28. in the staff report on page 8, it states that eliminating cu for 100 percent affordable housing and translates the affordable units coming on line at a slightly faster rate than

current regulations. the estimate was 3 to 6 mupths. are there other means to achieve this without eliminating conditional use? is it necessary to through out the baby with the bath water? could the department explorp improved efficientany or hire staff. [inaudible] one question for staff, if all the affordable housing [inaudible] including this legislation or implemented approximately when would the first affordable housing units be coming on line? thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my flame is paul weber. i'm here on behalf of telegraph him and as a delegate to the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i would like toope chb by echoing comments

made about continuance. there are 3 competing proposals on the table right now. >> i believe-i think the sound system may be down. i think if all of us are a little low in volume it isn't the speaker. thank you. >> there are 3 competing measures on the table right now. all dealing with affordable housing. one is the supervisors, which is here today for action. two, is the density bonus program, which is next going to be considered on the 28th of january. third, is the mayors recently announced perspective ballot measure for affordable housing. all of these are going to have common problems and right now i just like to go over the

competition between supervisor wiener's proposal and the bonus proposal. first of all, there are at least 2 or 3 areas in which there are conflicts and that isn't mentioned really why one is better than the other. secondly, neither of the proposal, neither of the proposals address the displacement problem for rent controlled tenant. what do you do, tear the building down? they go and the odds of getting back in when the new building is built are probably worse on the money they would get in las vegas. you have to address that question. you displace people who are already in units that are the equivalent of low and moderate income housing for the most part. you are displacing people who would be

vastly benefited by a program, but not to be displaced. secondly, how about the small business person? his livelihood is riding on whether or not his store will function. his store will be taken away and i'm running out of time so i'll move along quickly. if you will consider putting this over to january and have meaningful engagement with the staff and other so called partners i think we can accomplish something but do not force this out the door today. leave it until the january meeting on the bonus program and thank you very much. >> good afternoon again commissioners. i spoke about outreach and

district wide meetings, we have had one so far and here we have this legislation proposed today without neighborhood input and the neighborhoods are important stakeholder in the housing process. george referred to better processes needed. commissioner at the november 5 meeting said we need to take it slow to get it right because we dopet have a chance to go back and rewrite things or it is bet toor get it right the first time. other people spoke about problems with the legislation, things that need to be talked about, mulled over, tweaked. this morning and yesterday i read the executive summary of the legislation. the executive summary is 8 pages long. to me that is a long summary, so again i would recommend the

continuance to january 28, district wide meetings for input rather than just information being given down from above. in short, let's take it slow, it is just too extreme. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is alley gaylord and representing bridge housing corporation. bridge is a 322 your old non profit developer born and head quartered here in san francisco. as a lauchck standing mep member of the housing community on instruggle [inaudible] we support legislation introduced by supervisor wineer to amend the san francisco planning code so that housing projects 100 percent affordable for go the planning conditional use autheration. 100 percent affordable housing

project will be approved by administrative staff leaving time and uncertainly relate today the sometimes lengthy commission hearing process. time is money and there is a direct incraes of cost for providing affordable houdsing with time delaysism we also look forward to work wg neighbor jz the community when developing our housing. as one of san franciscos largest provideroffs affordable housing bridge support efforts to improve the housing pipeline reduce administrative barrier jz bring more affordable housing projects on line quickly. the voters spoke strongly with more support for more affordable housing. [inaudible] can utilize towards achieving this go. we ask the compligz recommend approval of this legislation today. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisor, rob pool with san francisco housing

action coalition. we are vore supportive of this legislationm we have been in favor-it is goal to remove what we feel are unnecessary obstacles to building housing. affordable housing faces all the same challenges market rate housing does in san francisco, the same cost, construction and land and the process is every other process the projects do. the project we put forth [inaudible] i don't think that improved the project. 50 unit of affordable housing for transition age youth [inaudible] what this legislation does is provides more certainty for affordable housing kwr are moves that risk because conditional uses can be apailed to the full board of supervisors. as we know we have a terrific group of

affordable housing buildsings in san francisco. we know they will do great work work wg the community. just because the first legislation passed doesn't mean they won't host community meetingsism neighbors will still be able to engage in the design, make changes and requests and even if the legislation passes there will be subject to dr's and eir appeals sthroe are stim ringes. this is one small way to remove one risk for the housing that we probably need most in san francisco, so urge you to move forward to full board and ask for your support. thank you. i would like to say, when you approve conditional using, we here is that necessary or desirable and hope everyone in the room that affordable housing is necessary and desirable. thanks. >> hello commissioners.

christie wong from spir. thank you for opportunity to comabout on supervisor wieners ordinance. with the housing crisis today san francisco must do all it can to support the faster production of more housing particularly housing that is affordable to lower and middle incomes. spir believes on top of increased funding, improving the approval process is a key part of that effort. as a normer affordable housing [inaudible] myself this make a difference in the time and energy required to get through city required processes. affordable housing development is a comicated and lengthy process for many other reason beyond the sitsies control and this can make a difference. spur irjs to approve this recommendation. this legislation is drafting to benefit affordable housing project [inaudible] under 120

percent of income. these are praijt built by the cities non profit partners and funded by public dollars. it desinginates a process and the director of planning is responsibility for the projects to be designed to high standards. affordable housing project are held to a higher standard and meet federal requirements for expensive relocation benefits that make a difference for the peep lt that might be displaced. thank you for the opportunity to comment and urge you to recommend it today. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for listening. mike nog nog 25 rez dent of north beach and part the san francisco renters sshz. for over a generation the housing policy space has been mentally ill, dysfunctional. it suffers from a

double bind. the result of political pressure from interest groups who have a narrow vision of what affordable housing is supposed to be and on the other hand you have people that want to sit on their nest eggs. with them it is behavioral than political, the end result is a double bind. don't build housing unless it is affordable. build affordable housing but what? they pull more objections of the buts. the reason we have 3 different policy initiatives now, the one we are talking about now, the bonus program and the coming ballot measure is there are several different aspects to tackle this process and you need them to work in concert. this particular legislation should easily point out the fact that many people that claim to support affordable housing they

object to it based on what? we need affordal housing, why are they objecting to it? this legislation should pass. it is a no brainer. thanks for listening. >> hello commissioners thank you for this time. sknrai chang with san francisco association of realtors. here to submit legislation to urge your support. one the things we work on every day is finding homes for first time home buyers. it is a comicated process and extremely long process and what we find is it is one of the most competitive processes in san francisco. helping a first time home buyer achieve and punchs their first home especially if it is for ownership z subsidized by the city. it is

extremely competitive and face hundreds of applicants fighting with over the same unit. it is a intense demand and short supply and that is why we urge your support for this legislation because anything that helps build more affordable housing in the city helps working class families and first time home buyers achieve the first step to wealth building and achieve the first step to financial stability and achieve what really creates a long term resident in san francisco so we really encourage your support for this legislation. >> good afternoon commissioners. happy holidays. today before us we have a piece of legislation brought before us by supervisor scott wiener-i'm donald [inaudible] member of sf bar.

the founder was unable to attend the meeting today therefore i'll speak on behalf of sf bar. there is a group of 250 of us and the purpose is build more gel dwelling unit to stabilize the rents in the city and preserve those. with the building of dwelling units we preserve the rent controlled unit in existence. that doesn't erode them or take them away. we endorse supervisor wieners legislation because he is a champion for affordable housing and transportation champion in the city and want to remind the audience and commissioners when we build the infill projects to create urban density it doesn't displace renters or rent controlled unit but we are taking a surgical viewpoint in the city taken the parking lots and building affordable unit. i would like

to remind the audience and commissioners the california legislature passed laws to build more housing density. for example the density bonus law in 1979 and the housing [inaudible] we need to bring the city into compliance to build more housing in the city and reduce the risk of displacement and gent fiquation and lower the rent by building mour dwelling units. thank you and we encourage your support immediately and not continue this legislation. >> good afternoon commissions [inaudible] also with [inaudible] several comment about supervisor wiener's proposal, which would eliminate the cu. i think that this is

a bad mistake. the planning commission needs to hear all such projects such as the 100 percent affordable project because they will be given 3 stories above the existing limit and the locations of the sites could be anywhere. it could be in a residential area-i don't mean zone. many zone districts which are not rh 1 and rh 2, they have rh 2 buildings within the [inaudible] there are many places in richmond which are rm and here there is a [inaudible] duplexes so that isn't just to say that the 7 story project could be located among those.

the public and neighborhoods need your protection. the cu thresh hold is much higher than dr. affordable housing is very important. that has to be weighed against the direct funtal asults with the neighborhood. we are not opposed of affordable housing if it is done on the right place [inaudible] but we don't want it running north and south on the smaller avenues that are unprotected. in richmond district 75 percent the blocks are unprotected. this is too vague and it it needs to be continued and analyzed and we need-this has to be continued at a minimum january 28 or until we get a resolution that addresses the problem. this is a

direct assault on san francisco neighborhoods. we need protection. we are not against affordable housing in the right place in wide avenues and boulevards on the south side the street, so please do not pass this today, continue for more input. also think about who [inaudible] i don't think it was done by supervisor tang or by wiener or mayor lee. i believe it was written by [inaudible] wilson, the [inaudible] please check that out. >> good afternoon commissioners. [inaudible] central counsel. i'm here primarily on item 11 but i did want to say [inaudible] has not taken a stand on this yet and given the

concerns with the other neighborhood organizations have expressed including the coalition of neighborhoods, we would support a continuance as well, so thank you very much. >> commissioners joseph [inaudible] richmond district housing rights [inaudible] continuance of january 28 because the tie of the proposed legislation to the affordable housing density program. the reason i ask for a continue is i want to paint context, for a community based affordable housing developer i worked for two for all most 20 years and the core foundational to community based affordable housing work is building strong communities. it is not

all about just building housing. i want to say that teaching the way the conditional use process, it says that affordable housing will take away a key part of a community participation and public par tisitation and traenz paerns in the process of approval of a project where the requirements for conditional usurp put in place through community initiatives in the 80's in order to insure compliance with the cities general plan. yes, there is a presumption 100 percent affordable housing projects are in compliance with the general plan but not allowing the public the transparency of process arounds affordable housing we set back all the hard work that community based organizations have done to approach affordable housing through a community

development model and set it back by years. we streamline projects from 3 to 6 months, that may happen at the outset but over time the trust and community starts to erode because you don't have that transparency so why do we hold some drepers to one standard around community processes and others not to that standard especially the ones that are supposed to empower and engage communities around development? thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners [inaudible] speaking as a concerned citizens . it seems obvious today a lot of us were surprised of what the latest amendment was. we understand it chss a amendment since the agenda came out and don't believe we are prepared, the public isn't prepared to

maybe have a opinion on this quite yet and it seems you have until february 15 of next year to pass this, so there is no emergency, so it seem as continuance is in order. fast tracking of prestigeeral changes ahead of working out the details of the plan will make agreement with the public much higher to reach. as it stands now there is strong resistance the departments suggestions coming from at least fronts. the small property owners and preservationest who want to live in peace with little disruption as possible. citizens who have been displaced or evected or threatened by remove and the people who support them. the people sometimes classify

this progressive preservation and environmental intellectuals who show up at the hearings and file complaints and appeal said. if you lose the trust the public you will have more people that won't support what you are doing else where, so please consider this. thank you. >> sue hester, the erfbt to build affordable housing is truly one that comes from the community and i was involved in it for over 35 years. we are working to get a mandate and to build affordable housing. i have been on board over affordable housing for all of that time or a lot of that time. we are a city of zero lot

rights. we are a city of hills. we have a planning code that is developed over a long period of time that recognizes the terrain of the city and the realty of developing in the city. i support the continuance. i have a couple of real concerns. this legislation takes off the planning department responsibility of figuring out how their process works and how it doesn't work. that is the thrust of what they are doing. they are saying the public is the intruder. we have perfect knowledge. even though the people that process the permits are a lot of them have said earlier really new to the city and new to the planning department. i think there is some wisdom in the community. i think the notice process probably should

be streamlined, but where is the staff stepping up to take responsibility for their operations? i have seen nothing of it to date. we have a lot of support in the community for affordable housing, but we have a lot more support when it is generated from the community. i am telling you just by jufs smook, a lot of the people that are a part the community deal with this process all the time and they are not bagging banging at the door saying it needs to be changed. the planning department process probably needs to be changed. i went point to consent calendar which you adopted 2 hours ago. what are they inis ? 3 cu's.

the whole process should be information to the public being driven to a consent item and that is really how you get affordable housing to consent items on the calendar should be driving the discussion in the planning department a lot. i don't think the city attorney is here, the amendment on 11-11 should extend the time for comment until february. i support the continuance. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners , lorie lead rbman and rez dent of the sunset. i think it is true the voteroffs san francisco demonstrated their support for affordable housing, i don't

think that they gave a mandate to advocate their role in how this housing gets built. the proposal irm termination of long standing process presumes the developers and multitasked planning staff understand more than local rez dents and business operators do about thaur own neighborhoods and public shouldvent a avenue to improve a project and you as commissioners should be by-passed. [inaudible] likely neighborhood concerns as neighbors would have virtually no standing. like other ledgeilation before you, it fails to consider or value realty on the ground nob nab take away your authority as a compligz to require modifications to a project. please do not take your sevl squz public out of the planning process and support a continuance. this matter is integrate would

the other affordable housing density bonus program and should be considered together and consistent we have no way of know ing whether they will be at this point. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is fur nando codirect orf community housing organizations and want to clarify contrary to the staff report choochoowas not consulted when this came about. we had many meetings with planning staff about the density bonus, which apparently we are taking about 2 different things or the same thing or not the same thing. can i can start with my conclusion. i concur if this is about the density bonus and vaerp much linked this should be discussed in the january meeting when you will discuss the dense

tabonus conditions. i think one of the things i want to point out is conditional uses are not about projects we want or donot want, but they are rather about providing public input and leverage to make a better project. within san francisco we have about 20,000 unit of affordable housing and about 400 different buildings. recent memory 2 of the project are appealed and those were very difficult projects. we came out and supported those projects, but i think it is important to say the primary reason for the staff report point out is it about speeding up a process by 3 months. by avoiding a conditional use hearing, by avoiding community input. i think one of the things that is very disconcerning for us is the time that it takes for planning department to process

entitlements, so i think one the things-i wonder if we are not trying to use a hammer to solve a project that is really about how staff does its work. that is why i think having more time to discuss and integrate this into a comprehensive program how we move affordable housing forward. as you all see week after week you are faced with the challenge of balancing community input and balancing the efficiency of moving projects forward chblt that is why you are here and don't want to dissempower you from that process. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. david eliate lewis. 3 decade rez dent of the city and active in land use in a variety of ways with the san

francisco neighborhood network. i serve on the board of communesty housing partnership and other organization. i speak for myself though. the amount of nimbism in the room about this issue is shameful. people talk about being for affordable housing but delay it. conditional use is undone. no, conditional use isn't undone, just for extremely affordable 100 percent affordable project that need this type of relief. look what happened with booker t washington, millions of dollars added to the budget which means they can provide less services as a result because of the cu requirements. this is not about eliminating cu, just for certain cases. i don't aunch agree with supervisor scott wiener with land issues but i do with this and thank you for the legislation. i hope you don't continue it and approve it, we

need more affordable housing and remove barriers to affordable housing and don't care what the people say saying i support affordable housing but not in my neighborhood or not if we eliminate cu rks or do this. it is bull sheut. that means they don't support it because they don't want poor people living next to them. don't listen to them. remove barriers, support this. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissionersism tim done. with mercy housing, a non-property affordable housing organization. mercy housing supports this legislation and think that this hearing is very productive in turnls of bringing up the issues of just the length of time to get through entitlement and build these affordable units which we know we desperately

need. i think one thing there was a reference is maybe this is just a few months, 3 to 6 months, but one thing i want to highlight is that the schedules for affordable housing is dictated a lot by the funding cycles, so it might just be 3 months but that may mean miss agimportant funding deadline. just as a example, currently working with the planning department on development that we are working on in [inaudible] form er central [inaudible] 1999 as affordable housing site and we need a cu. we are building entirely according to the zoning and height limit, but we do need a cu because of the parcel size. we are racing with planning right now to get to you in january. fingers cross because there is a february

deadline for a very important state funding source and if we miss that deadline that is a 8 to 10 million dollars left on the table that could be serving the city of san francisco's housing units. thank you very much. >> my name is calren welch and cofounder of san francisco for neighborhoods and counsel for community housing organizations. it is a fascinating process to watch the development of the affordable housing issue in san francisco and see wedges drawn between and wedges driven between consich waens that should be together and that are otherwise not. all we do is support talking about scott wieners legislation in context the

density program. there are techinal reasons. he uses a odd definition of affordability that isn't used anywhere else. it is reference to state law that is curiously written. one wonders why. we have a definition of affordable housing. i don't know why a different definition and different state law is sited in the density bonus program and scott wieners program. it makes me nervous and ought to define affordability by what we mean. joseph smook and sue hest rr absolutely correct. the development of affordable housing in san francisco and community based affordable housing developers is not about pitting neighborhoods against affordable housing, it is about empowering neighbors. it is about creating affordable housing opportunity in neighborhoods that receive those

people as new neighbors and that is a process. that is a dialogue. that means talking about it. i'm sorry about what happened at booker t, but it wasn't the cu, it was a eir. that is what they were in court about. they got their cu appealed and passed by the board of supervisors lickety-split. i don't knoi what tim is talking about. we just worked together and got a cu for mercy on masonic before this commission in a month. it is not a huge hurtle, but what is a huge hurtle, what will drive wedges that will make all our jobs worse is to say, you get a special treatment if you are this, but not if you are that. no, affordable housing works by empowering communities and that means giving people

the right to talk in public about it. thank you. >> commissioners my name is dens mausicoseian and it is always difficult to follow calvin welch. native san franciscan and to those that who think people that come up and raise questions or have doubts or criticisms they are mem bes, i want to talk to them in one sense, that i and many others in my neighborhood, we work in the inner sun set and work in hate rr ash barry [inaudible] was a full time job for all that time accept for regular employment and my kids. that was not done for any other reason than to provide for people and to get rid of a place that

was the oddarelic poly high school that had become the nightmare dudgeons of skin heads and neo nazi and got rid of that and saved the gym and built 140 unit of affordable housing and there are critics in the neighborhood that sounds like these folks that raised questions. they said you will bring riffraff to the neighborhood. you are crazy, this is for regular people and put 114 families and turned their lives around. i only want to make that point that is bother some when all are concerned there are those who feel that anyone who raising a question or casts a doubt about a particular staff proposal is somehow or another opposed to whatever the current is, in this case affordable housing and i have always been for affordable

housing. i'm a working class guy and have no money in my family and it is hell getting place frz my kids who can't live here anymore. i want to make that point it is tire some to here stuff from people who don't want to recognize there are doubts and in this case you have a measure put forth the day before thanksgivings and we know in the christmas time and holiday season people who want to slip legislation through they get it because they are really busy including you guys and staff but particularly the public. i urge you to link this to the affordable housing density program herds in january and we'll deal with it together. thank you very much. >> i hate to and those standing in the doorway you need to find a seat or move to the other sited the room. if you are here to speak you are causing a fire hazard. i see a few

available seats in the audience so if you can take those please, i appreciate it. >> good afternoon commissioners. katherine howard. i would like to repeat the request for continuance. i would like to refer to katherine [inaudible] letter which you should have received of december 2 and going over the main points. it is relate today the affordable housing bonus program and should be heard on the 28th. the project approval procedures in the legislation conflict with those in the affordable housing bonus program. the proposal was not drafted with community involvement or the public. it is vague and fail tooz specify whether residential use is promibt hibited in a public zoning and should be rejected until this

is clarified. the agenda for today misleads the public as to had applicable proposal to p zones district cht the wiener proposal will abolish long standing citizen roits and appeal the the board of supervisors. the proposal may have significant impact on the environment and analyzed by a eir. and hope you received mrs. deven chenties letter. there are 3 pieces of legislation, supervisor wieners legislation, affordable housing bonus program and there is something out of the mayors office according to our local so called newspapers. the first 2 are very complex and we have been trying hard and the reason i read katherines stuff is because i'm a landscape architect and not a

planner. the third we don't know what anything about. all these items should be considered at one time. the idea is to do overall planning, that is what planning is. and the public, the general public must be involved in this process. i will make a comment on nimbism, i said it before, i think that some day i will have t shirts made and they will say nimby and proud of it. the reason i say that is because a nimby is someone who loves their neighborhood and city and country and the reason we are here is because we care about this and i think that i would remove the stigma from this word and say, sthis something we should be proud of. you are spending time here because you are nimbys and love san francisco and that is something we should be proud of. let's bring everyone to the table, we'll have a

better project and can all move forward together. thank you. >> thank you is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon commissioneratize. my name is nick [inaudible] long time resident in the mission district in a rent controlled apartment and proud of it. the city needs recent r rent control, the measure does nuth toog klaess people most in risk of being displaced such as myself. thousands have already been forced outf the city. the term affordable housing is grossly misused and dozen address those people such as myself and thousands like us who would not be helped by any housing built as a result of this measure. i'm calling for continuance here and this commission i know it has limited powers but needs to more effectively and honestly address the thousands of san franciscans who's housing is at risk

because no new housing is being built they can afford to live in. this is a crisis and not the crisis of the lexry condos or what you call affordable that is not affordable, it is term mostly honored in the breach-in the neighborhood must bee brought into the process to often the city government excluded wide spread neighborhood participation in matters of development, of planning, of transportation and that era must xhu to a end. i hope you will join us to see san franciscan's all must work together to keep the city the great place we love to live in. >> thank you, next speaker. >> if there are additional speakers please line up on the green

size orphinroom of the room j. >> good room, barbara gram fraub [inaudible] i want to report to you that our group has been trying to organize a informational session with the planning department and the other neighborhoods in district 2. this is not been a easy task. we wanted to do it before january 28 obviously and the question is, this is the holidays from thanksgiving to christmas. it is very difficult to get enough people out to be able to be informed. do you really want to have people informed or not? this is i think the real question because my husband is very angry at me because i spent thanksgiving and all the time since thanksgiving try to

study supervisor wiener's proposal. this is the holidays, but i didn't get a holiday. so, we need to have a better understanding. so many people have spoken today that it is so important for us to be part the team along with you and with the planning department to make a better program for san francisco. now, the thing that i keep wondering about is, why is it if we want to speed things up do we put pieces into the legislation which we try to sneak in under the covers? if we really want to speed things up simpify the legislation and put a qualification timeframe on so it isn't something that will become institutionalized within the

planning system. that is the way you speed things up. it is misleading to change definitions in the middle of a long discussion of affordable housing and that is part of why there is distrust is developing. i just want to point out to you back in the spring, i was here under article 2, cod consulidation and what does that have to do with this? what it has to do with is the definition for rh 2 is now different. it now applies to affordable housing. so, we need to understand what related legislation does for any of these projects and they are not trivial. they are not trivial. we want to trust the-the community wants to

trust, you want us to trust you, planning wants us to trust them but we can't under these games being played. thank you for listening. i oppose strongly the approval and urge you to continue to january 28. >> any additional public commenters? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners richards >> it is hard to sit here and listen through all of this acrimony. it is unfortunate. i said dial it back please everybody. people calling people names when they question something. speed it up, i don't trust you or the department. it is hard to sit and listen to this. this is the first time on the commission i am asked to vote on eradicating a public revooaprocess up frunlt t. is a major public policy change. we get

rid the cu and section 309 and 329. the notice came the day before thanksgiving and refred the density program. in the paper [inaudible] comes out and says in order to get a higher level of affordable we relash rules and regulations, what is all that about? there is a letter [inaudible] raising a lot of issues. i love to have the city attorney take a look at it, advise the commission on it. people raised issues with process, why are we taking public review out when we should look at why the process takes so long. i think that is a valid point. we can talk about adding staff to improve the process. 3 people brought up efficiency the process and completely understand. i don't feel

comfortable today hearing this. the 90 day deadline for the legislation is february 15, i move to continue to january 28 and tie into affordable housing density program discussion. >> commissioner antonini. y have a question for mr. power i believe from-supervisor wiener's-could be supervisor wiener. so, the first question i have is answered, i believe this will not be crrd at the board until february, is that correct? >> i believe-yeah, probably in january. we haven't made a decision when it will be calendared at the land use xhuty before after the new year >> there is motion to continue to january 28, but we want to make sure our consideration is heard before search time as it is heard by the board of superizvoors and land use.

>> i ask that you not continue this. this legislation is pending for nearly 3 months. it is in the press. it has been not anything about a secret. it is very straight forward legislation. this is not complicated legislation. i think the commission is in a position to act on it today. it will come to the board of supervideser squz fully vetted at the land use committee. it is fully vetted by planning staff and i would ask that the commission take action today. it is our plan to bring to land use committee in january. we won't do it over the holidays, in january, so i ask that you take action today. >> i have a few more queckzs, supervisor. do you know in term thofz cost of conditional use how it

compares with the cost of a large project authorization because one the reasons for this legislation is to keep the cost down for sponsors of affordable housing. >> so, obviously there is a wide range of cost for conditional use as with any kine orphentitlement but we know conditional use has significant amount of time to what it take tooz get a project to the commission. i know we saw in staff report 3 to 6 months, but i think that is a conservative estimate because that is from the time it is ready to go to the commission until the time it is heard. when you look at the process for conditional use it takes quite a bit of time ask have seen projects, affordable housing projects regular market rate project that take quite a long time to get to the commission, so you have the

time element which is the most significant. we need the housing yesterday and that is why you shouldn't delay this any further. that is a problem we have in san francisco when people don't support something instead of saying i don't support it they say please delay this for further consideration and so delay has costs. >> also couple or questions, one speaking brought up questions about the area medium income and think for 10 years we use san francisco not the 3 counties. >> yes, my understanding kb & the mayors office of housing will correct me if i'm wrong is we use san francisco, so this is 0 to 120 percent income so that is approximately for a single person 0 to somewhere in the mid-80's. 85, 87, so we are not talking about wealthy people. this is people making between 0 dollars

a year and mid-to high 80's. it is important to understand what type orphhowing we are talking about, affordable housing means a lot of things. we have seniors being pushed out of their housing and need more senior housing and that is one of the most significant forms of affordable housing that we have. we need housing for at risk youth and housing for formally homeless people because we all agree we need to get homeless people off the streets and so it is for all these different categories of rez dents of san francisco in desterate need of housing. >> it has nothing to do with existing rent controlled unit if anything creating more affordable unit may take pressure off existing unit. >> this is subsidize below market rate affordable housing. when you look at low income and moderate income,

when you look at san francisco our regional housing goals, regional housing needs assessment, we far exceed our goals in terms of regular market rate housing. we are below our goals for low income housing and we are dramatly below the goal frz moderate income housing. the legislation focuses on expediting the production of low and moderate income which are the 2 categories we detpetly need and it does it in a way that neighbors receive notice and still have oo opportunity to provide feedback and engage with the developer and planning staff and if they are not happy with the project they have the option of seeking discrepgzary view. for affordable housing projects if they don't have opposition what so ever, they still all most omaul have >> through conditional use and the

commission and process even if not one person opposes it. there are projects of opposition butd many more that don't have significant opposition and still center to go through the lengthy and expensive process and that is why the legislation is important. >> thank you supervisor. i had a couple comments in addition to your question. i like this legislation a lot. unfortunately the only thing i have concerns about is often times what we do at the commission has nuth toog do with the affordability. we favor a project at whatever level of affordability it is but we make design changes and design changes occur at the commission and i'm a little concerned there isn't a hearing by when chwe can do those things unless someone brings a dr. that is the one thing i'm a little concern td about and why i bring thup question of a large projpect

authorization which may be a lower bar that allows it to come before the commission but less time consumer and less expensive or mandatory dr which is a lower bar because then you need the votes of 4 commissioners to disapprove or modify the praij eblt. >> i understand and respect those observations, commissioner and what i would say is that we are-the voters have been so clear about wanted more affordable housing. it is the number issue and frustration in the city. when i moved for to san francisco in 1997 i rented a 1 bedroom apartment in the castro with a view for a 10507 1050 a month and that [inaudible] not delivering quickly enough and

it is frustrating saying i voted for that sknraund trust fund and doing all these things, why isn't there more affordable housing hitting the ground and when people hear how long it takes for this building approve affordal housing it makes them angry. i know there are other ideas to improve the planning process but we have been talking about that for years. we should improve the process but this is a tampgable step we can take today and next month at the board of supervisors to make it faster and more expeditious to put affordable housing into the the neighborhoods. that is what this is about and hope you will support this and at a minimum hope you will take action today, there is no reason to delay the legislation. >> one final question raised by

the public, this legislation in relation to affordable housing bonus program where if that were to be passed in the suggested form you could have a adishz of up to 3 floors for a project that is 100 percent affordable, so that would have to go through a lpa i believe under section 328, the-any of those type of projects even if they were 100 percent affordable has to go through a lpa >> ree not trying to trump procedures created in the affordable housing density program. this is about the existing conditional use requirements. >> the projects that would not be getting bonuses would not have to go before the commission. the ones that

get a bonus would have to go before the commission. >> i'll let mr. ram- >> the bonus program is for private development that has market rate units so it isn't-it apply tooz 100 percent affordable housing program. yes, i know that calvin, thank you for the correction from the audience. so, the point is that projects that are not 100 percent aforpdable go through the normal process. the bonus program applies for 100 percent affordable housing project as well and would allow for additional site and density >> there is a lot of concern is those that got the bonus of the additional 3 foors even if they are 100 percent affordable have to go before the commission for a lpa. >> the way the bonus program is

written. >> that is a good safe guard >> the legislation doesn't trump the procedures set up in the affordable housing density program and understand there are some that want to put the 2 together and these are different things. both relate to affordal housing of course, but they are different aspects and approaches. >> thank approaches. >> thank you, supervisor. >> commissioner antonini do you have - >> no, i'm finished. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to address supervisor wiener in the past you have made numerous attempts to address the issues of the proficiency process and addressed affordability dwelling units e they were supported they came forward and thoughtfully packaged within the time they were brought forward at that particular moment 3 similar

piece of legislation in the start block i believe it was essential to cooperate all 3 i'll agree that is important to examine tools for greater efficiency when you look at what this commission side i can tell you as a commissioner, i sit here every thursday doing what is served up to me i did not influence directly or indirectly how fast the department is processing something so any claims of increased efficiency is not increased by taking the public's right to hear a cu or this commission to deliberately on one not more efficient to the contrary from my experience sitting here for almost 10 years i want to tell you this go commission has been

value added that come out of cu processes to make affordable market rate housing a better product and a non-socially city government missed affordable or non-affordable this is an art this commission knows how to do the issue of affordability will be centered to the discussion of affordability this department has not had the time to fully take the challenges for affordability go as well as to dense, if any, the city as a comprehensive violation with increasing affordability is for me at the core the anti discussion let me continue what is suggested here who is the gatekeeper what is the vision and what are did principles for this i have to say not a criticism

but i think that the motivation and purpose right front of the us was more than nonprofit it didn't take the principle principles and the cus allow us to look at projects it is about exhibitorcy and economy and for me that is not enough a public process i i have to tell you i wholeheartedly i would be if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is effected vote for the affordable housing bond but no where in this particular description did i see any mention that would basically shortcut the process if i would have seen it i wouldn't have voted the strength of the city where it comes from and i hope we're going relies on the public

process and the incredibly unessential role you know it yourselves you're neighborhood it in dialogue with you all the time the rest of the city wants to keep the voice in the forum of what had this commission is reviewing for that reason i can't support the legislation i can't do it i don't need an answer thank you. >> actually i'll answer if you had any questions commissioner, i respect our right and continuing it those are two things and i'm a big believer as you may know i've been here for any legislation creating new cu for projects that you are concerns about the project types of projects and you should have additional more lengthy and in

depth process i've created and you've supported me but affordable housing is different not the type of project skeptical tim frye whether it is a good or bad thing i beg to defer not eliminating the public process there will be amble public process we know that many projects in san francisco that does not most projects don't require and cu and some are controversial and end up at this commission under discretionary review and sometimes, the commission makes that fit better or whatever there the discretionary review means no public process is not accurate not 94 how our process works in san francisco. >> mr. star. >> i wanted to bring

clarification to the inspiration date of this ordinance we brought it to you today, the original 90 days expires next week or something like that i wanted to keep the commitment to the supervisors office to commit to the 90 days but, however, introducing the public ordinance for the clerk that reads the clock on the 90 days the new date it february '90 days so technically it can be reherald but made a commitment to the supervisor office to bring it within 90 days it didn't change what we analyzed today commissioner wu. >> thank you. >> so - i am supportive of

finding ways to make it move through the process faster i do want to try to understand what it is that the commission why does the commission have to hear the affordable housing project not always a cu within the context of the affordable housing density bonus program we've heard suds are the reason that affordable housing projects have to come here and syma proposal within the program to bypass that city process for a different process not 100 percent clear why i think there is variances that the affordable housing projects need they go to the zoning administrator whether or not we've had something like that i do want to ask maybe some questions of mohcd i heard

acquisitions that housing will be demolished as far as i know mohcd didn't support door-to-door of affordable housing usually on vanity land e.r. so the circumstances like that. >> i'm here in the mayor's office of economic workforce development to my knowledge no never supported a project for displacement first and foremost their vacate parcels or involve a chance of use. >> do you have the comprehensive information i guess you know what are some of the entitlement processes that the projects had to go through recently from inception to get built. >> i have some of that information with me think that you're point is well-taken of the projects that in the recent past that have required a cu

half have been just a cu and the other half has been a cu or variance or other - this involves the other project from the time savings we anticipate seeing is in the time that it takes to get the item calendaring at the commission and i the positive as a form commission that's not anyone else's fault but just simply get a date the second piece if we add the exception from a few requirements together with the priority processing we avail in terms of getting a person aside is a significant thing.

>> on average how many projects come to commission in my experience i don't feel we see two or three more a year that are 100 percent affordable i have questions about the legislation itself it is quite confusing that new code section i'm not 100 percent clear so right now you either have to get a cu or l ta or a thirty 9 so how is it different than turning affordable housing projects into something that is principally permited why needed a new code section that turns it into a more of a slippery slope. >> the new code section one within the specific entitlement processes right now a cu if you need a o d when you write the

legislation as affordable housing project no longer needing a cu you're taking away the ability for them to access the entitlement process or if you have a modifications within the entitlement process that you're eliminating 100 percent affordable projects the way the current legislation is written those promotions no longer need to go through the process but don't have the ability to go through it we thought it is cleaner than a 100 percent project one because of the one planner one section of code this project fits this definition and can usa u aau vail it's itself to those types of modifications. >> if no section 328 do i have

that right than go by the guidelines as written. >> correct. >> for me that's where it gets blurry and you muddled are the density that's a new section in the bonus; correct. >> it didn't exist yet. >> so maybe iceland ask questions to the supervisor around the definition of affordable housing how you made a decision to choose what is not 100 percent clear in the presentations it is 120 a i did not see that in the document i saw a 3 prong documents that was blurryer. >> i thought it was in there. >> with the supervisors office

the definition the california's health and safety code that is housing up to one and 20 percent ami if you look at the existing planning code there isn't a section in the planning code that independence the affordable housing that is one of the problems f rincon hill section of the code it speaks to impact fees but no where in the code it says what affordable housing is we referred the health and safety code up to one and 20 percent ami that's the reference in the code the health and safety code 0093. >> okay. but the staff report as a also references 406. >> i think 406 it is is rincon hill fee section. >> okay.

>> and then what would any - would offsite inclusionary everyone mentioned the 3 pieces but the inclusionary legislation coming bro before us next week from the developer choose offsite with the requirements 100 percent building offsite is it eligible for the program. >> if 100 percent affordable it will be part of program. >> that's different from my point of view i think of the cdc and the projects the nonprofit developers in this case it would be likely a private developer doing an offsite. >> depending on i think there is onsite and offsite the developers are in fact, involved in addition sometimes issues around the oicht to be part of progress for the primary project

and times when the offsite requirements you are aggregated three or four different maybe not enough from one offsite to create a development three or four are aggregated together and a cdc or mercy comes in and take on the site and aggregates them for the process. >> i really want to ask the gentleman if he would point us towards the definition our reference in the planning code more affordable housing. >> you've hit bingo as far as i'm concerned, one of the vexing programs the affordable housing as the gentleman the student pointed out what the hell is affordable the definitions vary between programs when a redevelopment agency within agencies yet to be developed as a single

in the planning code or the administrative code a san francisco definition have been affordability it is always a reference to state law oftentimes to the health and safety code but another times a fascinating thing if we read the reference in the density program it is to the state density program which then rerefers to another an secure definition of affordable what supervisor wiener's ordinance with the health and safety code yet even though density bonus program is a reference to another definition of affordability and there's odd language in one that seems to contradict i'm not a lawyer but it seems to me to contradict the other that's why

this is difficult and took the commission some question because the reference in the density bonus code to the state density buns i bonus you get to count rent-controlled units as parts of you're affordable units but our rent control is not price restricted by ami yet affordability it what are we talking about in terms of the density program it is the reference to the state density and the bonus program and referenced in a different state reference in commissioner wu's program. >> thank you. >> that's the two different that confuses the hell out of me i wish this department will begin what we need and i binge beg to defer sir, we use the one 20 percent of moe is not to san

francisco one with 20 percent of medium a different number. >> thank you. >> so i do want to try to find some way to expedite the two to three projects a year hard to vote on this today mostly because of section 328 the not yet existing section is it so hard to understand the ramifications are of voting in or recommending approval on this legislation. >> i can speak to that briefly john rahaim spoke to this the way the affordable housing for projects 100 percent affordability in the craft legislation 328100 percent affordable projects that choose to take advantage of the modification offends through the

program the supra height and density and savings accounts of rear yard have a new entitlement process to use that's in the draft legislation of the housing bonus if you're 100 percent affordable projects needed a cu and not looking to take advantage in the bonus program you could use if this legislation passed you'll no longer need the cu or cbo to the planning commission for the cu. >> so are the two examples you're giving using that section definitely. >> one affordable housing project to not take advantage of the modifications in the affordable housing bonus project maybe that project is in the eastern neighborhoods not needing the extra height or the modifications included in the affordable housing bonus program maybe the only thing they need

is a cu to be occupied. >> okay. i'm not 100 percent clear but that's part of challenge. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i ago what commissioner wus comments we need to get separate from the bonus program it is more confusing it is extremely confusing legislation it cam came about and considered with the 100 percent affordable housing bonus if you're coming in under kurntd rules and many of the projects are like you said in eastern neighborhoods in places not effected by the affordable housing density program but have a large project authorization or a cu and those two projects we've seen that have bang predominantly fine

we've approved them and the affordable housing developers are community oriented and work through the issues the project and generally get approved a couple we've seen i was not on the commission over to washington and lombard people use this to oppose the affordable housing development 234089 necessarily the size and scope of the project but it was an affordable housing project we may avoid by eliminating the city requirements so definitely i have no problem approving and moving forward i think we're trying to mud he will it by linking it to the affordable housing project it didn't link but if you take advantage of the two or three you're 100 percent affordable you have to come back to the commission or say you don't have to come back to the commission it's up to us and the

board of supervisors and everyone else that approves this legislation we've approved fast tracking and let's improve the process; right? yet wooech we've seen affordable housing developers mercy and bridge that will help them get financing or be able to get ahead of the process here we've generally has been non-controversial more affordable housing except a couple projects that are extremely controversial i mean it is not i agree with and she we're not - we're eliminating the height and those stay the same and eir and ceqa and environmental approval

remain the same those projects are necessary and desirable we're saying no, i don't have a problem people can dr and prove to the developers to the public if their necessary and desirable i believe their necessary and desirable and a lot of people that are opposing the density bonus program in the neighborhood and people our neighborhood - there's soma and the eastern neighborhoods and not necessarily in the sunset or the richmond so i don't think we have to link this with the affordable housing density bonus program and yet to be determined inclusionary increase where we now have a cu that is generally been we approve it and we talked about the affordable housing

projects except for the two projects we'll avoid that and give the two projects that are unnecessary process the ability to cut it short so i don't think it needs to be continued or linked to 9 bonus program or the mayors program we make we're trying to improve the process more affordable housing i'm happy moving forward and a couple of questions on the substance of it we don't talk about we talk about the continuance and back to the definition of affordable housing so we have defined i mean we've put in various area plans with the definition of affordable housing for this you provided progressing we have to have a definition what are we using we w when we say 100 percent is many one hundred and 20 percent or lower or only done by

nonprofits when we make that determination we have to do we have code sections that relate to the affordable housing how do we begin. >> it is often page 8 of the case report a comprehensive list of where we begin affordable housing in the planning code the affordable housing bonus program relies on section 406 d for the local program the rincon hill fee definition 3 components of that and the tsf uses a slightly different definition but this is the state definition of affordable housing. >> do you think this few minutes ago it anywhere else. >> i'll have sophie speak to the definitions.

>> do you have any questions. >> my other question to supervisor wiener there are we haven't discussed these at all two land uses that struck me as we have the preservation of theatres and grocery stores you know the one the grocery store fee like if you're putting housing in what used to be a grocery store you get a fee the reason we do that to try to preserve grocery stores maybe that's the one i have a hard time exempting the cu we are pitting grocery stores against affordable housing. >> sure that's a reasonable issue to raise in the legislation just to be clear in case anyone it confused not eliminate any kind of cu retail use if there the formula retail on the flooring a bank a cu

required for a title company in the you were market you still need conditional use and still need a cu if you're going to increase the parking that's a staff condition we're incorporating that in terms of the movie theatres and supermarkets from the commission want to make a recommendations to alternate it that's one of the issues there are probably a good view on both sides i'll be open to considering that. >> i do - also 100 percent housing if you have empowering neighborhood serving retail would you still be able to get the cu exception. >> you'll be able to get the cu exemption with respect to the

housing aspect could be triggered by the square footage or by the height but if you want to and in most areas on this putting retail on the ground floor but a cu otherwise required you'll have to - >> if otherwise a cruz didn't trip you up because you have commercial. >> no, no, no. >> whatever the existing land use controls for land use in that area. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> a question for staff the assume we have a full commission on the 28 of january? i wasn't sure commissioner johnson i believe was still be part of commission >> commissioner antonini i believe that january 28th was the first date she'll be leaving for maternity.

>> convict it the donate 28 was the day she asked to have it done. >> i have it she's out the 28 to march third; is that right and that's what i have based on her - >> we can leave it at the date and continue to an earlier date. >> we can't do that actually you'll have to continue it i'll make a motion to the 21st. >> is that all right. to the seconder? >> commissioner hillis. >> can we get clarification why you know what the rational i'm not supportive of continuance i haven't heard

anyone talk about the issue. >> i want to see where the time is spent in the process a 10 or 8 year process how much in take and back and forth with the community diagram it hey, we've maximized our process let's cut the public out that's the last thing to do a major policy change we should be looking at process six months out of this process and if we can't it's time to start making the policy this is a major policy change anguish you bring me a process diagram who what where wow. 6 weeks away a critical path i could be doing this and that there is none of that during the policy change

throwing it out we can't make any additional process improvements change the process and say hey, we'll do this process like this this is backwards to say this is certainty you have a dr you're option for review actually our process is one and 80 days we can save 3 months how many prongs were dr nun it is since i've been here dred on affordable housing did we have any. >> essentially the dr is our muted point they come to us anyway. >> we get duo it ousted front and appeal to the board thirty day appeal so taken this you're chance to do with the dr is backward. >> commission the only comment

i completely agree we have all projects at least 20 percent affordability to cap for the progressing we say 100 percent affordable and the only comment i'll say about continuing in january 31st laying out the process and understanding the steps of the process that take the time is still going to take more time than you think you're not have is resolved by january - >> we can do that for example, some projects need a zoning change that's another form but there's a lot of steps in the process. >> we have a performer a look back in the last year's how many have applied cu they have surveillances give me something to go on 10 projects with 4 bona

fide cu and damn we're getting close other one they pay the - maybe we're onto something we're getting rid of some of these do a look back analysis this is quality and mature i hate making big decisions without understanding those things. >> commissioner moore you're and other commissioners benefit i'll ask some folks to speak on the percentage of time spent. >> sophie from the mayor's office of economic workforce development since 2008 they have been 6, 100 percent projects that have required only conditional use authorization so this applies to those and in addition 6 projects that required a conditional use and

variance, and oh, a variance and something else. >> a p organization. >> right not exempt through this progress and of those there are i'm sorry in addition two projects that required a cu and sud and were appealed you've heard about those projects today it was the edward the 2 on lombard street. >> the question the way it is it would not be required through the section 329 review that's what is changing as well. >> correct we don't have projects that only had those plus. >> the cu one is probably a no brainier i worried about the 6 and 2 no level of design review

from f this commission and the contention ones the sud something we should look at it and have a public hearings this is not all bad or good there are different shades i get my head around. >> this will come to you and the board. >> the 329 get rid of and in the eastern neighborhoods. >> it is generally - >> and that in terms of of the alleged costs and timelines how much it costs and the cu these are things i wanted to flush out in the next - >> i remind you 6 projects since 2008 that will be affected by this that won't have to go to the cu process so 6. >> i mean can you clarify. >> with the staffs

recommendation the 12 projects; right? >> the way it would be no 309 and no 329 review. >> correct. >> i'm not sure. >> you still the projects that require a variance will require that. >> clearly we're not changing. >> the projects that require a variance still require a variance. >> that's my answer. >> the university universe is fairly narrow if that's the projects since 2008 and we've approved thousands of projects and short on this affordable housing with the housing crisis it would seem this is an opportunity to try to accelerate that. >> so for projects may i. >> for the projects that require a .329 why have a

hearing. >> the variance hearing is held by the zoning administrator unless an approval by you that's the da hearing that is generally separate he conducts his own hearings. >> can we do it in conjunction. >> he typically would. >> ms. hayward said a variance and something else. >> those exemption with require a cu if a project requires a variance it needs to go through the variance, etc. >> sure i'm fine supervisor. >> thank you very much. >> in terms of the 6 projects or 12 projects our goal in san francisco so have many more

affordable housing projects and the bonds we're doing all sorts of things so the number of projects whatever way that cost is not relevant we want more affordable housing you know fishing with respect you made a comment about cutting the public out of the process not accurate as you may know for many, many projects that don't require conditional review there is many before this commission if so opposition you can oppose this protective as a prerogative but cutting the public out of the process is not accurate it provides inaccurate information to the public to commissioner richards i completely agree we should be working very hard to ring out the access times i support you 100 percent and the community budget i'll be there for you

that's work that should have happened 25 years ago and could have happened 5 years ago or 10 years ago it didn't happen sometimes efforts that don't work given our process it will take awhile and gods speed i'll help you not a rational to hold up the legislation and not august until we fix anything we have an opportunity to fix something today, i know a modified motion to continue i want to say no diverse one is 28 and 21st putting aside commissioner johnson's leave whatever recommendation to the board of supervisors please do so but no reason to detail this today and i ask you to act on

this today. >> commissioner moore. >> supervisor wiener you were out of the room for part of time you may have been on our monitor a large must be number of people in this room that spoke strongly about supporting the legislation in piss form particularly cutting out the public from the public want to hear this, please do so i sit between what the public is telling us here and my responsibility of what i'm supposed to guide between with two chairs i want to support you but ask you to see the public is not not involved in the process this fell into the middle of what you were helping perhaps the mayor to formulate the ballot initiative for supporting affordable housing in the bond

measure i'm not sure how to listen to the public but hear you, we need to move on this if this is so important why can't you support the public asking for more time why putting pressure on us to support you i like to support you but i need to hear with the public says and today it is very, very loud in a way i'm the public as well. >> so commission first of all, i appreciate you're comments about listening to the public i actually represent 75 thousands of public that elected me twice and less than listen to them all the time many, many conversations in person on the street and e-mail and social media and every considerable forum with the members of the public and what ware asking for

more affordable housing so i also will say you're comments you have concerns about this legislation i'm not asking you if you want to not support the legislation that's fine i'm not trying to you work you to do anything you do want to do but no reason to detail this is a straightforward legislation been in the public realm for about quite a few of the and appropriate for the commission to take action whatever that action is today. >> i'd like to support it but so many unanswered questions we want to have worked out you're ability to stand here and give us that detail i think the public is speaking about. >> commissioners a motion to continue this to january 21st,

2016. >> commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner hillis no commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong no that motion fails is there an additional motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> with any modifications remember the grocery stores and there was were two things the supervisor was amenable to modifying. >> are those included right now those displacing the movie theatres and grocery stores will have to go before the commission or not. >> right now they would not if you want to recommend those kept as cus. >> my motion includes those no conflict but an instance they

need to keep the theatre. >> i'm open to that. >> that's my motion. >> is there a second to that. >> not yet. >> your batting third commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask at a time the only concerned about historic movie theatres we're concerned about the keeping you informed retention of small business a smaller category i'm some 0 support of i've spent a lot of time on the commission working with the small business commission i would be more interested in seeing small businesses categorically protected this is an movie theatres explicit equipment those that are turning into gives him. >> movie theatres are not there not a stronger land use category not to the real concerns of the neighborhood

that's one of my comments i believe that i currently not prepared to help craft certain other tweaks of this legislation because i had strong hopes we'll continue it particularly in the advisory committee of the larger concerns two other pending pieces that all meetings need to fit together like a perfect puzzle. >> commissioner wu. >> item not as simple as a tweak here nor there it is challenging two different definitions neither of which in the codes rincon hill is in the planning code i might be more confront with the rincon hill definition but still didn't feel flushed out and part of the continuing challenge for me. >> commissioner hillis

and i'll add some recommendation we consolidate a definition of avenue, i recognize this is more challenging one recommendation to delink kind of the references to the affordable housing bonus legislation in those definitions and rely on the existing definition of affordable housing in the code so that's what i want to add to the recommendation as we eliminate the reference to the new code sections for the affordable housing bonus program and find a definition you know related to the - find a definition of affordable housing that is in the code i realize this is getting caught up with the right percentage targeted of avenue is it one and 20 or 50 that's for the legislator to decide not the planning commission but i think that is got to be

resolved and find a definition that works so again, this is going to be by the board of supervisors and the land use commission i'll recommend we use a definition that is encourage in the planning code. >> i'm fine as the maker of the motion. >> can i make a clarifying so for this piece of legislation roach the cu and the recommendation to create a new section for the 100 percent projects that is defined in the ordinance so i want to clarify that is the staff recommendation for this piece of legislation. >> i would be fine my motion to be fine with that including the movie theatres. >> theatres and to modify it privately owned not formula retail but ground floor retail

because if it is being eliminated. >> i'll ask the supervisor about the recommendation. >> can you clarify what. >> if there was a situation where it was a lot with only one level and it had ground level retail not formula retail and you know the project was was to demolish that and build only affordable to see if we needed to keep that and put the affordable above it. >> so in terms of demolitions i know that they have their own rules in the planning code if director rahaim wants to chime in and they have their own rules those rules will not be changed. >> it is a conversion if you convert to housing on the ground

level. >> there are plenty of areas you can't build housing for retail on the ground floor. >> yeah. i think you're talking about actual the planning code didn't have any - no requirement for a hearing for a demolition or non-residential building removing it but commercial space no requirement for you to review it if if is a demolition in and of itself. >> or conversion to housing is allowed. >> depends on the district typically because of height and lot of the building you review is one story. >> you complicate it craft something in the legislations that is protective that's a finding i want to make. >> we're happy we'll talk

about to the planning department staff why it is feasible and commissioner richards. >> one other question for the periphery for the 6 projects that requires a variance and with the authorization the sections where they're at we have to have a hearing because of the variance we're not getting rid of the variance would you be opposed to hear the to seconds and my understanding what there's a variance that can't be occupied by conditional review is heard by the zoning administrator and can be appealed from the zoning administrator i believe to the board of appeals if i'm not mistaken that will be remain intact with the variance is required. >> okay. not appealable. >> to the board of appeals. >> it is the same thing but conditional reviews are available. >> got it okay. thank you. >> commissioner wu.

>> okay so i have more questions for staff if i heard commissioner hillis correctly our suggesting we eliminate reference to the not yet forms section 328 that means what we'll be recommending oh, a path forward not to make administration. >> i'll clarify again, the staff report had a discussion on codes section 428 the staff presented to the commission on the affordable housing bonus the recommendation for this legislation is not linked to the affordable housing it references like other legislation that may have an impact in the future this legislation as currently written didn't impact the affordable housing bonus program. >> you're recommending a new. >> correct we're recommending a new code section. >> in reality that's 328. >> it's whatever you guys recommend i mean the way the definite is it would be 4

projects simply a.d. 100 percent affordable and projects that continually the affordable housing bonus so the 3 stories. >> i'm sorry to interrupt we're over complicating it whatever number. >> that code section didn't have a definition attached i can recommend a new code section and only available to projects that are 45 percent ami and below about. >> you could make that recommendation to use the existence from the code. >> and the definition in the legislation is state health and safety code definition. >> and just to clarify my thoughts i mean, that's fine i'm comfortable with the new code section i think was the complication we referenced the code section and creating the affordable housing bonus program

so just avoid that if we create that through the affordable housing density program great but one level or definition of affordable housing applies to i'm comfortable with 120. >> well i mean, i'll make the plug at 55 commissioner antonini. >> my motion is one 20 it allows us to have for sale affordable units included many speakers talked to the purchase of something not available and lower you can have lower units too that's the maximum amount they can be but not have to be at that amount. >> commissioner moore. >> one point of clarification i want to ask staff what type of outreach have you done to the public. >> again, you - this piece of legislation is sponsored by

supervisor wiener as staff we had 90 days to review that's where why we're here we had a december hearing on the 17 which pushes the 90 days to february 15th. >> it's not the question i'm asking. >> commissioner moore if i may. >> when we rely on the supervisors office to do the outreach and propose the legislation we're active in outreach supervisor wiener did the outreach but the department if it's not our ordinance. >> i appreciate that i don't want to put autism all the burden on you but you're responsible to a number of stakeholders could you perhaps talk about why people that represent organization and nonprofits e seem to say they don't knows mission bay anything about it. >> thank you for the opportunity commission as i mentioned in any remarks you'll see there are a number of

affordable housing nonprofits who have written letters in supports there are other affordable housing organizations that we also reach out to we have i speak at a lot of community meetings i raised this the last number of months every community meeting i've spoken at i'm proud of that legislation it is important and applied it we'll done outreach in the newsletter that goes to many, many people social media and individual meetings we're talking about it for quite a while and we don't outreach it's been in the press and that is also important because the press like it or not the broadest way of is a sixth amendment

information about that happening a lot of ways this legislation has gotten out there and we've heard feedback today, i'm sure we'll have feedback between now and land use and more feedback at land use and the process will continue. >> thanks. >> commissioners there's a motion seconded to approve this matter or adopt the motion or resolution recommending to the board of supervisors as amended by staff and to remove the grocery store and theatre from the legislation to consolidate the definition of affordable housing and rely on the existing definition removing the link to a future affordable housing bonus program and include consideration to ground floor retail uses before i call that question i want to make clear our rules and regulations date

under article 4 of meetings in section 6 for voting a motion that receives less than 4 votes is a disapproval the requested action it references planning code section for the planning code amendments that i'll read it to you for- your benefit after holding a hearing the planning commission shall approve should amendment or part or otherwise disapprove the same so from the vote is 3 to 3 without subsequent motion for a recommendation to disapprove or approve or continue the matter the legislation will move to the board of supervisors with a representation for disapproval for the planning commission

sorry to further complicate the matters. >> if i can add one clarifies commissioner antonini over motion to support the existence in the ordinance not the ordinance in the code but with that jonas said i want to clarify. >> i made a motion to support what is the staff recommendation as was spoken to by mr. power and the part about the retail was a finding i don't think we agreed to make that a condition i think we wanted to try to have sche try to see whatever could be done do protect the existing retail that could be in there as you read it. >> as i stated a consideration for ground floor retail and commercial uses so i want to be clear we're striking the section that i thought was part of motion to consolidate the

definition of affordable housing and rely on the other condition that section will be removed and forward the approval as written is that - >> with the modification for grocery stores. >> right. right >> i wanted to comment on the retail i think there is no existing - there's existing cus or fire protection for demolishing if we have too much codes we're adding process to be considered making it easier so some sort of fine but not adding requirements. >> just to be clear we're keeping the recommendations the legislation removed the link to affordable housing bonus program is that - >> staff already has something mr. powers can you comment on that i believe that staff has referenced to there's going to be a section that will be created in the future.

>> the only link to the staff report talking about the two ordinances the ordinance itself didn't have a density bonus. >> that's right we want to separate the two but may set up a code section to as i do the legislation it might not necessarily be the same code section for the affordable density bonus program. >> okay then let me read that motion back into the record for the recommendation to the board of supervisors and to remove the grocery store and theatres from the legislation and to include a consideration to ground floor commercial uses. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a question for the commission secretary if this commission didn't take a vote and forward it to the board of

supervisors without comment to recommendation or asking for clarification is that acceptable. >> you'll have to make a motion with that regard but it is- you're either making a recommendation for approval or disapproval or excuse me. make a recommendation for approval with amendments or a part of legislation otherwise it is no recommendation we've done that before it is in critical situations and staff goes to present this at ludicrously we gave a prefer explanation we would say a vote to continue a vote to approve those issues ultimately it didn't make a motion but we would go into the reasons why. >> thank you. >> shall i call that question. >> please.

on that motion commissioners commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore no commissioner richards no commissioner wu no. >> and commissioner president fong that motion fails 3 to 3. >> is there an additional motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> continue to january 21st. >> second. >> commissioners supervisor would you rather have as a it is or rather have a consideration. >> i would like this to move to the board of supervisors with and the commission view what it is. >> i withdraw my motion. >> mr. star clarified to move it to the board of supervisors without recommendation. >> it is either approval or disapproval. >> a failed motion means a disapproval. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles i think what the secretary is explaining it

is technically a disapproval but mr. schneider said when we goes to the committee he'll explain the commissions view not a motion to disapprove. >> got it. >> if no alternate motion commissioner break or take another you. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, december 3, december 3, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar we'll be calling up items 10 and 11

together for a single public comment period item 10 housing informational discussion and item 11 for case 2014 plus affordable housing bonus program informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners gil kelly director of citywide planning if the planning department staff i wanted to lead up off with item 10 a brief introduction to the following item the affordable housing dents bonus program by sort of bring you up a level to the sort of general framing the policy housing policies are coming to you with a frequency and giving us i and looking forward arbitrate but particularly to put today's discussion into a context.

>> with our indulgence he'll show you a few slides available to the audience on screen here as well i want to refamiliarize you with the 3 large sections of this discussion beginning really before this chart back in january of this year we brought forward a 5 year work program that really made the notion of increasing the entity and density of the city one of four major challenges we returned to you in may at you're request by one of the important tops to address that the affordability of providing for the affordability of housing over time so on the left side of the graph timeline you'll see in may we had a discussion with you about 3 elements one is

restating that challenge, and, secondly, a lot of facts and figures of the displayed context in san francisco and the region and then reviewed our existing housing policy goals from the recently adopted housing elements the revised housing elements in september we initialed part 2 of the review of the existing tool in the tool kit for the housing policy and in that case mohcd described to you the 3 programs their engaged in you'll recall sophie and other were here and a number of rent board staff we're kind of in the second part that have middle bucket, if you will, which is really to talk about the emerging legislation the

next piece will follow me directly today and you've had a first or first discussion and tang objection in january, the affordable housing bonus program is just to reacquaint you you'll recall that we part of what we depicted was the real rapid surgery in san francisco san francisco and the bay area combined with other effect of peopleing this double wham i didn't say slaits the housing rents new highs and that is coupled as we've described that the lack of production of housing over the last two or

three decades these are conspiring to really in revoke not an exaggeration of the housing crisis now we had a good ground and come out of that discussion with two takeaways for our work which is one we really need to think about this in terms of local solutions and regional solutions and that we need to think about the existing housing stock and you've been thinking about that up to that discussion the next image is reminding you thought 5 year workshop challenge we've stayed that remains very important top of our list in an odd way echo by a report by the bay area council the cost of

housing throughout the region as well as just in san francisco their institute releases 19 a statement we posed this large question which going not only to housing but to jobs really in san francisco's future the manhattan of an increasing growing region or to be the diverse city in a poly citizen rick region the other cities are doing their shares in terms of jobs and housing that's the larger framing for our work and see as i said we ended up at this notion about we dove into the current tool kit we need to seek regional solutions both director rahaim and myself have

been talking to other cities and we needed to manage our existing housing stock as well for new production. >> so then we jumped into the part 2 and you're review with mohcd again, we kind of broke down both two parts looking at the production side and the preservation of the existing housing stock this is the recap of the production elements i'll not go into those today san francisco is doing a fair amount compared to other existing regions goes to the regulatory and the fiscal side as investments in some ways mohcd program is falls underneath the 5 year umbrella it's the mayor's plan to create or preserve affordable

units by 2020 we'll come back to you seeing how that number stacks up with income levels and varies income levels whatever we can do about that but this is driving the current program it drives the bucket most is focused on the production of housing or the rehabilitation of the housing sites. >> and so that you kind of lands us to where we are today and again looking at production and preservation keeping our eyes on both of those the top level of left item your involved with now i want to put that into the scene of other things you'll be considering here in the next period of time including potentially accessory

dwelling unit program that is a small slice but an important slice over the long term of producing housing that is relatively for affordable on the preservation does the displaced tenant preferences we've discussed an amendment to the rent ordinance for restrictions on evacuees and in the background a couple of things the housing bond that was passed earlier last month now that actually provides money for both the production and potentially for preservation at some point we'll talk about more the land trust model that's an interesting proposal and last bullet is cowling u coming out of tough cases around the potential removal that make sense of a rent-controlled unit and what would be the standards

for you're judgment in this case in replacing those units we wanted to flag that that may come to you shortly after the first of the year at least ideas for you to talk about i think that kristen may refer to that in her preservation coming up as well this is a preview of our research in march we've been doing kim has been thinking about that and do a lot of research we'll to come forward. >> talk about the next generation and the tool kit and particularly a framing that ♪ coming diversity here and throughout the region that will

be interesting to look through along those lines just to - lost any - there we go >> a thinking about the diverse roughly 40 percent at one and 20 percent of medium no objection or above and 32 in the lowest categories 50 to one and 80 combined or about a 28 percent if you look at back ten years or more to the 2000 census those numbers are different particularly for the middle-income the bigger slice of the pie so looking forward that is not a great trend and looking sort of how that is trend and scrape under the surface and look at that against

the city's housing stock in particular as well as through the survey of activities going on in other parts of the region something that need to be made of a regional strategy so i wanted to leave you that slight previous of coming up in may and kind of frame today's discussion each the protective pieces you're doing is important and it has to add up we look forward to come back to the higher level of the horizon with future stance in the spring i'll be happy to answer any questions otherwise we'll jump into the immediate items. >> commissioner wu. >> just want to say thank you for the reminder on the emerging policy piece i'm appreciative of the work i want

to reiterate that in the preservation category i think we've been moving towards understanding the preservation as a strategy in addition to production people there is placed strategy i've listed the people stream avoiding evictions and stopping evictions that is all very good but i think that the place based strategy is the actual preservation of the housing; right? and starting to get there with the look at maybe a bmr replacement policy for rent-controlled units and i want to say the last two the pie chart is devastating seeing the trend i appreciate the income based analysis and looking at what we can do. >> if i can respond we're

engaged in the mission district that involves the preservation and production certainly those conversation in different parts of town you're right we didn't look at that. >> commissioner richards. >> a great preservation in terms of the strategy outlining as you did putting what the goals and where we are here's where we are in terms of where we meet that will be helpful. >> commissioner moore and broad issues i'll ask if you consider under item 3 for the san francisco policy you're prepared in touch with the high rate of vacancy in the housing stock the second one is who is taking on a comprehensive effort legislating absentee ownership because of the country as a

whole has its own cultural and natural resource san francisco has a different problem if you're present to bring that go the discussion and the problems airbnb trails the action. >> how much of inadvertent is not being used as of housing stock. >> it is interesting who are reporting similar problems in the metropolitan area we can look at that. >> good point. >> commissioner antonini. >> not part of the preservation you mentioned regional solutions it is important to do doing everything we can to encourage the state and federal agencies where ever we can there are fund to be

withheld san francisco with the smallest footprints has produced quite a bit of housing as well as market-rate like san mateo and marin and contra costa not good and in the eastern part of alameda that is a fairly good job. >> given geographically 47 reconciles only able to house so many people. >> absolutely we have a be advocates for people doing work ♪ arena and director rahaim and i have a number of conversations the momentum is building >> i appreciate it to keep it at high-level and in prospective thank you very much. >> good afternoon commission

kirston department staff talk about the housing stock bonus program as you recall we did a long preservation going over the program today will be a different flavor a much shorter preservation from staff to start with i'm going to kind of give a high-level overview the members of the public will be joining for the first time and after that each of our staff member and key members and amanda from david barker architects will be responding to the specific questions on november 5th we were not able to respond to all of them but we'll share with you other in january at that hearing you'll hear progress in the conversations you're hearing to start with jonas we have packets

up here we'll be talking about the program area and a lot of questions at the last hearing and where they are and what opportunity sites looks like he's done great research and amanda will be talking about some of the design considerations and followed by monique talked about talking about the outreach and i close the preservation by talking about the relationship between this program and rent-controlled units and i think gil for shadowed where we are moving and looking for your input where our work is a discussion we are looking forward to you're comments on that. >> so quickly a reminder this program had 4 key policy goals the one is encouraging higher levels of affordable housing and

new development so it does that by both creating greater incentives more affordable housing it does that specifically for projects mixed use as alluded to in the previous hearing it also offers benefits 100 percent affordable projects and various tools this 0 program also included offering a permanently affordable housing to middle-income we begin that is as 100 percent i'm for affordable and for ownership. >> just a quick reminder on the program it is thirty thousand parcels most of those parcels have good healthy buildings we don't think this will encourage the redevelopment on all of them or most of them,

in fact, 200 and 40 soft sites places we think about take advantage of the program and it does include districts that are residential mixed use and residential commercial and rh3 ross are district that generally require commercial on the ground floor and residential above those are places that are program areas generally one one quarter mile so the place where mta as prioritized for transportation and also to be clear there is confusion about which programs apply where and the any of the mixed use programs state or local programs are only available in our program area the place you see not including rh1 or rh2 there is one program that mrs. applies in a broader geography

the 100 percent program that applies in our planned areas not no rh1 or rh2 so 100 percent housing in eastern neighborhoods and market octavia and balboa park but in the the commercial corridor in rh1 or rh2 a quick reminder on the program that is two key programs that are mixed use the first i'll talk about the local program so 12 percent inclusionary blues 18 percent middle-income units and the offset for that program is two additional stories of height and regulate by height and bulk and in order to incentivize family housing a big conversation we had we're adding a requirement to have 40 percent of the units be two bedroom or more

then the state analyzed program our implementation of the state law and in this case we on the projects will choose to provide their inclusionary onsite and at&t add more units 5 to 8 percent depending on the ownership and a 35 percent bonus and a few incentives and concessions. >> so that was my forever or effort on a quick reminder and we'll dive into some topical will preservations. >> good afternoon, commissioners poly with the citywide division so i'm going to talk about the soft pack we've been talking about you'll recall that the

blue map is about thirty thousand 5 hundred parcels the vast majority of those are built on with existing residential and commercial and institutional uses that are not expected to be redeveloped in the near future this program does not remove any of the existing regulations or controls around demolishing demolishing and furthermore the local program which is requiring thirty percent affordability of all units that twice the existing requirement was tested we tested that level on sites that were essentially vablg vacancy we think that sites will likely pose two high of a financial barrier for redevelopment so the department projects those projects will happen on roughly

200 and 40 soft sites on paralyze less than 5 percent of what their zoned capacity and don't contain those incentive uses so that - i'll take you through analysis showing that those soft sites giving you a picture of what they look like they're generally disexperienced throughout the city and the majority in the mc-3 and half in 40 x height district which would a maximum of 6 story will be allowed under this these are images of a actual soft sites generally when and site it built to 5 percent of its zoning it is vacant or contains a

parking lot in some instances a one story commercial building on the lot and why do we choose those sites we look back at projects that were completed over the last 10 years and did a street view with mask to see what was there before if you look at those images were completed in 2014 and we'll see that what they replaced generally, the types of sites we statute as soft sites for this program where are they locked as you recall the soft sites are scattered throughout the city

and many not rezoned in neighborhoods that are predominantly rh1 and reef we did a visualize and their predominantly located on the corners and that is particularly true in the outlying neighborhoods the soft sites have soft limits if 200 and 6 to 40 feet half the soft sites are in 40 x district that is not surprisingly they're by far the most height controls and coffer 40 percent the land area they're allowed 6 stories under the program the next most common soft sites are or 85 which is 8 stories at 13 percent and 60 or 65 at 12 percent

that's 6 stories soft sites exist in almost every zoning district the majority are in the mc-3 they're the focus of the program 60 percent are in the many c 1, 2, 3 and 15 percent in r m we've heard concerns about the difference and character between mc and r m the oranges are the r n the nc are adjacent to each other and we again did a little google to see real life examples of what the mc and the r m look like to each other.

>> so individual products will be reviewed for design based on their surrounding context as well as against the affordable housing bonus program to talk about design i'm going to turn it over to amanda from david barker architects. >> good afternoon early everything planning commission and planning department staff thank you for having myself and david here to present our work as part of this legislation i'm going to do a high-level review what we talked about last time to jog your prethanksgiving brains and do a deeper dive so we studied 12 sites the way

we would when any developer came to us to see what is feasible one of the big finding after studying the site it is constrained by one or two the envelope how high and at all and bulk e and density limits that are assigned her per site for 200 up to 8 hundred square feet of lot area we found they railway relate i showed this mc-3 do 60 units and if you actually built out 3 thousand square feet units which would be great and nice but i don't think a lot of people will build those today, if you took a realistic approach and 60 with one thousand square feet you leave a lot on the table but if you take

away the density stuart site it tripods the amount of homes and violating any of the setback controls one of the other finding let's get rid of caps and trust the physical form described in our neighborhood the other thing we found although that density removal is power for a lot of the sites that may not unlock that for overview site what would two stories of additional height can do the work for other sites the form we studied in looking at the local program could be addressed to maximum limit the density caps and have two bedroom apartments and then we looked i brought one example but a lot of examples of

1920s and tens that live among us are at or exceed the existing height limit and the dot is an additional second story so we took a look at 3 sites this is is the terryville at 28 and 29 this one we'll dive into this allows up to 50 homes that yields a large units on average if you took away the density cap that is powerful you double the amount of units 27 homes in the same 50 feet if a vera take advantage of the program that provides 46 or more depending on the unit size in the 75 that will be housed

okay sorry for the resolution but checkout our packet between 28 and 29 i want to show you the modeling and how we came up with the waivers this is a real level at the same time this site is required to have active uses so let me point out this is the site not obvious here the lobby and the garage but have active retail an terry vail and a- this site actually has a one by one parking requirement you're allowed 50 feet 25 percent rear yard requirement that is common, the this is one to 8 hundred and you have to need to provide a 14

active ground floor and the upper level is simple just imagine a double corridor that is pushed syndrome the take care value with yields a rear yard this is the full memo of waivers this is articulated and spells out how used this prototype has at rear yard and height and parking so it is a pretty small site and so really an out grade garage without putting parking in the street you can provide 15 to 27 parking spaces the more homes we provide less likely to provide that would be parking requirement we feel this make sense to put it on the menu of

list the 25 rear yard that is required the 25 percent of the lot and just a simple residential volume on terryville to note on the sites are foreign sites those from an urban design one of the first things to add the density wrap the volume around so you have a street that faces all facades of the sites you don't have to go up this is a logical place actually 9 of the sites are on the corner sites this is why rear yards shows up as an obvious waiver on the menu and then unit combeesh in a unit faces a rear yard all of a sudden needs enclosure

waiver those are 3 models this is the base case volume we've talked about 15 units with 24 hundred square feet units and this is actually what we thought the market will build today a unit of one thousand square feet that is why this project or site is not being developed this site about not pencil as feasible this shows the 35 percent state law increase if you max out the state law they don't touch the density constraint but under the local program that is up to 50 feet with 27 unit and this is the maximum local program plus 3 stories nobody

wants a big box and david famously said not easy to design a neighborhood so we decided to take architecture strategies that are common in the city and throughout and apply to this white box because the other thing we found you don't have to lose compromised density plenty of whats for to the articulate a building well, however, the making are in hayes valley so again, the box nobody wants in their neighborhood what when you start to add base it is dramatic you'll see the building fit in. >> then we took a more crazy

approach f what if we sculpt the building the box will look like this what if we took the accordion approach build a building and obviously still windows and things like that but carving the mass is the side of the building this weaver pattern got a lot of architecture fans in the back and so this is what that weaver looks like and again, we didn't design the building but want to start kind of answer what we heard to understand what the that building building where will local and how it - i'm curious what other information you want to for the next hearing and oh, of course, you don't have to do the architecture if it is not you're style the building is a

box but detailed well with great materials could fit well within our neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. >> so we actually lost a few of the team members to childcare pickup i mean, i'll talk about the design guidelines i wanted my colleague to walk you through all of these but remind you, we did design in our packet they addressed the issues that amanda walk throu walk throughed the set of guidelines will be things that address those varying heights particularly talking about the treatment for the tops of the buildings and how to i think the direct word is allusion the

sidewalls and finally a specific controls express exceptional and complimentary character those 3 we'll add to the departments seat set of guidelines and tools some of the neighborhoods in the program area don't benefit from the angina guidelines i know we're working on the process and listed from other design tool kits things that talk about mass and articulate and active ground floor we think overseeing things are important and give our planners all the leverage they need to get good buildings through this program i'll be happy to to read those anti loud if you're interested and finally a component that was draft with staff with the preservation team to talk about how projects that might happen within the district

would within an historic district would be evaluated we'll go to the historic preservation commission on december 16th to talk about that and clearly i'm sure those design guidelines will be clear it through those process next i'll invite my colleague up to talk about the administration and outreach. >> hi mrach aon the legislative team i want to spend a few moms on the law mergers and community members and decision makers especially in the richmond and the sunset they're the joining of the adjacent parcels large projects can be easier to manage the 0 projects we've heard about the destine design and context they contribute to the overall design

and other cases the development on merger lots are providing fewer commercial storefronts on smaller lots the developer recommendations for you staff did research on the trends and current city regulations so currently lot mergers through the public works and since 2008 the city as 27 law mergers that total less than 5 a year they're most common in the rh1 and rh2 not included in the affordable housing bonus program the most common are observed between 2 adjacent lots on a corner or two lots merged into two bigger lots the investment neighborhood program found it is difficult for lots to merge their ordinary

by separate property owners. >> currently their regulated in a few the city's district lot mergers are regulated in the outer and under mcd and between 32 and 3 months commercial corridors require a conditional review if their restricted and above but more restrict you're not regulated in the adjoining parcels the typical corridor box on richmond and the sunset is 200 and 40 feet expanding 9 to 10, 40 feet parcels they demonstrate that many of the corridors with larger than that pictured on the slide the urban street covering

the entire blocks has a typical air loss. >> staff identified 3 particular lot spaces wear looking for the public's input to address the concern that the affordable housing program will incentivize the lot mergers first is continued to be allowed in areas of the city and any affordable housing bonus project proposing to merge in a cu or a regulation currently exists meets the same finding we could add further to the affordable housing design guidelines in some cases lot mergers are preferred to distribute of the mass of

building between two or three sites with specific guidelines cannabis dispensary 10 talked about the staged guidelines will incorporate more information on the corridor. >> and finally we could cap lot width they result in more than one and 25 feet in neighborhoods commercial corridors to address the street frontage the department proposed development that don't exceed 50 percent of the corridor given the block line in the sunset is 200 and 45 feet that is a good estimate note this only applies to projects in the affordable housing bonus program current regulations are for those not participating for example, a project cocoa merger more than 3

lots. >> excuse me. could you speak a little bit slower it is difficult to follow i've tried it is difficult saw also in our handout so - >> so this current regulation would currently apply to programs precipitating in the affordable housing but projects not choosing to participate they can merger 3 lots on the corridor and if 3 lots exceed they allow the 3 lots and we'd like you're input on which to incorporate go the draft legislation i could take comments now or discuss outreach. >> i'll discuss the outreach approach. >> at our last hearing we

heard comments asking for more information about the promise and more outreach to the community directly we've discussed no november staff developed opportunities phenomenon a stating base for short minute video and an overview and our website hosts the presentations we've given in the draft protective we've developed a mailing list for community members to get information on updates on hearing from the planning commission and staff hosted an enter tisk webinar in 2016-2017 in november the planning department reached out to all supervisors to offer to host a meeting in their districts it is a list of names in the specific neighborhoods or the community

organizations today, we're hosting a merging in richmond on december 9th and a community meeting in district 5 we continue to work with the supervisors and community groups to schedule with the goal of participating with each community that competence angel interest kristen will talk about about this for rent-controlled units. >> okay. great. >> so the last section we want to talk about was the interface of this program with loss of existing rent-controlled units and this is a conversation that to staff has been having with constituents and the commission and also mayor and also in november

and see i wanted today you know kind of talk about how - sorry so you know the goal of this program the affordable housing bonds program so increase the amount of affordable housing and expand the range of households types served by affordable housing it is important and we're all in agreement in this room this shouldn't be done at the expense of affordable housing or existing tenants to those units so today, i want to walk you through 3 things first, the current controls and regulations around the regulation of rent-controlled unit and second what we've proposed in the draft legislation and third some of the with work we are continuing to do to sort of broaden that conversation and enhance those

protections legislation this is not a conversation on this about the program but how we'll handle demolition of rent-controlled unit citywide i think gil alluded to this you've had a number of projects the board of supervisors has asked the development to vessel a framework to help with those discussion there are cases it is a good trade off and a big gray area in between we're hoping this conversation we're about to have together is part of forming the solution to that. >> so i'm going to flip through a couple of things we went through this last hearing the existing controls around demolishing housing unit as you may know they require a public process and hearing in the san

francisco ethics commission is it so not easy for good reason to demolish a good housing unit and tenant election we take seriously some of the pieces of legislation that are adopted in the past year to help enhance our tenant protection they're around not just the resources for those tenants but also the ability to insure they can return to a unity or receive access to an affordable unit. >> and then this is data on the loss of rent-controlled unit it is a pretty broad timeframe as you can see a couple main reasons if you can read do rent-controlled unit they're lost the top line it the summary to the red line for o m i mo' magic when an owner choose to

occupy a unit no longer rent-controlled and the blue line for ellis act evictions so i believe that is when an owner elections to leave the rental business and those are the two main source of conversion in rent control to anything or loss of a rent-controlled unit and then the blue line at the bottom is demolition i'll unpack that a little bit more we've lost 5 thousand 4 hundred and 70 rent-controlled units over the past 10 years and the two main interest rates are ellis and e owner move-in that is how we're moving a lot of the affordability of our rent controls 5 hundred and 36 units

in the past 10 years lost to demolition under about 200 and 25 of those were actually, the removal of unpermitted units or sometimes their referred to as illegal units recently in the past year we've impacted legislation that helped the homeowners to keep the unit hoping to steam that tied there are one and 80 applications that have been received since the legislation change seeking to remove unpermitted units this is a culture change that we'll have to catch to the other things we count as a demolition are also when a purchasing choose to merge two units that's a loss of a unit and considered demolition and very rarely see the demolition you might think of it

a wrecking ball or the reformisremovaas you can see correspondence i can't read those numbers i apologize if you can't i have there is no more than 40 or 50 in one district over a 10 year period. >> so before i walk through i want to make a point what was the conclusion where we are - from losing to ellis and o m i one of the things that highlights the 1r50u7b89 around the loss of rerltdz that are an

important source of affordable housing for our city 46 percent of total housing stock is not demolition it is really change in tenure not i'm going saying it couldn't be but we're seeing healthy buildings being ownership opportunities the next couple of slides are will have those scenarios oil spend a little bit of time explaining the box on the left is meant to show you the existing parcel two purple their rent-controlled units so two units on a parcel what could happen today, the gray units are market-rate and bmr or permanently affordable units the cost for the household is thirty percent ami and a particular income target for

that household if an inclusionary unit 50 percent ami and the affordability is permanent so in this case, the existing two units rent control buildings under today's rules become permanently market-rate by going through ellis or owner move-in eviction that's the top box on the bottom what will happen with new construction maybe 9 units are available on the first one they'll replace that with the market rate housing or on the scenario on the right 10 units there's a replacement of 10 unitser more replace that with one inclusionary unit and the remainder with a market-rate los are the kind of projectors projects the trade offs are not

clear and the decisions are not easy with the affordable housing bonus program it is step two the legislation that is before you we've included greater protection than the slide i walk you through more affordable housing for projects that are using the affordable housing bonus program either local or state we're lucky in the advocates in la working very hard at the state to have this law passed called ab 2222 i talked about this the last time this law says in any case someone uses the state density bonus law thai must replace the affordable units one to one it is important it is a little bit of a misnomer to call it one by one we're allowed to replace it

imply a bmr an affordable permanent unit that is an upgrade perhaps most for the affordability is tied to the unit so unlike decontrolled once out of the unit guaranteed to someone of the same income level an enhancement for the security of the tenants and could pro-improve the landlord/tenants to not remove the tenants they'll get the same rent regardless it reduced harassment and didn't have the threat in the omi and ellis so the lots of conversations around what is

affordable and i think you might have had an different conversation than i had in mind when our spending thirty percent of you're income on you're housing any bmr unit geeze thirty percent of you're income on you're on housing costs we can income target this to any ami we see fit with the funding source but those units will have this catalyst. >> so how did ab 2222 by way of how the legislation before you without changes would work so let's say you have on the left a 4 unit rent-controlled i take it and want to go through a construction project currently today you might have no inclusionary units or one but let's say to the bottom scenario like to make take advantage of

the local housing bonus plan and mix 20 percent of our affordable units affordable one whole column it has to be affordable that is 4 units you're passing the test of the local bonus program 40 percent and passing the test of 4 replacement units. >> one more scenario let's see 6 rent-controlled units but only required in the replacement to make 4 of them affordable thirty percent is 4 you must add two more you have to replace those existing rent-controlled units one for one and i think we had a clear understanding of this last time and a future conversation which is that enough is replacing those units and then

also letting them b be counted and affordable outlet or enough or should we go further since our rent-controlled units is important to us we're exploreing two different things should be used in rare cases to be clear we don't on the demolition of rent-controlled units should happen often through the program we've heard from some people band the use of this program if thai rent-controlled units on the lot at all there is some merit to that idea i think there is real issues the first issue i think is maybe we spent a lot of time especially in san francisco and california trying to do ludicrously law and a lot of energy an out right band we for

see all the circumstances and how we use the program the outcome you're saying to someone spend you're promotions only have 40 percent affordability and guiding people to a lesser percentage of steering away from the ultimate goal we want to craft something our defendant is working very hard to thinking about a proposal that really minimize the opportunity for projects with existing parcels with existing rent-controlled units to take advantage of the program but not pitting a band we're not undoing our work of months late i'll walk you through and we're looking for you're feedback and prioritization on the parties that are most compelling for

you. >> so again, our i have to thank over graphic staff they're amazing and patient on the left you've got our four rent-controlled units again, of course, under current control two top boxes and we're simon this project is developing under the local affordable housing bonus program so one of the 3 columns are the required apples and oranges so 4 out of the 12 and orange and purple houses i totally love those are the replacement units so this is the new thing we're offering they were the function much like a bmr the affordability it permanent not subject to vacatecy decontrol and facilitated and managed like our inclusionary portfolio this is very attractive and shouldn't be attractive i don't know exactly

where this line is whether it is like a 4 unit rent-controlled unit building should be protected or on a existing one eight or the size before removing are rent-controlled units the point when the ratio is close between the existing project and the new project stick with the existing housing stock. >> but there are going to be cases where the existing project is still the 4 units and i cannot count those right now but way more than before so the 4 replacement units plus the one thirds affordability is looking a financially healthy project and by way of also a good project for the affordable housing goals we're getting all the affordable units plus

replacing those existing rent-controlled units with permanently affordable units so as i said this shouldn't be commonly used not to create an avenue for the evolution of our housing stock in any way don't want to create a roadblock for projects and opportunities so we haven't thought about the place solution an area we need to think with the advocates and what happens to the people in those 4 rent-controlled units or 6 rent-controlled units a immediately during the construction period and then i think universal agreement we need to learn as a community how to make rights of return work better we like the concept we've had it in many decades but need

to be successful with it so right to return to those units at a rate that is affordable for the household and then relocation assistance this is kind of where we are hopefully to get gathering of data with our residents and other. >> so then that's kind of concludesur staff he presentation broadly strokes to develop that protection program we're logan looking to get that completed and before you before the january 28th hearing we're workout that and we're going to be continuing our work with the community and a number of people have been reaching to us or our supervisors we're hoping to attend all the meeting and we

anticipate there will be substitute legislation any changes we've discussed and a few more technical amendments and available to you a week before our january 28th meeting and at this point, i'm ready for public comment and conversations. >> director rahaim. >> before we get would that that was a lot of information i appreciate your patience on that last issue that cannabis dispensary 10 went through on the rent-controlled units the way to perhaps summarize it we would like to do if we can legally do it any removal of the rer78dz they'll replaced and with the controls she's talked about that's the bottom line if i could just articulate a little bit more why an ousted right ban

is not good there are zoning for large development that pride a number of larger bmr unites that have 1, 2, 3, 4 rent-controlled units and in the balance it might be better in the long run to have 25 or thirty bmr units on the site as opposed to to three or four this is not clear it is absolutely the right way to go but explore this option and have discussions it make sense to allow it in very rare cases to have that balance bmr units verse the rent-controlled units that's approximately what we're trying to get at thank you. >> okay open up for public comment

(calling names) and again, you you want to line up on that side of room it is easier. >> good evening i guess first of all, before going into any presentation i just want to observe outreach by webinar website is just not going to cut it i'm awful sorry not what the neighborhood want people and ask questions we haven't heard from over supervisor in our district district 3 not a word so when thinking about that as i say i'm sorry to sound so harsh that is not adequate the neighborhoods

want to be involved looking at somebody's website doesn't do it i'll go into what he i am here to say as i said from the north beach area member of the executive of telegraph hill and a participate in the drafting of the letter which the coalition submitted yesterday the reason he mention that in addition to i think we did a pretty good job a long list of questions attached to the letter we put them together a who what would the public like to know and equally important what the commission times to know hope we've provided a service but looking for answers and if by the time we get dot 28 we

thought we'll be meeting by meeting by public comment time we'll keep you current how we're getting answers to those questions and don't want to surprise you on the 28 of january i'll hit the highlights quickly on some of the issues those are the highlights of our letter. >> there's too much emphasis placed on middle-income housing not complying with prop k want want an explanation it is in the letter we believe i have the numbers reverses or restored it allows for distribution and replacement of rent-controlled units and the important thing to remember my goodness the

displacement of people to replace the unit but not the same people back in there this is something that is important when developing and the program is only for new construction not for rehabilitating this existing buildings we've pointed out how this impacts rh1 and rh2 the staff indicates to the contrary thank you very much. >> boy. >> this is a long day and calvin wearing the hat of hate ashbury it is fully come forward by the program and the board of council last week unanimously voted to oppose the program for the following reasons first of all, the program clearly will incentive demolition of existing

buildings displacing rent-controlled units and commercial neighborhood serving commercial residents the controls for neighborhood commercial serving uses on hate street are significant we've figure out long and hard and totally abrogated no controls over the new commercial uses came in hate street the amazing concessus of the board why are we 7-eleven the existing buildings and building that i am glad our recognizing that in a confused discussion how to deal with rent control but why are incentiveing this for a minority population it starts with a miss apprehension no affordable housing for people

earning medium the rent control the largest housing program is not casting the offer majority of people in rent-controlled unit are earning one and 20 percent of medium yet their proposing an incentive demolition of the affordable housing program that benefits the population that you say you want to benefit which is people he earning one and 50 percent of medium given the chart you were given is less than 40 percent of the population of san francisco why are we are doing this why are we demolishing his or her that in fact, is already existing rent-controlled units non-means tested has mainly middle-income people in them in order to create incentives to house people earning one and 50 percent of medium mystery to the board of hate ashbury we oppose

the program as preservation drafted and look forward to seeing many amendments to the program. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> obviously people get different ideas of fact are from different ways of hearing the preservation presentation but a number of tax away the two most for this is for middle-income people and two years ago i served on the civil grand juror and looked at the numbers if abag keep in mind abag has water down the emergency numbers and middle-income stuck out like a soar thumb this is traders for

middle-income and inclusionary housing if they don't get anything out of that is tough the other thing if we don't do this or something like that then certain communities are going to have to put up with initiative they'll not been able to do anything about such the enforcing affordability act please don't make us come merry and developers will use the state density bonus law to produce promotions are less input to neighborhood and less awe mission this is a win-win and going with this thank you for listening and. >> good afternoon. residents of the city of san francisco and

concerned about the housing crisis and i have yet to hear any viable includes in calvin or other about the housing crisis the council of community housing purpose to fight for funding and policies that shape inner development and good afternoon the working-class community supervisor cowen is contrary to choose the purpose in it's he own because of these they're more interested in fighting city hall than corroborating with city hall than to find solutions it effectively preserve the culture the neighborhood represents blocking the extent does is not telling them blocking housing density puts pressure on landlords to evict for in time purpose voters gave us a mandate by an overwhelming

majority of building new units one tools in the tool kit the density denyers left hand to the voters voice it is time for the nonprofit and city hall it together to reach into the tool in the toolbox and utilizes the tools to turn this shortage into a abundance which happens to stabilize the rents in the shorments blocking housing to solve the housing crisis didn't save the soul of san francisco i support this program thank >> (clapping.) >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is michael murphy living in the robbed in by that for 45 years my daughter is in

the outer responding and grandchildren in the school i'm excited by this affordable housing bonus program and am amelia impressed by the authoritativeness of the planning commission study to you careful they've considered this we all know the housing crisis we have it due in large measure to regulatory obstacles to construction this is a central issue and finally finally a well-thought-out program to recommend that problem thank you. >> hello christie policy plan for spur thank you for the opportunity to comment on the affordable housing bonus program we are pleased the planning

department is addressing the bonus law and taylor san francisco's extremely high need more affordable housing in the existing context we believe that affordable housing bonus program will create strategic opportunities for high that visible in area plans we see this program being mostly used on parking lot or gas stations two soft sites in terms of in the 200 identified soft sites does not hold rent-controlled unit but we agree the program should not demolish the rent-controlled unit we agree with the planning department proposal to replace require a one for one replacement for on top of the project we have concerned it should not, required to go to the board for approval and the local program

is stringent we've submitted those and other comments to staff lastly heard this is a give away to developers and heard from some developers that didn't pencil because of rapid housing costs somewhere in the middle this will work and sites it won't we ask you to adjust the perimeters as it move forward spur is excited about the opportunities and additional housing with the affordability we spell need thank you. >> i have one minute. >> no. you have 3 minutes. >> good evening commissioners again david elliott louis i'm

wearing this as sro acholic beverage and the quality of life the thirty years i've lived in the city the last 9 in the tenderloin this didn't need this program a citywide program some of the neighborhoods benefit certainly not the tenderloin with the potential treat to rer8d that katherine mentions that is a great concern seems is it too little return for the community two of cost i mean do we need all the density and have to be in height other ways to get density around giving people two or three other floors of height

one-size-fits-all policy i've heard people it can damage our shocker and rent-controlled unit i have to ask you as it is currently proposed to vote no on it i am hoping you'll vote no thank you for your time. >> we have another meeting set up next week and promoted i do want to say we have concerns number one with the one for one replacement our concern first of all, if developer demolishes the existing unit where dots tenants go relocate payment we're trying to keep tenants in our

neighborhoods and what happens if a developer didn't get the financing for a project or it is detailed how long with the tenants be displaced and two what happened then a absentee ownership that commissioner moore raised we've seen this at receipt one of the projects that had a one for one replacement and next is that - a tenant rights organization managing the bmr units has an progressive to be to be honest once you have hundreds of new landlords managing a restricted program how will those units be price restrict and rented at the right

rates into the future next following with the calvin raised the problem of small businesses and this is not the neighborhood character issue a life or death for many of the low income and immigrant residents in the communities who rely on small and locally owned businesses in local buildings that provides the goods and services with the immigrant and other can afford and provide employment for low income and immigrant communities thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to discuss any point of view i have a lot of same concerns that the people have voiced earlier in the evening i want to start out with outreach i i know there is talk about the outreach

and the website is well done and all but in general people in general need to know and that means everyone needs to know i've talked to people in the neighborhood they don't know i'm the only one giving us information they're shocked can't we have mailings to every household of what's going on can't we do that the another thing i'd like to talk about is there is discussion of rent control and being able to permanent have the rent-controlled unit but what about the ones sold and they're below mid or defy price rages how do they get do they stay at that price can

someone flip it i don't of the in any of the documents how does that work and then there's the issue of transit i find nothing about who buys or rents those homes are we the bedroom community for the peninsula and this discussion about working with the rest of the community within the bay area to do their share i mean do san francisco the bedroom opportunity i community something not in there i wish we could talk about that and then

the issue of scale you know buildings can gossip 90 feet according to this thing elevator shafts on top of a 40 foot building how does that go against houses that are 10 and 20 feet at all this is an issue there are rh1 and rh2 directly next to those buildings and sometimes right next door i just if this is the h pb has other zoning in the laws ross are issues but i think should be addressed thank you.

>> (calling names) good evening my name is a patricia through i've heard interesting and good new developments regarding the affordable housing bonus program i have concerns and my first major concern is the document itself it is vague convoluted and worth another speaker not transparent it is not a transparent document subject to change for the

loudest voices and the deepest pocket and history has shaken this police department as overwhelming support with the effect of the residents any second concern equally concerning a portion of the document it removes the possibility of a discretionary review as it is this is a major conduit to citizens to voice their concerns they will be silenced what will happy to rent-controlled unit people it is talked about a lot and concerning no medication of rent control lastly any concern is

the infrastructure muni is overwhelmed i ride it everyday traffic and parking has reached toxic levels in 2, 3, 4 city and the sewer system backs up regularly and two places that 17 and fulsome and glen eagle park we need to fix our infrastructure and in tandem and innovate as an afterthought to affordable housing thank you. >> i'm focus on the impacts to

chinatown recently shares the concerns let's be clear despite the title for neighborhoods this is not an affordable program a gentrification that produces a small marginally affordable housing of affordable housing for openly opening the doors not affordable to the people in the neighborhood in chinatown the household can't quality for the 60 percent ami most of housing being produced by this program this is not a glass half full or empty only a 12 percent at best like chinatown 88 percent of the housing unit will be gentrification no remarks by the staff the gentrification and furthermore we object strengthly

to the unilateral lifting of height limits in our neighborhood he'll limit in chinatown were the lynch pin of the chinatown it is policy 101 for 35 years we've helped to stabilize in chinatown in the country and limits of real estate speculation in the neighborhood and protected cultural significant buildings and maintain the neighborhood scale it is how to maintain the preservation of cultural institutional uses raising the height limit in today's overheated market will destabilize the neighborhood and real estate speculation but perhaps equally disturbing is how this to that down blanket

approach it has we've spent years developing and developing community of consensus this presents a generic one-size-fits-all for all those reason we strongly oppose this legislation. >> >> thank you. next

speaker, please. >> this is not in the media i think of the people deserve notification and it hadn't done so okay. another thing equally important soft sites 40 soft sites parking lot and one story buildings i believe far more soft sites once the developers get awe hold of 7 stories 6 stories for thirty percent affordable on a small lot you could ghetto 10 or 12 apartment buildings that could be lucrative and more demolitions even though the planning department staff said that is

cumbersome and time consuming get 20 units that is a lot incentive i believe and going further on too much discretion to the planning department staff from what i understand the design review will go to the urban action team for commercial projects and to the residential design team for residential projects and staff member mentioned to me a couple of hours ago oh, yes, their proud they hiring one architect a new architect to join the staff their team well, i building one architect just being hired and pit into this team will make important decisions this is not adequate

training i don't think or experience i think that the there is too much power to staff to the young staff and no oversight and no public input and no public review that has to be addressed and for that reason i think this is a plan that has a needs much more time in refinement thank you. >> i guess it's good evening. i'm scott weaver from the san francisco tenants union we don't discharge with this we're extremely concerned with the impacts on the tenants we

appreciate the writing of additional rules and attempt to protect those tenants from what i've seen and what i can imagine there unwe would i didn't and their unbe enforceabenforceable the ellis act person or the tenant that was bought you out this is a really a developer bonus not an affordable housing bonus if a particular lot is zoned for the development bonus the line up on the screen side of the room will see that dollar sign

and every incentive to get those tenants out with plenty of means to do it the san francisco ordinance has lots of loopholes that allows the lymph gland to evict and in the density bonus plan our incentivizing those evictions if we have age eviction crisis we'll we'll e you'll see ellis act there the roof and buy outs and any eviction that a landlord can think of the policy to preserve housing to that lectured o evictions and keep tenants in place and what is the tenants portion of this density bonus or developer bonus program good samaritan total against that

and i hope that there is not the political will in this commission to cause all of these evictions because i know there is a political will ♪ city to stop them and a year from now if? allowed to go through you're going to be through the board of supervisors it never happens for the tenants to effect the rent-controlled tenants thank you >> good evening i work with the tenderloin client clinic as a city acholic beverage i'm here to oppose the program in its current form there is still

unresolved issues currently eloquently brought to your attention but i want to speak about the tenderloin we have to preserve the affordable housing neighborhood and those are tough zoning fight and we have the zoning map that includes the affordable housing and maintains the character and allows for market-rate we have dozens of major residential projects in the pipeline no need to provide incentives for this when this comes to affordable housing to the tenderloin organization has created a neighborhood one in 4 nonprofit housing not requiring density bonus the second reason i'm here i've heard from other communities members here that mentions about

outreach we have never been contacted when i say we it is representative of our programs we work with residents and soma and not in touch with you i encourage the planning department to talk about those programs thanks. >> good evening commissioners tim on behalf of the coalition i want to commend the planning department staff with the excellent work on the housing bonus program it is clear it is batkid backed by a ton of feasibility study and you've seen the work that is transient policy that deserves to be tested the first proposal that

contemplates allowing the increased height and density along the transit corridors and the first serious proposal that hems with the microfilm it is specifically designed to leave the single-family home neighborhoods alone not like the heart attack is supporting of the rh1 and rh2 neighborhoods this is san francisco you've got to acknowledge the strong opposition it is engender you're hearing from folks as a rallying cry to alarm a lot of neighborhoods but it bears mentioning that wear long overdue for a simple fairness in housing specifically the widely held prospective all the neighborhoods have to take all the housing because some refuse according the department data district 10 in the southeast is

built thirty times the amount of housing in district 4 on the park side not clear whether the sunset has built a single new home when the population is growing by 10 thoughtless residents per year bans the presentation one will obvious the folks opposed are marriage older homeowners those are we've been here a long time no room for anyone else go away it is frustrating never been a glimpse of recognition on the part of the city housing crisis san francisco is not a city but a collection of island each insimulated we demands more time to figure out how to kill the proposal and commissioners you

don't have to give that it would be such a relief if the program opponents said that doesn't work but here's something that might work to advance we we need to address the housing crisis but their utterly recreations it is a crucial time we have to look at possible solutions to use scarce land in better was and the bonus program certainly is promising start. >> next speaker >> i'm from the bills are housing program our office is located in inside of math and our surveys is stuart with the avenue bonus program we are well, you see there is a lot of

development there is a lot of things developed but also see in the chart in the research that soma as the rent-controlled units being taken out so this is also kind of like a view of what may happen we're concerned the ami bonus program when when someone looks at more affordable housing they ask for the rents and as the mayor's office of housing has they're well use the hud market fair for san francisco and the rent prices are according to these let's say the way they define the more than income if 100 percent ami the rents for a two bedroom since there is a incentivised to two bedroom is two thousand 200

and 93 the family household of 4 has to make per month 5 thousand so there are questions about the rent-controlled units being taken out and people looking for affordable housing we need need to question who are the people looking for affordable housing people coming to our office are in the service industry and working-class families so we need to look at the you know i mean, i know there is the research but need to look into the affordability i mean the question is really you know very big and also beginning middle-income to one 50 percent ami the two bedroom is 3 thousand 4 hundred and 39 and a household of 4 has to make 7 thousand plus per month we need

to translate this information so people can better understand affordable housing but for the neighborhood like what other neighbors have said it may not be beneficial to them i think the planning commission should take into consideration that thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon and thank you for your patience and perseverance this proposal we've rezoned the whole city a year ago now i guess to allow tourist rent-controlled units all over town now rezone the whole city in the way of density do you think we ought to slow down a new initiate a week this fall is absent much we citizens are

having a hard time keeping up and, of course, i don't have staff are having a harder time this is a developers wet dream not angle affordable solution in terms of the what blepharverse rent control perhaps a presentation on the value of each of those they have their plus or minus but with the rent-controlled unit a group of roommates can stay there and ma of them stay there an infinite period of time they don't have the limitations on family size that bounces them out at they have a 60 page manual that's a lot of trouble imagine the small

landlords with 20 or thirty units i want to point out that the minimum size in this 200 feet to 6 hundred square feet i'd like to see some two bedroom 6 hundred square feet units and also one-size-fits-all does not from neighborhood to neighborhood if you want to take 200 and soft story units and rezone them that maybe a good idea have you done a study an micro units i've not seen it about the success of that program i know we approved a certain number and support to be a study of the outcomes this is too much of a sdroelg and 12 percent is too low i appreciate

including middle-income people but increase the affordable units i'm someone that supports density i see height i was participated in the market octavia plan and hayes valley took 6 thousand new residents we're not newcomers we're trying to make sure that everyone can live in san francisco not just the people that don't live here now thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening nice to see you again, i'm sam the president of the board of the telegraph hill dreerlz i'm here on behalf of in support of coalition for the neighborhoods questions or comments and resolution as submit earlier we helped to draft and signed this a letter of support for that ph.d has strongly support affordable housing for as long as i remember our concern this

may not be the way to do it like the coalition and many others that spoke we're concerned that the proposal will be a major defor a second rezoning the city for tall buildings and racked or eliminated density caps we're especially concerned that is really, really important we're especially concerned that will expose a one-size-fits-all program that is not going to account for the uniqueness of the circumstances that are so important in the city as this one we're concerned that the proposal as that is written will relay arrogant decisions to the planning department staff with a review by the planning commission that will eliminate current conditional use and protections the public's right to advanced notification and their right to appeal all of these are protections that are planning code for decades and

we're concerned that the development of this proposal not done the adequate type of outreach it is need and district 3 and telegraph hill where we live and work together is one of the most heavy impacted poefshl heavily impacted part of city by this proposal and yet we were not contacted by the city not if the supervisor more anyone from the city we would like to be involved and look forward to that and hope if you'll let us we would like to join you with to try to solve some of the problems we join the coalition and other in irregularly you to put on hold the proposed orientals from the general plan until the questions that are

proposed by the coalition are answered until supervisorial district and stakeholders has been completed and the needed changes certainly coming out of the process of incorporated into the improved legislation before you we look forward to working with you thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> well i too appreciate and kind of feel you're exhaustion at this point the day i'm dennis from i live in the inner sunset and i'm part of the inner sunset neighborhood association but not yet taken a vote on this i want to appreciate the fact i think that was commissioner antonini raised the concern about abag and the fact that the

communicates with peninsula and marin have in the resisted the pressure to add more housing i think that a lot of the housing should come near the institutions that house the people it appears that a lot of the housing under the ah p p has the two bedrooms the size - will indeed be creating workforce dorms for people that are basically single until they eventually get partners and move out and build micro units but a little bit bigger not the kind of units that san francisco talks about when they talk about trying to retain families i'm a family man, i understand that i want to make a couple of points affordable housing is

badly needed but in the 80s and 90s and in the last decade the planning department and the city hesitate ringed what is built in the city all luxury stuff but luxury priced so it is a little bit late with the rh bp you have to give them something to get the developers it build affordable housing but coming at a cost particularly in the neighborhood that will end up in the inner sunset and break up our neighborhood commercial district because in fact, we're losing a lot of the lost love businesses in the last two years to increase in rent and what happens the lymph glands will commercial property owners will be sensitive advised to sell

their properties for more money unfortunately, the way it is drafted it will incentivizes the demolition and displacement which i don't know that is the intention but the collateral damage and mention one sites we're concerned about in the neighborhood in the last 21st century seconds occurring custom heights steel and concrete buildings built if 1950 the owner want to demolish them and replace them with many units and waiting for the density program they'll end up with three hundred and 50 units. >> thank you. >> my name is eileen i'll speak unscripted for a change i've got in the sunset park side since 1990 and noticed a trends

recently the park side is the bad guy we're the you know the cause of problem we're good evening escape goaded and for i mean in the person the previous speaker that mentions that has to live in west portal and has the same exact density so i feel we are being singled out yes, we have less density than other neighborhoods built after world war ii when this was the character of our neighborhood have we built more housing yes to the level of the eastern neighborhoods no and, yes there was an example of a terryville i have to talk to the architect to single out one fabricated as the culprit in this crisis is unrealistic i think that there are many reasons that we're having a

housing crisis additional as an it professional we have had those boom and bust cycle in the 90s added 60 to 70 thousand jobs when hiring we're at the same level and added 60 to 70 it jobs and it is very volatile boom and boost cycles silicon valley they're waiting for a burst my previous question i spoke how long will it take if this was approved to get the first units online and are those units go to be at this time in the high tech industry is layoff some of the companies with going out of

business so we appear i would think we're kind of past the cycle we have peeked and not met the demands and can we produce 60 to 70 thousands of units in a short time i don't know then anyone can do that again, i want to speak up for the purpose the park side and that we willing to do our part and have a neighborhood commercial district that can use some gentrification but like other we're concerned those are mom and pop businesses and they're not going to be able to afford the higher rents and come back we know them by name and patronize the businesses we want them to stay not want them to be dislocated because of a density bonus come their way

thank you any additional speakers please line up on the screen side of the room. >> well, i guess it is new good evening. i'm laura my head is spinning on the other hand, i hear that program applies to restraining order thirty thousand sites really only 200 are soft sites to zoning capacity which it is on the wooden not seeing rent-controlled units tenants but oh, in some cases demolishing rent control can produce more affordable units i appreciate the attention to impacts on the tenants of demolishing referencing but i think i heard acknowledged the right of return if exist it didn't protect people doss because they can't come back i've heard no follow-up on the very real incentive to demolish

9 places small businesses serve communities and provide vitality household income for employees these businesses can't afford to move they survivor month to month so if you are you're sincere about no evictions and sincere about helping small businesses why not limit to the truly soft sites that don't house people or businesses and also i want to address that we spent several hours earlier today expressing deep concerns about the 100 percent affordable units by eliminating a cu requirement this constrains the public entity those are vitality things that need to be addressed thank you.

>> i don't think i can do this i'm kathy howard with the open space committee those are my own statements i've worked with the departments specifically the roads and recreation and the ocean beach master plan and the public is included in the planning process things go much more smoothd and asking questions result in a better final plan outreach as people have said is very important for the effective outreach for the program neighborhood meetings should not be aggregated but held minimum at one in each district 90s should be rigorous and actually signs posted everyone didn't have a computer and heard no

intention of holding meetings in other languages and certainly people will be impacted not fluent in english or tenuous about coming to meetings in english open space people who live in intestinal packed buildings have a needs for open space with the example that was given 0 tonight with the green space behind the building i wonder how many days of year actually sunshine in that outdoor space is anything going to grow there or fooling ourselves by coloring it green on the plan i hope we'll see the answers to those questions and questions from the next few weeks perhaps by christmas i know we're asking a lot of staff i'm q please don't put off

you're homework until january 27th thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> seem silva johnson windows have a lot to do with our views and point of view sometimes, we need larger and sometimes smaller windows now 2 1/2 inches yards two year and a half wards windows and 8 and a half yards of windows across three hundred yards and wanted to talk art and some of the other housing that we need in this is i think we see the

shock you know a big giant one put underneath the buildings and all the springs underneath too that way we'll be more secure on it and to build the housing 6 yards and every 6 longer like horse shoe downtown. >> this - >> sfgovtv production go to the overhead thank you. >> this would be on that side and this would be like you see on the inside

this is a beneath in our you know airholes which those airholes would be you know some of the four and a half 5 and a half and the other ones will be on foot ground in 4 inches sink holes help with our heat and economies how do i say have to have 8 no 9 and a half inches height and 9 and a half at 8 on four inches on the sides and right here on this does it will be 6, 6 foot and east side of around that way

and these would be we have windows like in this one here windows that go where all - >> (inaudible). >> and i'm talking about and ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> hello commissioners take the opportunity kelly the vice president the boosters you're aware over the past few months potrero hill is not faired the density we'll have conversations about many units build on our side in the past years but the rezoning district to triple the population of our disconnecting and we believe as any city understand the needs for density

that is affordable and distributed throughout the transit corridors we're doing our part to the eastern neighborhoods in the neighborhood even though we're struggling because the city has forgotten the development includes transit and trying to make that infrastructure work which basically makes us a little bit curious about the plan i'm putting a map up on the screen about the thumbs programs sites an potrero hill to point out a few this block is rather a stretch of rhode island street at the top of the hill not served by transit within bus that goes by according and over here too low rise on 20th street in transit and 18 has with an line that is pulled away done to

16th street to so the 22 serves the mission hospital i happen to live right here in a 6 unit apartment building that was sold to an investor and will be solid again with that design the comments from the tenants union are on point and the cdc are very on portfolio if you think this is going to be a gentrification bomb if chinatown that will go double for bayview i find the comments about the west side the larger itself number of units that are allowed in district 5 and 10 and district 10 has had quite a bit of zoning and rezoning district particularly telegraph hill rhode island and 20th street in

the served by the transit and this is unlikely that will be feasible we don't trust the calculation on soft sites no eastern neighborhoods plan are under steshd so we are suspicious the soft sites so if the idea of legislation to give us the bonus as indicated we're identified where the development is feasible and it should be corrected okay areas are included the mechanic application a one - >> sir. >> to actually, in fact, where you want it to effect. >> thank you. >> how you doing i'm a residents in potrero hill district i live on missouri and

a low income background; right? i feel as an artist i love this project for the simple fact it provides other jobs for tourists and friends coming out of crimes and background like in trash and plumbing >> carpentry and housekeeping but they can't find jobs like murders and shut like that so seeing the project hopefully being passed geneva jobs to more people thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.e people thank you. >> thank you. next speakenev people thank you. >> thank you. next speakeeva people thank you. >> thank you. next speakeva people thank you. >> thank you. next speakea j

people thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. people thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.g people thank you. >> thank you. next speakei j people thank you. >> thank you. next speakev j people thank you. >> thank you. next speakei j people thank you. >> thank you. next speaken j people thank you. >> thank you. next speakeg je people thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello planning commissioners i'm speaking on behalf of the bridge housing corporation a .32 in mind and owner of affordable housing born and headquarters in this as our city struggles we're strongly in in favor and excited about the bonus program the commission is looking at the approach that can make a dents in the vexing problem without new out lays of funding and can pay defendant's we agree that is an array of benefits for a increase on the sovereigty affordable units making more sites feasible for 100 percent projects to have more units it depends on part of the city not seeing new housing and creating more new middle-income and there are it is difficult to produce more and more housing - we think that properly

balances the benefit for the capacity grand the measure brings san francisco in compliance with stealing is makes the program work better all the features are the most promising protective we've seen the voters spoke loud and clear with support important prop a that supports large numbers of homes throughout the city and the bonus program had been helpful and allowing bridge and other nonprofits to stretch the bonds further and provide united more quickly to meet the diver housing needs if passed we're excited to bring this tool to make an impact on the housing shortage thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening confirmations steve i want to remind you that

state law mandates a bonus program the court of appeals made it clear to be in compliance with stale it is important we frame that we don't have a choice but craft something that works in san francisco that makes a depth in the affordable housing crisis i want to let you know who clients are both on gas station sites on corner lots and nc district the covet soft sites the staff indicated the kind of sites this program is designed for and used for it makes the developer of those sites for feasible but what it really does that adds a ton of affordable housing and

income favorable otherwise not developed sites sites i understand the displacement of rent-controlled units that shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog tweaks in the legislation to deal with that issue a small pot of likely sites that will be considered under the density bonus program it is predominantly vacant sites and one story with parking lots surface parking lots a lot of that kind of underutilized planned lands in the city not developed because the density limits render that only reasonable to develop two and three thousand units not a feasible scenario in a multiple family projects from a level of experience my clients are looking at this is a program that is if going to work on soft

sites and not likely with the controlled unit and the incentives are not high enough to justify large rent control buildings arrest moderately sized to rent-controlled units can be dealt with without gutting the program altogether. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i'm janet from dog patch neighborhood i wanted to say i think this program needs some more consideration i seen so many of offenders quick i didn't programs put through starting with the live work and pretty much a disaster allowed to go on and on until everybody was up in arms you had to stop with that the u m u was not working and a lot of things not thought-out and speakers mentioned much more density than

my mind and residential and no urban mixed use so i think this program again is something our throwing out not enough consideration for fine-grain looking at the neighborhood and they always seem to be programs that the developers really like i think you should instead of having all the rezoning you take land that isn't work or worth that much and all of a sudden rezone and worthy that much money if i state at the beginning so many units and reasonable growth and the neighborhoods can get behind throwing throwing out the new programs over and over not thought-out is can you see problems and takes years and years to catch up with with open

space we've not catch up up be live and work with no backyard and open space the rezoning no new parks but get thousands and thousands of new people i think this is going to find more things like that happening it is not well enough thought-out work on it a little bit more thank you. >> thank you. >> janet basically stole high thunder pie request is something different the planning department needs to ask the city attorney dennis herrera for an analysis of law for bonuses and what the city has been doing for the last 15 years state law is trying to get everyone to side

more density we've had density programs up the arm in san francisco we are now on the third round of the central soma it went through emeralds western soma and central soma so every time it gets more and more dense the developers have a wet dream they want three hundred buildings south of market and then going to wear you down until you give it to them we have had in the mission south of market, dog patch, potrero hill, their variance neighborhoods of eastern neighborhoods we have had more and more and more and more density we're absorbing the housing demands for the city there's a little bit in the western part of the city it is really in in part of the city

and steve his clients may want to use this state law so is oh, you're not doing our fair share what is the fair share under state law for the city of san francisco i would posture market octavia, eastern neighborhoods, central soma etc., ect how many more units are we're going to jam into the city we've a blaltd the industrial areas and obliterated them by a thousand units that are housing but counted as commercial so at some point someone in the city attorney's office will have to do work you'll ask them at the highest level what is the

obligation of the city to side housing in the advisory committee of what is already done and it is done a whole lot and tony kelly is absolutely right plans have not followed the neighborhood in potrero hill and south of market and the mission is whipped out by i tech people how much is too much i think this is a really good question. >> (clapping.) >> >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm alice rogers from the park and no stranger to density i think this is a really important discussion you're having and it is clear that extremely good minds have been looking at this from all angles but i think that is going to

take longer than resolving that by january 28th they have been so many issues raised and the information needs to be digested much more specifically by the neighborhoods and by districts so people actually can understand them i think i have been sitting here with a those 5 hours and it is not i don't think anyone is rejecting the density increases out right but looking for reif i understand solutions that respect and safe neighborhoods and people and since this is the place one thing that sue said that i'd like a to reiterate living in one of the density it neighborhoods in the city as you may know from all of us who live there the infrastructure has

never been designed to give us the services we need and so i really think that as you're looking at increased density elsewhere that you really need to discuss more fully and look at it more detail how the transit is actually going to serve not only the new people that will moist but improve the transit throughout the city if i could pull up the waterfront transportation assessment that has died a little bit since the lawyers changed their sites go to pages 28 and 33 a clear picture of traffic that is generated within san francisco that is clearly impacting our neighborhood and what it means is we have a lot of congestion

but serving the outlying neighborhoods that needs to be resolved as our increasing density. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> really want to thank the staff for a wonderful presentation and also comments from the public and in particular he throughout the staff presentation did an excellent job of showing what was built to date with sites on nothing on them before usually vacant lots of christmas trees and gas stations and vacant lots it has produced a lot of housing within the zoning allowed at that point and certainly finding those sites and giving more density in refinery for

affordability is how it make sense i think there are some concerns that people have said about existing housing and where this will apply and how it will apply so i have no question and truly soft sites that are either what i sdrbdz or formula retail use other than the case of west portal with banks and title companies with one level and parking lot too that could easily support that same best in a small footprint and have lots of housing or additional small businesses on the main level it has to be applied carefully another thing i wanted to do adds i think you're shooting for a total of 40 percent two bedroom i'll encourage you to raise the level of three bedrooms in particular 31

percent of affordable units in san francisco has 3 or more bedrooms and talking about real single-family homes you need that i'll encourage you to shoot for thirty to 40 percent of three bedroom and 20 percent of two bedroom and the other 40 percent can be single bedrooms or studios or whatever in self-defense city wants to keep families they'll have to produce units of an adequate size for families and he noticed what you were doing with the old experience of increasing the density on the same envelope but a sweet spot you need 12 a 15 hundred square feet with enough bedrooms of adequate size and parking because people with families are going to want to have a place to put they're cars an geary or other streets in the

western neighborhoods that are almost impossible to park in a lot for difficult for anyone to be interested in rent control or buying a home without a family partd their cars i think you have the ability to cut the rear yard or change our exposures creative but keep the units large enough and the bedrooms and parking units and as far as mergers the lot mergers make sense should be incorporated as part of whole thing so you can produce more units by merging lots together and again, they have to be appropriate and make sure we're not destroying small businesses or eliminating existing handout and maybe a cap

on size i have to think about one and 20 feet is a proper thing and then i guess you're idea of replacing the rent-controlled units make sense under 10 units where no requirement for below-market-rate one to one replacement of units that are taken out with some sort of assurances for the existing taechts to be taken care of make sense and above that a small percentage i want to see it in areas no change in housing but have to add an appropriate number of rent-controlled units as well the requisite number of below-market-rate housing and some people have voiced

concerns about no process it is designed to be a large project authorization go at the commission i think that is appropriate there will be hearings and people will be able to attend and all those deft projects will be approved by individually by the commission and someone else brought up concerns of back and forth purchased and how people will make money any thoughts back and forth for sale are shared quality a system the city i understand that applies in by of the below-market-rate housing so they'll have to maintain tare affordability and appreciation at a later sale the city gets the and i presentation back. >> i'll correct the record one

of the standard bmr with 90 percent ami is sold to another holder who was earning 90 percent ami as a price sets by the mayor's office of housing so the affordability stays with the units always take into account a households at that level it is one of the differences between the way the bmr units are below-market-rate are reinforced as opposed to to rent control it the price stays consistent with the housing market. >> and someone said whether drs are allowed. >> i will did you say with the supervisor wiener legislation in cases where the throw an cu eir lp a untraditionally for a community to also request a dr

since a public hearing required. >> right that only make sense a higher bar than the case of dr but a case where the project whether for one reason or not requires an approval not required based on what i'm hearing dr sees could be filed. >> no changes to the dr that's correct. >> i think that has a lot of potential and moving in the right direction. >> commissioner richards. >> please i was thinking 2715 and 9 hours or 7 hours i feel tired no wonder. >> i guess back tattoos presentation in terms of mergers there is affordability threshold that i guess section 317 was in the top

20 percent of the million and a half level. >> if the existing units are are deemed to be not affordable by some number they can be combined from two units to one unit that's correct. >> on page 24 units to ownership that was mentioned i think there is a portion of the units that we don't we're not aware of that there's buy outs and other things and not tracked by apparently tracked and for rent-controlled units that's another item i'll talk about that later the whole issue with the demolishing rent-controlled units comes back to the real robustness of the right to return for me so you know if you

come in and bulldoze a building with a family living there and get their 5 thousand per person 15 move to antioch do necessary come back on that supervisor wiener thing i'd like to see data around that if it exists any data where the right and how far they move away anything. >> a lot of was mentioned about the homework assignments that was one from the last hearing if i alice people in any building am i lout to knock down any building. >> that's one of the questions how - what is the policy framework we as a group want want to develop. >> the right to return is robust unless someone has no

right to return that is i think it is the entitlement process the city as established the ellis acting is tab but if you want to get an entitlement it not good public policy but one speaker talked about a question being questions being asked all over the place we covered that before contests posted on the website we want to remember everyone so they don't have to call you or spin out of control of the questions and another rub is we're going from rental stabilized unit to this discussion where one person i think testing said you have a define city of tenants and 50 years good by and the rent didn't go up i don't know how many of those when the years go

on but as the master tenant leaves the rent goes up the bmr units is 55 years. >> go different regulations for the local program they're all permanent and for the state program the ones that are done to meet the local requirements are permanent but ones that are for the state 55 i know that is confusing. >> like someone moving in 1970 to the benefit of this year so from rent stabilize and vifbl rental stabilized to a affordable bmr units back to the affordability i read on the income levels chinatown and some and western edition are the poor itself areas of the city the western edition was one of the

realities in terms of were there that go through the additional space but the average income it $30,000 and chinatown is also in the program so if i make $30,000 and move into a bmr on third street as a result can i qualify. >> that's a bits lower than the 50 percent ami so the inclusionary housing targets percent ami the lowest income. >> rental that's correct. >> and for the inclusionary units i think our highest estimate is the program will create 2 thousand additional inclusionary units. >> okay. >> whereas those same sites developed under the existing

controls is 9 hundred. >> so i'm in one of these buildings and make thirty a year of a family of four making an argument and making the bonus how to write a return it didn't mean anything i can't qualify. >> we are working on particularly we have like two even the spectrum the people that the program targets maybe 55 or 90 or one 20 ami they clearly get would that level for the lower next door households you have the right to return what we're thinking about i should say you have a right to return at a income that is affordable to you. >> thirty percent. >> right? it is a replacement of that exact household

i think a bigger sort of gray area and question for us i embarrassed to tell you they're far above the - at what point does the right to return - you have the right to return we value everyone in the community but is the replacement unit would be a bmr for some other group is that at one 50 ami or a question it is very challenging. >> it is interesting maybe opening up the phone donors box of testing for rent control in a certain way that is i mean when i hear that that's what i'm hearing you can't connect your

making too much. >> you can come back to the rent control. >> get ready for that argument if we don't do anything and listen to the people and throw up our hands and listen to steve. >> he'll be sad. >> what happens say the state runs this thing. >> so the state program - but.

>> i'll you interrupt excuse me. just to be clear correct me if i am wrong is that based on the nap of county ruling we would have to give bonuses to project that met the basic 12 percent. >> okay. so we're getting more by doing this. >> that's right that's one of the reasons state law based on court rulings elsewhere have to give a bonus 0 that meets our inclusionary benefits. >> according to the paper yesterday, i held up at the beginning of this hearing the mayors proposal. >> yeah. 20 or 15 this is a one

the challenges and is reason one the reasons we're pitting this program forward. >> in one of our intents we've excited as some speaker said a lot of parcels not on all the soft sites to make the program where you go above the 12 percent for attractive to get a better and better percentage. >> a couple of more things because this is kind of we said this this is project by project sunset this could we test this out in a certain area. >> that make sense we have a monitoring program installed in the legislation before you and it has 3 different levels of monitoring the first is we thought everybody would want to see a summary of the bunch of projects not just one okay. i'm

looking this project in the first year and the second piece for the area plans great annual reports and housing vicinity and we've added new sections that really specifically to this program but third street i know you've worked on the market octavia monitoring report we've create the times series report in this program we lease say not come back looking at the particular carotis but make policy remedies to the steering of the tint outcome that make sense two more things first - 3 more things one and 25 feet in terms of the lot merger castro street between - i look at the castro theatre is that one and three feet if it were a

residential building would it look like that a sense of maybe this is something you can answer privately but trying to get an idea. >> i'm like you more of a math and not a visible we'll provide more clear imagines but one tea 25 proposal before you looking at a number of existing buildings and also prevailing lot size for large lots in the neighborhoods commercial corridors the lots are 25 feet wide but larger ones doesn't want to go bigger but allow for the economy. >> the castro are mostly three but 50s and 19s. >> more important to look at the size of the block within the

prospective neighborhoods not a building frontage how they aggregated the block and the neighborhoods character is how the block is developed rather than an individual parcel chinatown and chinatown is 275 or 425 and south of market the blocks are typically 420 by 540 with an alley in the wrong direction the typical metabolics you can imagine chinatown one and 75 for even one and 25 this is more than half a block that is too large for the adjoining lots and it is based on the prevailing lot size. >> two more things tony kelly mentioned the castro and yifkt is an interesting sense of this

is the one story commercial on both sides we get there is, etc. but we have we thought about the endearing first of all, no obviously you can go much higher and displaces the building in noah valley an enormous building we approved the cottage next door a wow. didn't i don't realize how bigamy way to identify in a bona fide way a certain place you know this neighborhood block is too special let's leave it like it is and i covet go back to the toronto there is times in toronto i walk down the street and suddenly huge buildings i know there are churches and they're fighting back and saying wait a minute we need to keep this the way it is to this truly

looks like an interesting place to preserve and that might help the neighborhoods folks not all blocks on certain one see as we'll look at that. >> and on the bmr units i'm moving towards innovate hrlz for creating units. >> to be clear the mayor's office of housing spoke on that last time they're not to be used as short-term rentals. >> excellent. thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you just a couple of quick thoughts first on the issue of rent control and demolition of existing housing unit e housing stock that is an important told her issue if didn't feel like our intention to try to determine 0 rent-controlled units so maybe

the first phase but not allowing it not take advantage of the project of the density bonus if you are democrat oing any reversals this is one option i mean, if the soft sites are essence one story commercial knows i think that is difficult it is difficult for someone to determine 0 rent-controlled units clear buildings through an ellis act or something like that i don't think we want to give me those incentives and it's not that extreme maybe along the lines of commissioner richards if you ellis i can't demo a building greater than 4 units some measure of the massive building yes, if a two building units on a 200 and 50-foot lot that's acceptable ensue on a normal 25 by one it covers the

entire lot we've got get more i think the same will hold with lot mergers the owner the castro theatre with only castro theatre size building is fine too covering the entire block isn't so i think this is more detail in lot mergers than the 10 thousand square feet or one and 25 foot frontage i've got a commercial block and half of it is a large building with smaller sized buildings next to it not two large buildings it is conceptually to what is there and different lot size i's and again not incentivizes someone that is a vacant lot next to them demoing the building to

merge that lot and again, some ideas some allowance for tearing down existing building i wouldn't allow that and a lot merger increase the lot by taking the lot next door and demoing it the most extreme you don't allow the reversals to be lost and don't allow lot mergers and like gas station and one story commercial buildings the question that came up in the hearing prior to this what is the proposed royalty for approval for projects i mean is there a set approval route for projects that take advantage of the program a cu. >> yes. we have a couple of task choosing to do do state

program my trigger a cu or variance or whatever else you have we haven't changed anything for the state program with the local 20 percent affordability or 100 percent you'll do lp example or something like that that a large project authorization that means put simply and monique left i'm on my pee own you'll come to the commission and you would share you're project with the commission and the commission will review it. >> and get into this we often do it doesn't it needs to be setback on you know the residential side or it needs to step down from 60 to thirty feet as it gets to the 29 avenue block is on terryville but the 29 needs to setback.

>> the design rectify will happy. >> will you require it if it comes to the commission you have to step down can we evaluate the affordability or you know what i'm talking about you're b.a.'s the affordable. >> i am worrying about my friends were here and jocelyn have been working on this they are a clear approach in mind about what kinds of design tools and levels in the design guidelines to help to sculpt the buildings and make sure that the buildings are not in rent context that may include the setbacks but not things we're till returning into initials losing a significant amount of housing and do you think that

will happen we have to think through you don't think you want a scenario the submission this is it you have to approve that project or it drops out of the affordable program and back to the normal zoning and no kind of ability to tweak we'll make 20 percent affordable housing but losses 4 units and step down into a residential. >> the 28 focuses on the design so that will be one of the things but you'll look for closely on that issue. >> any last point i don't like - i don't think the riders two bedroom works in the existing i mean, we get the two bedrooms but not family units a total we can prove their family their 6 hundred square feet not for roommate situations

something like that which is fine but i don't think then we should require two bedroom we should set the overall goals of three bedrooms but not for every project and think diagnose did by project is too descriptive and set the goals and encourage the project sponsors ensue to descriptive for each project for two bedroom and three bedrooms and commissioner moore. >> i'm sorry on outreach sorry it is great i think we're out there and scoring for people not just you know we hear that a lot we have to be more pro-active in getting to neighborhood groups we're heard from people it is not an easy concept to get you