that are monitored and enforced by the building inspection as far as the concerns related to the ground floor expectation and the deck he find both are setback from this does it is a modest expansion and the argument on the mid block open space is not compelling for me. >> no other discussions. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis it is code compliant. >> on that motion. >> commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> and commissioner swig. >> that motion carries and we'll monarch to the last item

on the calendar verse the planning commission and on howard street appealing the issuance to mark sanchez of compliance and request to construct a 20 story foot over the basement up to one and 33 dwelling units and approximately 4 thousand 8 hundred square feet of ground floor commercial space with the exception for rear yard from the code section and wind current and height and bulk limits this is motion now and then we'll start with the appellant. >> before you start mr. osgood

we didn't receive the brief from mrs. osgood. >> can we speed limit it. >> we don't have time now. >> i'd like to get it on the record. >> it wasn't submitted on time. >> confusion about the combination of two appeals there is two appeals our understanding that will be heard together then we missed the deadline can you just leave them here. >> mr. osgood in the board doesn't accept it leaving that there will not get it into the record. >> not many commenters. >> we've had two minutes this

entire evening. >> i respectfully ask the board grant that appeal and modify the compliance pursuant to the planning code with the exceptions regarding the rear yard and the tower exception and the ground floor wind current. >> the rear yard exception is not afforded in the sufficient step down appropriate to scale consistent with the buildings and waterfront the commission authorized the bulk limit based on the permit holder square footage thus failed to take into consideration the overall building design as the code. >> the project doesn't meet the threshold requirement for the upper tower due to the

impacts on the city view and increases shadows on public school buildings that sounds a lawyer so i'll put my neighborhood residents hat on its been a resident in the neighborhoodit been a resident in the neighborhood been a resident in the neighborhood been a resident in the neighborhood for 25 years the people made a career at the polling places not oversized places phenomenon the waterfront that project violates the plan regulations calling for building to step down and violates the urban design and cause for the low building on the waterfront

the i found that it will cast significant studios an rincon park most days throughout the year and caused traffic problems that can't be might be this shouldn't be mitigated and follow the rules let's be clear about the height i think you'll hear a lot of numbers about that the site is zoned 200 f a 200 descend height just to be clear this building is 200 and 40 feet high can i have the screen. >> there are 200 and 40 feet that that's a whooping 20 percent over the height limit half of it is called screening

you know how height for screening property height with the air conditioning putting a fence that was totally reasonable they didn't want that fence counted as building height the process is abused for one thing the so-called screening is up two stories out of control and their expending the buildings for exterior walls 20 feet so their covering more mechanic equipment please stop that give away the other abuse of height is the extra 10 percent of supposedly everybody gives that's nonsense it is 10 percent adding to the

cylinderness of the building what is that - adds to the slenderness of building and certainly not megan extra height not making that interesting if you think that does we'll to hear you say that adds to the slenderness of building or makes

it interesting as far as the raider that requires a 25 percent rear yard this is a good view the neighborhood the garage on the lower right the exceptions for rear yard can only be grand if so there stuff air and light and continent with the go neighboring building this project does neither first of all, in their calling the advisory committee the rear yard and this is george the facing of embarcadero the real rear yard is to the side where the open space is most seriously needed this is the developers artwork on the left side how extremely

close this project to the office building directly behind that that 25 percent rear yard a needed and shows how bulky the building would be thank you. >> okay hear if the motion holder now. >> you look familiar where have i seen you before. >> canned minimal where. >> good evening commissioners and members mary the council for the 75 howard project we are respectfully ask the board uphold the section 409 for the housing project and reject this appeal i will share with my time

with the project architect the standard review the planning commission is so forth that the commission approval can only be overturned if you find it erred in the interpretation of the law the section so forth the applicable applications of the law to the fact and their reasoning including the obtains in each instance the law was correct and applied to the fact and fully reasoned the appellant fundamentally dangerous with the commission as you've heard that disagreement explicit meet the standard of review they therefore this appeal should be rejected the good afternoon. welcome it is in the project

area and as stated in the 200 height and bulk for the record this transit center doesn't receive a health as a consequence thought it pace special fees not made by the projects out outside the area and transportation street impact fees and will pay into the community facility to support the new center the designation has been the high classification for many years the f district as you may know it is classification that is in the planning code since the mid 80s and qualify for an upper tower the upper tower is granted through the process through 309 and the upper estimation to

building the design qualified under the code their articulate the reasoning the upper tower improved the appearance skyline they pay attention to the shadow on rincon park that was an - the decision was correct on the interpretations of the law and the reasoning demonstrates this commission didn't abuse discretion if i could have the screen the image before you is the site plan in its context i'll not give you an offering but speak to the issues that mr.

osgood is referenced this is a consistent pattern the rear yard exceptions are sdrshd as allowable when not a pattern of mid block open space as you can see open space and generally distributed to the size of the buildings and between not in an essential block the appellants brief specifically mentioned the building is not setback from the embarcadero relative to other towers facts or otherwise, it is setback hundred feet and our tower that one plus between our site and the embarcadero is a right away for parcel and not the city the rear yard variance can be granted when light and air are preserved the height areas require that exception

they face south into an open space that is occupied by a regularly shaped parking lot and it is loaded headed by the gap it is unlivable the building would be developed that is one and 20 feet to the roof it is significantly lower than the roofs of the neighboring buildings and electricities to the skyline it slopes down towards the waterfront the use of upper tower expectation and the bulk exceptions does contribute to a better design we've worked closely with the planning department staff and commission the diagram illustrate the bulk envelope at the middle the two hundred plus and the project the diagram shades the - in ground level the

significantly less than bulk over 10 percent smaller then the bulk to achieve them to introduce plots bringing open space it out to the perimeter and shaded in orange the setbacks on each side of the building and further we working closely with planning department staff to modulate the somewhat awkward zoning the site and lowering the base significantly and breaking down the mass of those to smaller pieces we think are consistent with the neighborhood in doing so it casts shadows affordable unit rincon park it is analyzed in great detail the yellow chart bar shows the shadow on recidivism and the a dictate blue is new shadow this project

is sitting down revised in skefrnz of shadow and casts 1/3rd as the project proposed the exception also indicate that light and air should not be further effected to adjacent building this left fully building combine and the fact that more windows are preserved finally the appellants brief states the materials of building with inconsistent with the neighborhood i'll ask you to look at the renderings they're made of metal and glass and stone and brick the stone and glass are there i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you very much. >> could you point out where the property line is. >> if i have the screen up the

red outline is the property line so the project is the corner side in unusual way steward dead-ends this is spear to the west a mid block exterior block line we are required interest no rear yard required on interior lot like line between two buildings. >> who owned the property to the south. >> the property to the ceda the odd shaped is the same ownership to the west and the building further to the south is in the gap. >> actually mary murphy it is the gap owns part of it when the gap site came along cut.

>> you want to point out towards the site. >> that's okay. >> anyways part of that kind of spear street the first part owned by the gap an easement it serves the spear street parking lot and the below grade so kind of cuts at a weird angle. >> is it respected by that lot line. >> there's diagonal line. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department apologizes

if this is a little bit more scattered but happening the appeal brief to workout but respond to the comments on the appellants testimony heard by the planning commission heard an authorization and grant it was core related variance and will be before you in january some issues were raised regarding the rear yard and the height it was first to the height this is a 200 height limit under the planning code under section they are allowed in the asphalt to make certain pvgd are documented in the motion here and have to thank tina changing who is available to answer questions i'm not sure i'm not been able to answer if

so something that is allowed by the code no give a ways that was something that was allowed going back to the downtown plan in 1985 a process that someone what avail themselves but the entitlement to increase the height limit the project complies with the height limit and the planning code that allows them and additionally the additional height to the screening is the feature we do you know require gene we want those top features necessary for the operation of the building to be properly screened and did planning code has that that is code enforcement with that as well and the rear yard is documented it is somewhat of a unique lot shape and the given the history we did find the planning

commission find that was properly grand in terms of let's go back to the height and height exception staff in analyzing that justify the height increased height look at what a completely otherwise code enforcement ultimate they've madam out the envelope and this results in a bulkier building what is done the increase in height does official in the design threshold and the demonstration and commission results in a slimmer building something with code enforcement the massing would have been bigger so what they're able to do drop the lesson gait the upper tower by approving it it complies with the relative tower

separation requirement and concerns and questions raised about shadows is if cast any new shadow on a park under the jurisdiction of rec and park that is prop k it is compliance the concerns raised about the impacts of rincon park it is has a bearing on that in analyzing the project scenarios as part avenue environmental impact report they found you'll have to lower it to approximately feet so the additional 20 feet is not a significant impact shadow on rincon park i think those are the most of points i wanted to raise and i'm available to answer any questions you have. >> 10 percent allowance that makes it 220 was it 240.

>> under the planning code the height limit is 200 feet just even if they didn't get the 20 feet but go to the 20 feet for mechanic commit. >> so 20/20 and under the first 20 and so they got the exception for the 20 and additional for the with screening. >> but he mentioned in his oral statement he indicated the front the thought property on the north side that was officially from the property. >> on the waterfront side. >> so does that make a difference the rear yard is on the right side. >> they're allowed to choose their foreman for tax purposes

and we'll override if it is inconsistent with the patterns the election they made is perfectly compliant. >> so it is on one side ass. >> the front of the building for purposes of the yard and call the front of the building for about purposes of the height so it allows for flexibility and where the property is on particularly on the corner lot. >> so thairl they'll get the benefit the bulb that's where st. peter street ends and the last question how did they account that building frontage is similar to the frontage that

was in the current build out the project sponsor poitsd the last brick and steel i don't see much steel in they're building. >> are you speaking in terms of the design and materials. >> planning department staff found an appropriate design. >> that's what i'm trying to consider that you look at the frontage the project sponsor actually brought affordability it didn't look like the rest of the frontage. >> right. >> speaking to oh, that it is not compatible to other parts of neighborhood and trying to keep them similar to here on behalf of the appellant more directly involved in the design comments so i'll let my colleague.

>> staff is not a replication of the materiality we're looking at the mapping i think the materials that the project sponsor proposed is consistent with the character of the overall district explicit mean because the gap building is not conducted with brick and glass and other materials the overall design for example, the lower tower the height of the lower tower a - the overall mapping was found to step down from the larger downtown corridor for these reason and totality we found the design is in keeping with the character. >> are you kidding me the height pardon i look at through this building this is the most

non-san francisco building i've seen in my life i can't believe what i heard this comes close to the lonts of the gap building or the blockingness i work in the area a few blocks way there i brick construction by maryland it is metabolic i didn't it is in t in the warehouses area i can't believe i'm hearing that i can't you know you look mission street to the traditional waterfront building and finally the what are the properties the salesforce is and lanceing that is that building is more in characterization which is completely out of character more

in character than that building no relationship to the hills tower and the gap building and the relationship to the original gap building i'm appalled i think i should do public comment and i'm so appalled normally what happens to public comment i can't i'm hearing that and can't believe any of that. >> i'm sorry. >> it is 10 minutes to 10. >> there is a differentiation between replicating and having a building who's massing and overall design a out of character. >> i understand that the replication that's not what we are asking but at this point

questions gentlemen. >> yes. i'm not appalled it looks extremely different than the project sponsor put to it i'm trying to determine what makes the decision it can be completely different from the neighborhood is it substantive. >> there are a number of controls throughout the city and certain district in the city in historic neighborhood tenderloin for example, that very specific standards in terms of what materials are required. >> what materials in this district not a set standard set of materials that are required and it went through multiple rounds rounds the urban design review and it followed the process we typically bring projects through with the staff they overall found it was in

keeping with the neighborhood character not replicating and appreciate the differences but it would be out of character i would say. >> you're the architect. >> well, i don't know everybody has an opinion; right? >> where you, you involved in the design process of which that involved. >> i was fairly new to the project i can't say there for the entire history. >> my questions relate to some of the expectations were alternative studies done nothing in the documentation that the wind comfort level you said that

exceeded it we don't know what the potential studies were done i'm sure that planning made them do studies. >> i'm sure there the irs studies they were exhausted telling me about that. >> the project person has a better history. >>. i'm sorry. >> mary whether they were involved >> i personally was not i reviewed that there was a three hundred and 48 variant received and other and the current project proposed they had to go to the same analysis and the impacts including shadow and miles an hour. >> i can't specimen specifically but that analysis >> i'll answer that question

as a side question for the da da are two yards available. >> can i tell you one there is an act of - i don't know the sustainability levels but there are yards on the market a quick response. >> what's the pdr transfer the development right. >> yeah. so it allows someone to develop at the base their buying conduit developments that are rather than the historic prompt building up and being demolished sell off their rights to someone else but in regards to the winds? an issue almost every project downtown has wind requirement if you don't make that perfect you'll need that exception they're making things

better but not perfect but to clarify but overall the project is documented in the internal revenue it did improve but not made it perfect. >> we'll take public comment now people that are interested in speaking you'll have two minutes to speak. >> good evening. i'm reed a long time residents the area in which this project is located and i think that is the project before you is not a quote distinctly better designed for the neighborhood with the exceptions that are requested from that board that is one of

the standards that must be met for the exceptions to be previewed and look at the depictions you've seen this evening as well the material that has been presented it demonstrates that the project does not meet the standard as to the increased height it increases the already significant shadows on rincon park that were demonstrated in the commissions finding and the height effects the light and views of the surround buildings and certainly didn't add to the slenderness of the building has been contempt on and that was even commented on by the project sponsor they supposedly with this there's height adding to the slenderness i think that is clear under the depiction you've

seen you don't any slenderness ♪ project, and, secondly, no significant facts at the higher elevation like it was said they are basking the same setback as the embarcadero at the building i live this is simply not true excuse me. if you look at the plat or the front line of all those buildings all in a line 7 floor on the gap and hills plaza they're significant setbacks none here these and all the rebates that have been presented to you it is okay 0 deny the requested exceptionst0 deny the requested

exceptionso0 deny the requested exceptions deny the requested exceptions >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for allowing me to speak yeah. my objections are continent the material to me is it is certainly you know a modern looking building i think our neighborhood with the use of brick and stone and other materials that is yeah that is a great look my biggest objection the previous speaker was talking about we have a residential tower it is setback i don't know how many feet 60 or 70 from that frontage parallel to where this building is built it looks nice and okay. if you build a nice residential building and obviously because of this other space directly in front of them

they've avoid that but in terms of not feel a happy and light not a.com in what capacity structure is a huge improvement my objection it doesn't match the neighboring building. >> would you mind state your name. >> david over shaw. >> any other public comment? >> you're not allowed to have

any pictures i'm putting them up here no way. >> can i have my clock starting at 2 please. thank you. >> no, i have a not talked yet thank you. >> sue hester i'm the attorney for san franciscans reasonable growth that as a comment on this case next month going to use the picture of the building that was done by david osgood to illustrate my points but what i'm asking for it if you continue this entire case until the hearing on the 27 when a variance is before you the

variance is intervened where the 309 you can't close the variance you're asked to do could i the variance two handout are one this is the picture and the second thing the chronology of the case so there is a variance for this side and a variance for this side they're at the conditions and you're asked to allow the rear yard on that side to be set not setback and asking to do the design so it does the roof you're asking to approve the design how do you do all of those without trampling over the variance what happened it on the

schedule the entire building the last hearing the public hearing on the building was two years before the hearing before the planning commission this card is ridiculous so i will answer our questions oh, shut okay. >> could you not have 5 hundred cards here they are really i thinntrusive. >> no another public comment then we'll hear in the appellant. >> from the planning commission doesn't have enough time to understand the case with

the 5m case which they did at 10 o'clock at night and the is that i know with the board of supervisors 5 years at 1 o'clock you're doing it at 10 o'clock none looks at at the case really and truly comments were made about design no time to do the design you look at this you'll see the only hearing on the case was 9, 12, 13 and then 6 amendments, 5 amendments two other things amended the project so many times while they were three staff people churning on the plan it started out with one plan went to another planner and the final planner had that

approximately, six weeks what happened was not very good design along the waterfront all the buildings are setback the gap building they had a six months struggle and redevelopment agency this building here is those are new building along the waterfront not old buildings and the pardon me the redevelopment agency that has jurisdiction and had jurisdiction that on this site in the corner of it they had to take the entire urban design plan and figure out how to step down to the waterfront to protect that you have views down streets and points inland the

redevelopment agency does it job that's why the building looks at the way it does and the corner the north side looks at the way it does the planning department has never down done it on the waterfront they didn't take the time to understand what the urban design plan calls for i ask you to please continue it if you make a decision how will you do the design modifications onion was 27 i'm dead serious i don't understand this confirm of hearings and i would be available to answer any questions but this has not had a vetting at the planning department. >> describe what the variance

is for . >> two variances allowing them to have the enclosure to not have a sargent normally a 25 foot setback from the street as you've gone through we're at the lot line not a 25 foot setback and the second variance is for howard street they're calling the front of building and the variance is for a wider driveway on the front of the building when normally people will say the front of the building is on spear street not having a setback on the west side of the building and so when you have a variance that requires a setback and you're setback is the variance is because no setback

on the south side and you have the driveway on the north side which is the front of the building a wide driveway that is not san francisco. >> i'm sorry. >> those are the two variances. >> yes. the two variances. >> okay. we'll hear rebuttal from the motion holder. >> mary murphy just brief jeer this is an extensive review one a cumulative impact because the transit center would cause the intersection to fail on a significant urban soberly on rincon park for the shadows for people where they sat and just to be clear the commission we spent time with the staff doing 0 the design the 309 is the

downtown area, no hectic district no arrangement the buildings look like other buildings as police chief explained that is happened it have an aesthetic decision but the planning commission and the planning department staff seriously considered this design the exceptions in the 309 this project is based on the zone that is in the code since the mid 80s the downtown plan and under consideration they didn't lower the height this was consistent it was take into consideration with the transit district the height were not lowered it leafs an intervening parcel owned by the city across the street on second street this is consistent with the design but the thirty 9 as mr. sanchez

explained the staff and commission screwdriver a code enforcement building and concluded that building has less square footage and the narrower and the gentleman described in the design would be redistribute the bulk i understand commissioner swig you're not happy with the design but the decisions made 5 to one at the planning commission the eir was upheld i say board of supervisors people defer about the design but the massing and exceptions that are provided for in section thirty 9 in the code the planning commission had a thoughtful analysis why the exception made that a better building and that's where what is before this building under the discretion or error in interpretation of law and i hear

there is some disagreement about the aesthetics we don't want this board to be left with this expression not true the planning commission and staff didn't give serious circles or consideration a lot of high interaction and this is a prominent location he said that reasonable people defer in their preferences but this is very sound decision by the commission that deserves our consideration under the standards green before you tonight. >> you have are - a rob. >> this project was decided an december 3rd by the planning commission and mr. osgood

appealed the eir that meant the zoning administrator was prohibited if issuing the variance until after the eir was resolved which meant the appeal period they got an extra day mr. osgood arnold to hear this tonight and when ms. hester filed an appeal we this to hear it the earliest next week he would say because the suicide is different the variance we have to come forward and explain where the zoning administrator correctly applied parts of thirty 5 for the variance to have a wider curve cut and have a units exposure that is you will that is there a different

standard that was a different standard if i may emphasis the interpretation of the law is very differential to the mravrgs this board knows that the variance has a different standard i'll august it would be appropriate i would prefer that that board uphold it under the standards that are before the board tonight you know that would be the perfect decision if this board feels like a measure of discomfort and want to hear the variances i don't think that is necessary we'll have to august the standards and certainly though i think i don't believe it is necessary to hear them together in other words, to make at decision under the standards that apply to this

determination. >> the rear yard variance in terms of the rear yard variance and the surveillance i'm sorry the rear yard exception and rear yard for the dwelling unit exposure the configuration of the sites are form the basis for of the determination i'll say the rear yard you've heard from hearing that the rear yard i've heard two, that many. >> it is extremely common they grant it as a regular course of business in downtown that is a downtown site the issues that attend whether or not a rear yard is appropriate where it is almost always granted it didn't apply in downtown really for the neighborhoods it is open space and the mid block open space so

there are the physical configuration bears think both of those those are true commissioner fung. >> let's talk about it well, i on the da wants to jump up. >> the da has rebuttal go ahead and do our rebuttal. >> thank you. i don't have much to add but much is mentions in the context the other building on the waterfront with significant is not of upper levels i think this is a bit of a unique property if i can have the overhead please thank you. >> i'll try to zoom in like the gap building that has significant setbacks are lots in the similar at all to the subject lot with the gap building is a through lot

someone is e-mails me about going to bed there is much more to play with full block that is much more flexibility in terms of the massing and setbacks away from the waterfront and many murphy mentioned that so given the size of lot doing an upper level building with significantly impact the number of dwelling units in the property and perhaps in the inn the context with at least this particular lot with the localities we cut the back to the rear but i want to put that out there and see if you have any other questions. >> i do so given the fact that is open space in the front is that buildable open space. >> that lot is not part of

subject. >> but the lot is it buildable. >> the current deposition it is current property i'll let ms. murphy. >> that property is under the jurisdiction of the port own by dpw and only 75 feet and dpw early in the process the project sponsor approached possible building a park but dpw they were hoping to make money selling that and hadn't quite determined. >> i still more questions. >> so the concern is the lot face for me by rightone: this is an iconic picture you'll see this front and in recent times with the planning department i dealt with

they'll not allow a garage it is a protected site no see any postcards from the avenue this is a massive building and no protection for the waterfront of san francisco but and again but mrs. chang referenced more stringent requirements not an historic district so additional layers not required. >> this is how yes generally apply the rules it went through several layers of review and staff founds that the building to be something that was compelling to justify the exceptions and would be an appropriate fits on the waterfront. >> go ahead. >> so i guess the concern is

i'm trying to get the reasoning how garage doors on 34th avenue is a protected thing you can't touch it to put the original door back verse something that is iconic what makes the house on 30th after a hectic resource yet in multiple iconic part of san francisco. >> it is iconic but you can't have anything new; right? the transbay towers that is prominent the skyline of the city the blocks are broke down and staff found this an

appropriate design i'm representing the department and the staff found it was prosperity. >> any staff from san francisco on that. >> the director was involved. >> it was something i hear as some desire perhaps in continuing it and perhaps have more department staff that were involved in the project we can have them available at the next hearing to further elaborate on the justification for the design i think it so you would for fine-grain than the massing just the code issues getting into the materials as well so we can have additional discussions if you like. >> how long did ms. chang with w work on that and short term.

>> i think - how long did ms. chang's predecessor work on that project. >> i think that was go on disposal he was with the department less than a year. >> and 6 weeks and what about the thirds person that worked on that project again, i'm saying i'm supporting what is bothering me here and we should discuss not a question 6 weeks less than a year who knows what the third person did; right? this is is a - there should be setbacks and lonts this is you're hiding behind laws and rules when, in fact, the waterfront of san francisco one of the laced renewed properties on the

waterfront of san francisco you're putting something that someone's work on for 6 weeks and someone for less than a year and someone worked on nolo contendere nut. >> i disagree what about the expirations that approved the projects you candiscount >> that's a team of professionals and while the fast planner is doing the bulk of work the director has been involved since it's been the application was filed there is continuity internal i appreciate your comments. >> and i think i'm appalled i think my good friend ace

washington that came up was appalled 47 times i promised i wouldn't use the word again but in the, is to inconsistent so inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood. >> do you have a question for the project architect. >> if i could i'd like to add. >> you need to ask a question. >> at this point i'm sorry. >> there was a request about continuity. >> no there was a question to the da if he has an answer i'd like to allow him. >> he worked with planning for many years and complete continuity from director rahaim it is true that the staff members met several times i

wanted to add many members of the pa planning department and multiple levels worked with us to support and he redistribution there are that. >> in the spirit of continuity i will say in the spirit of continuity to reason for the block inform setbacks the materials are completely different the blocking is completely different and i guess i'm just you know one of those horrible san franciscans that are trying to protect that last piece of beautiful lands from something that has to be perfect but i mean the justification of well. >> do you mind if we move. >> the question of the hundred feet another question he had the

zoning administrator it what is the justification that in the eir that well other hundred feet wouldn't matter it casts a shadows i don't get that. >> what i've heard repeatedly what the shadow on rincon park doesn't matter or other hundred feet because of the shadow is makes shadow and no excuse with no effort to protect the park by sergeants or lower the building. >> i appreciates i wasn't intending to say that shadows don't matter on rincon but the 200 foot height limit of it didn't get the height exemptions of it was brought down to two

hundred 20 feet has a mustacheable impacts on the shadows on the park because under the study you have to reduce to one feet not to have the shadow impacts. >> if there were more setbacks and more loefr what that make a difference of shadowing on rincon park. >> the building setbacks a 200 feet building setback i don't think that will have much of an impact a one foot building one hundred feet, in fact, do a combination of lower the height and doing sixth district significantly in order to have something that didn't have an impact on the park that results in a loss of many units. >> ms. murphy my original

question continuance or not. >> respectfully although i do speak with my clients i want to say obviously that i want to be clear the department spent a lot of time very, very focused on the prominence of that although there is a building 65 foot tall that is something that pay attention i would like to add if i could look at the buildings do we have a visible. >> i think. >> i want to - >> go ahead. >> let me have a minute okay. >> one minute. >> are we considering whether or not this is submitted yet. >> continue the question so i

haven't - >> you know the architect didn't say a thing. >> commissioner fung can i police are you suggesting we continue this one week for the thirty 9 a no combining it with the. >> given we have the approval on september 3rd one more second to confer with any client. >> i'll explain it you're not harmed by the detail i'd like rather get everything to together i've heard the department and yourselves to talk about it a little bit and see how you want to deal with

that. >> would it be possible to have the consolidated hearing we know you have a full calendar might not be possible >> oh, no, i think i meant. >> we only have two hearing before that and one 35 cases. >> which day is that. >> you won't be added to that. >> go ahead take you're time.

>> i've been informed by the director we could have the consolidated hearing on the 13 of january. >> january sue. >> (inaudible). >> it is. >> since we have a debates on the timing would you recycle to inform us the matter is submit unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> i e unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> d unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> i submitted unless other

questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> i understand. >> i'd like 0 briefly through the board you said why we don't want this continued we agreed to actually pay a 33 percent affordable housing fee this is a code enforcement we offered to pay 33 percent but there are certain impact fees hoping to have it done i wonder in the board would consider to continue

it to next week on that team perhaps have more members of staff that worked on this vertebral would the board take this under advisement given that is doing quite a very significant amount of affordable housing contribution above and beyond what the law requires. >> and some of the fees kick in january. >> it is conceivable but you think so i would be let's deal with that. >> i'm not here next week i'd like to participate. >> all right. >> normally we would ask for concessus on any type

continuance no concessus on a continuance then we should make our decision together. >> i'm not prepared to continue. >> i would have been that's okay. no type of concessus we'll deal with that tonight. >> okay. it does now. >> i don't see the harm in hearing it together are no matter what we'll hear it in a couple of weeks. >> there is a potential of a delay but. >> but normally we don't dictate. >> i understand. >> if they can't arrive at a amenable we have had to deal with that. >> who wants to start. >> our da.

>> i wanted to remind you that if you choose to modify or deny the thirty 9 decision you're required to make a written finding specifically the error of the discretion and stating the facts on which our rialto make that determination keep in mind as you think about that. >> understood. >> i mean, you guys you know where i stand it is a great building but you know personally. >> so what's the basis that the commission use the discretion. >> what the is basis for

seeing the board used its depreciation e discretion. >> for allowing a building that does not more duplicate active but or more continuity to the waterfrowaterfron waterfront. >> recently air force an elevator shift. >> that extended 13 feet off of james weldon johnson or bay street we uphold that it was a beach an elevator shaft that exceeded six or eight feet and here we are having a full blown building into like as i said an

iconic part of san francisco that elevators was different represented in 1907 and built to 21 feet >> i'm talking about the principles it was the festivities and the thoughts people see the skyline in the city i understand examiner and older buildings in san francisco but this is the front that is what you see when you come off the bridge. >> what their air a tv show that is kind of my feelings. >> i'll say that is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in general providing a completely different direction and element as to the design and the massing not setback like it, it's

neighboring building to the south and not setback like the building to the north it is and the excuse it is not really on the waterfront because their happens to be a small park it is owned by municipal transportation agency on the waterfront i mean so - >> somebody should make a motion. >> what will happen it is psa but before we make a motion i haven't made a comment yet. >> i'd like to hear our comment. >> i'll start off by saying after all those years and 10 years i have never viewed a project puncturing on its aesthetics i've had many opinions and some of the people

at plan either awe tested to that or not i'm the one probably we looked at expectations before have talked about you know exceptions make buildings bulkier one of the things a in his normal that is used a couple of times people talk about slender building there are no slender building in san francisco more accurate phrase less unbelievable i didn't whether this one because of a reduction of a few feet it is slender it is not it is bulky but i'll make the argument that after all those years and looking at the urban design of san francisco bulky buildings are the normal and it is unfortunate that the attempt from the post prop m at urban

design the planning department tried to force or enforce was slender buildings but never got it what come down today is my opinion on the planning tributes verse the aesthetics attributes i don't have any arguments against the exemptions on aesthetics i'll share that privately with you. >> the organization is based on the exception. >> i understand. >> it's up to you, your the zip

code vote. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the planning department not error using the discretion in irish the downtown exemption. >> okay. on that motion than by commissioner king to deny the appeal and uphold the motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda no commissioner swig no so commissioners the position is 2 to you have to make a decision to leave it at that or continue to allow the missing commission to participate it is a case 3 votes make the decision either way. >> that's you are standard. >> i'd like to suggest we come back to commissioner fung's

first suggestion to continue it to january was it 23. >> 27. >> 27. >> to uphold it. >> for this motion. >> right but a 2, 2 vote by itself upholds the department. >> does so by default. >> then the appellant can say the third person missed. >> i understand. >> let's be consistent. >> yeah. yeah. >> we have told everybody that should the missing vote have an impact on it we'll continue this by ourselves i'm sorry that is con inconsistent.

>> is that a motion commissioner swig. >> motion to continue this until january 27th. >> to allow commissioner wilson to participate. >> okay. any further discussion on that motion commissioners. >> seeing none, on that motion. >> commissioner fung commissioner hyland commissioner honda and okay. so that that motion carries and this item is continued until january 27th. >> there's no further business before the board. we're adjourned. >>

>> hi. welcome to san francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest

today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take any special? >> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that i'm aware of with harvey that dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes.

>> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly cycle. there is no relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain. i'm not sure which is the myth. >> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground

swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground fracture but it's not something that opens up and sucks you up into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up

from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy challenge. are the smaller ones less stress? >> yes. the amount released in small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the

future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco. >> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and

you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity. >> you want to get under the door frame but you are not moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the

richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and

that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for

>> i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. thursday, december 10, like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate 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 wu

commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner richards commissioners commissioner president fong commissioner antonini and commissioner johnson are here and will join us shortly firefighters on you're agenda is items for continuance still no items proposed for continuance consent calendar are considered to be routine 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 at the time leveling 26 howard request for a conditional use

authorization and next va a lot of street conditional use authorization and 3 van ness avenue conditional use authorization and item 4 at 4550 geary boulevard conditional use authorization commissioners, i do have one speaker card for item 2 at 446 vallejo street we'll pull that item off of the content and consider at the beginning of the claurnld. >> yes. is there any additional public comment on the consent calend calendar. >> i'd like to submit a letter new could all to i've got copies for the commission this is on the 446, 548.

>> we'll be hear the merits. >> oh, this is about the continuance. >> continuance this for consent is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner moore i'd like to ask items one and two acknowledged by a member felt public taken off consent partially it is the issue of cus i'd like the commission to have an opportunity to comment on and explain maintains context of explaining. >> let's hear items one and two at the beginning of the calendar could you close public comment and . >> so public comment is closed. on the consent calendar. >> commissioner moore. >> take items one and two off

of content and approve the remaining two. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve items three and four under consent and items 15 at the beginning commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner antonini commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero commissioners commissioners, the first item on your agenda item 5. >> commissioner moore he was happy to read in yesterday's paper that uc san francisco and harriet for student housing faculty this was an article in the san francisco chronicle at 10:20 a.m. without going into the details of the premises of what they're doing their joining forces to address student

housing when we obviously have at the basis of our declarations what was happening to our housing stock i i'll be happy to to pass this on and the department in many planning function is actively looking at the subject matter and stats to be in dialogue with both institutions and this is the shining example of what where we are all going. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> happy to see in today's chronicle san francisco job rates is 3.4 one of the lowest of the county in the united states and only exceeded by two other city's in salt lake city

so an unemployment rate is good certainly zero is the rate but perhaps in memory of joanne. >> okay. >> commissioner richards a couple of things monday chronicle an article the mission district it is great if, if you want to understand it talks about how the influx of residents has challenged changed in the neighborhood a 24th street was a great read this morning chronicle to commissioner antonini's point the unemployment rate a low in a strata of earnings unfortunately now people i'll pull it up here

i forgot to grinning he i bring it in 13 a $24 an hour could not live in the city the cost of commute and gas and tolls to work for a 13 or 15 directing an hour job so unemployment is higher but 3.5 is an admiral goal but it is starting to hurt our economy. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners, if there's nothing further move on to item 6. >> no. we're going to - we'll take the oh, yes actually. >> if i could ask another commission matter i think that commissioner president fong want to be here for . >> we'll come back to commission matters so

commissioners very briefly that was a request from the commission chair to add the action items list to the agenda to update and sort of look at the year we prioritize any remaining items for the upcoming year so in you're packets received the updated action list we've done a good number of requests very recently in october we had the eastern neighborhoods update informational presentation the harding theatre came back as a project there was an a u update in the mission 2020 is age ongoing project that comes before the planning commission go most recently in the interim controls for what has been remaining is the

joint hearing with the san francisco municipal transportation agency development fines and eating and drinking and residential guidelines for the joint hearing with the small business commission and enforcement update i mp were discussed and family sized unit and assessor dwelling units and updates so i'd like open up for you're discretion. >> let's open for public comment first any public comment on the commissions action item list. >> my name is paul weber i said i'll a come back to keep you posted on how the staff a

responding to the questions relating to the density bonus plan and we've received a communication from the staff indicating that they're working on answers to the questions and said they'll try to have something this is not just to us but for the whole universe of persons they'll have the answers to questions by the holiday so you'll come back at other meetings to keep you posted. >> any is there any additional public comment seeing none. >> one more. >> no is on the action item list okay. >> one more time that i am on the action list seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> thank you yeah i don't believe this was on the list but i did ask in the

past and i think that would be informative to the public to have a presentation on projects that are occurring in areas that are part of jurisdiction felt planning commission and in most instances like be mission bay and transbay, sort of basically give us an update what is approved and being built and informative to the public eliminates people ask about the building we didn't consider that not in our jurisdiction is might not be a bad idea i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but sometime talk about those items. >> commissioner, i think i might jump in a second we did an update on transbay you looked at a project on transbay and what is still coming up i'm not sure

under the b f but the mission bay presentation. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> one i met with ken from the office of economic workforce development in and the staff a robust merging 10 of the staff members we were talking about different subjects each person was working on folks that come to the mta and the idea the item came up with commissioner johnson mentioned places in mission bay parking garages how full and one of the things we talked about was potentially understanding the rates in the building we approved running a report to see what vehicles are registered at that address it that would be helpful to help them understand the long term planning not much of a car future i'd like to add that to

the action item of list if the commissioners feel a benefit the other thing regarding the list i i understand from our last closed session target discovery dates or items i'd like to see a columbia targeted execution date something we know that this is proposed to be delivered in one year or two of the strategy plan that would be helpful a target to help us. >> can i understand that better you want to understand when the action item - >> the residential design on this understanding what that date is that would be helpful. >> for those in the strategic plan to have a target date. >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> we have 12 on the skelgdz items on the list i think some

of them having somewhat accelerators peck the residential design by january 8th to the residential design guidelines for the neighborhood gentrification an the single-family units and the occupancy and the citywide all of them deal with housing in various questions we ask on that perhaps take a slightly broader and integration and talk about those issues some in progress bring in the broader discuss with by mixing them we're losing the force for the the foist for the trees or, however, we're closing ourselves to think more comprehensively doesn't mean those things are answered we're having the participating in work in progress that helps everybody this is my suggestion

you can probably group other as you see fit. >> this is simply a list most of the things relate to each and present them in clusters as we have a discussion. >> commissioner richards. >> i think on the development finds i've asked for would be for me are the fines referring to the behavior this is really i read the employees suggestion in 2006 on the establishment of the department to constitute and give fines i said hey what is this about really driving behavior around the item and budget we had 9 trees that were on state street that were cut and the house was demolished with one or $2,000 i want to

make sure if i don't put a quarter under a parking meter it costs thousands and thousands of dollars in fines i want to understand the deterrence very good commission. >> shall we move on to the next item. >> commissioners we should be able to cover this quickly. >> jonas. >> want to going back go back. >> we have a unique opportunity to celebrate someone's retirement after 39 years i know we have special mentioned a little bit of a celebration but i he republican has been with the department for 39 years thank you for you you're dedication and loyal i

didn't. >> (clapping.) >> i'm sure if you measure the amount amount of work would fill this room on behalf of the commission and the entire staff for the city of san francisco thank you for your commitment and thank you. >> thank you commissioner president fong the staff is touched by irreverence dedication and she's benefit here longer than half the staff is alive irene started or started with the city in 1976 with the arts commission and move forward to the planning department she's worked for the citywide or long-range city and

she's seen many, many years worked for 7 directors all the changes as everyone said in the department she was a trusted professional and a constant person you want to enjoy coming to work you see i reigns smiling face known for her dedication and punctuality and working lastly every single day and she's has a passion for the arts she's a pianist and a city attorney self-taught photographer we're honored and pleased and thank you eir reign we wish you well and congratulate you on you're refrment we have a couple of gifts that commissioner president fong and i want to pass on

the first if i may is a certificate of, however, in the mayor in the city and county of san francisco dated december 10th whereas on behalf of the san francisco i'm pleased to honor irene with the san francisco planning department for 39 years tireless service to the residents of san francisco has been truly commendable and professionalism in the highest work ethic thank you for you're service and hard work has been 2rb9 to the vitality of san francisco best wishes signed edwin lee. >> (clapping.) >> irene from the entire

commission the proclamation is two of but sit back and reflect on all you're work again congratulations. >> (clapping.) >> good afternoon planning and director and everyone in the audience no words can express my appreciation today special day for me and my family and children here (laughter) mri are and albert will be here with us at least my father is

still around and honored to be here it's a blessing to reach 39 years of public service and go honorable mares with the city and county of san francisco it was a great opportunity serving the public and working together with amazing planning department i trust that the department will continue to is my own and in the years to come thank you for your time and this honor and it will be something i'll treasurer with any grandchildren in the future thank you, everyone. >> (clapping.) >> with any grandchildren in the future thank you, everyone. >> (clapping.) >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> back to business please call the next item. >> >> the 2016 commission

schedule review and adoption i do have some schedules to hand out to you for your consideration. >> commissioners so the first page is the property 2016 schedule for this next calendar year honestly we can make any changes we want i've attached to inform you during this process is the 2016 city and county calendar in

addition to that it is a soft printout of holiday in 2016 and the dates when we looked at this 2016 we don't have too many holidays that actually conflict with the thursday hearings can we get that turned off please thank you. >> generally speaking we propose canceling the hiatus in august that may conflict with a thursday hearing and as i mentioned next year not too many so generally, you cancel if ten to 11 hearings in the next calendar year open that one we we only have 8 so 3 dates to keep on the schedule 3 dates you can keep in our back pocket

or 3 days you can cancel. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, thank you a couple of things i know the correction was made on the earlier schedule as the 29 of december that is actually the 31st is under the new or thursday is the 29 i don't know why we are taking the 18 off because the holiday is earlier in the week i believe for president's day so i feel we probable should not have that particular day off we have really busy calendar and gets tiring to be here for midnight and great to have as many days available and things get continued but we're here it is rare we're getting out of here early we might consider to add another day the thursday the 22

of december christmas and humanitarian can fall on the 25th of next year we might have our 2 weeks hiatus at the end of the year and back on thursday january 6th for the regularly scheduled meeting and keep everywhere's with the option if we get busy add in the fifth thursday ahead of time. >> is commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i curtain or concur with commissioner antonini's commits and every 18 i'll leave it to up 9 commission we'll be here the only one i suggest is definitely december 22nd we should take off and may 26. >> what's the first one. >> december 22nd have off. >> i really believe that is

when we'll not interest a quorum and may 26, it is a thursday before memorial day that is one where it maybe challenging to have staff and commissioners around if they're trying to get in a regular vacation calendar to may 25th. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i have talked about that for years taking the first meeting in on september 1st and exchanging it with the last meeting in september would give us who have frames abroad or want to travel we come back and on to monday have another holiday for families travel that is a nice time to plan a larger trip so

it's been an issue over the years and the pros and cons has 5 meetings, 5 weeks i wouldn't see that to be in contradiction to the major policies we're working the fourth thursday every month i'm suggesting that i would support the 22 but try to get some understanding for the september move. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'll be supportive of that it gives us a 3 week break and typically what happens the calendar begin to heat up when summer is over it takes a while to gear up once we get back after labor day and trading i only agree to that if we trade the 29 we met and not on the first that would be a remarkably

trade. >> that is all i was asking. >> okay schifks. >> i support the limitation of elimination of the september 1st and support limiting december 22nd to get the year-end break and september 11th nice to have a break midwinter and like commissioner johnson may 26th as well that gives us 10 i think. >> i'd like to keep the 18 a day off it is helpful to say have a break and hard to do this in a volunteer capacity and helps to have a break one every two

months. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i'm so to speak in favor of the 18 if we don't schedule we can't that meet and meetings can be cancelled but not added back so that's my position the other changes i'm fine with. >> commissioners if i may. >> i'd like to ask the city attorney from the commission approves the calendar could we in an emergency add a fifth thursday for example, in march if this is legally possible i'm asking that. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles you can add a special meeting not part of the special calendar without notice requirements and i think if you balance the need for a bacteria to also be responses to workload

with the city attorney's approval and the gentleman proper noticing if we don't give ours that 0 over we're not doing what we are supposed to do. >> jonas we need a motion. >> yes. a motion to adopt and hearing and commissioner antonini. >> i'll move it as proposed we add back february 18th and cancel may 26th and cancel september 1st and add on december 2nd - >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i was going to second, that i think people want to cancel february 18th. >> so i don't hear a second for that motion. >> commissioner antonini would

you be amenable to canceling november 18th. >> if there is not a second yeah. >> say yes i'll second it. >> is that amenable to the maker of the motion. >> yes. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> no, that was it. >> so commissioners a motion to adopt the hearing for calendar year concealing february 18th, all the fifth thursday exception september 2nd at and canceling may 26th for memorial day and september 22nd for christmas december 22nd for christmas and hanukkah. >> on that motion commissioners commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu

and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> and jonas you'll get it revised calendar out. >> glad that was a correction on the dates the 29. >> yes. it is thank you. >> very good its place us in directors announcements. >> in the interest of time i'll pass until next week on my report. >> commissioners item 9 review of past fence the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> good afternoon commission aaron starr planning department the first item is the land use committee was the childcare fee sponsored by supervisor yee the legislation created a childcare fee for commercial projects with more than 25 thousand square feet the legislation created a new type of housing unit the designated child unit which will

allow a somewhat in home davrp operation in an c unit on this hearing voted to recommend approval with modifications that included one of the removal of the d cc from the ordinance and consider the d cc a separate piece of legislation and the childcare are to remain in the plan areas the ordinance was amended, however, the d ccu was kept in the ordinance but it was a not an inclusionary unit just a market-rate unit childcare providers staff from the low income investment fund and the dcyf spoke in favor the owners and the land use commission recommended approval to the full board with an amendment that trailing legislation would be

created within six months specifically related to the implementation of the d cc program at the full board hearing that week the board heard the rezoning on ocean avenue sponsored by supervisor yee second reading and the zoning map amendment for the harrison street project that was sponsored by supervisor kim also having a second reading was the duplicated file of the tsf this pass its second reading and duplicated by supervisor avalos made a motion that was sending by the supervisors to amend the duped file to race the tsf to 23240 plus over one thousand square feet that amendment required non-residential projects that submitted an application before july but not received the final vote to pay

50 percent between the tsf and the impact fee this motion passed 7 to for you with supervisor cowen and supervisor tang and supervisor wiener voting against and referred back to the land use commission next on the agenda was the japantown neighbor of commercial districts passed 2 first reading and finally two appeals to the golden state warriors center at mission bay the first when the board heard the governing body to the ocii 0 with the appeal to the certification of the final environmental impact report the second which the boards considered in the regular capacity was the appeal of the tentative map both appeals were by the mission bay alliance,

however, the environmental planning staff managed the preparation of the document and dozens of opponents from the patient families and medical personnel and residents the major concern was the transportation management plan that received attention if the board and supervisor ann was sworn in to participate in the hearing but recused himself for the able to review the eir in time for the hearing the braids overturned the appeals 10 to zero and approved the the mission bay fund to have the infrastructure for the arena by a 9 one veto with supervisor avalos december inventing and sarah john our environmental review officer asked me to make a message because the ocii was

the lead agency the commission didn't have the opportunity this commission if have the opportunity to assess the environmental review but of particular note the senior mclaren chris had patience and expertise to lead the effort and jeff brought but the completion of the eir and unprecedented scope of the timeline the viral plan is proud of the effort there was one tradition this week the affordable housing divisadero was aspired by supervisor president london breed it amends the planning code for a higher affordable housing fee for certain sites with higher residential potential of the street that

concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner richards. >> when we heard the fillmore and the divisadero street legislation i think one of two of us mentioned the affordable housing percentages and prop c was brought up for more how do the this come about. >> they did a color read and allowed the rezoning to because they were significant to go through that before we were under the assumption of 40 acres or more rezoning. >> do you know what the percentage is. >> i don't off the top of my head. >> commissioner moore. >> to the appeal mr. star the second part which was subdivision map and land use u land use i was willie l. brown middle school it was difficult

to understand because it was an old project around for thirty years and the designation were made i was curious it doesn't have to be now the logic to bring that into the kind of conclusion that was brought up. >> i'm curious. >> clarify you're asking had a the supervisors conclusion was no, what the attorneys discussions relative to coming to a basis of agreement what the interrogation was different by one group verse the other on the receiving end of moving the project move forward i'd like to see that in the reportable kind of explanation to us. >> okay. >> i don't need it right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. star i think i read in the paper today a project that didn't come before us on van

ness i think it was thirty van ness i forget the address city owned property before the board of supervisors after you left last night and permanent 1r0e9d no to relate to california out of positions other developer for that and permanent we are pro tem 25 percent affordable housing my questions are i guess the reason we didn't hear that it is city owned property and what the next steps would be or report to me next week if you want to. >> director rahaim might have information. >> commissioners the sale of the property to the board that wasn't the actual project when the project conforms several years down the road the site will be occupied by the city when the project conforms you'll

know. >> to build additional city housing for officer that's what thwart r they're planning on using it for the office in the building would be replaced by the current goodwill and mission and under the proposed use an under development housing. >> the board of appeals met that items of interest would be first an appeal of the entertainment permit for the warriors arena at this time the procedure 3 to one upheld the permit being issued ails commissioner fung had concerns the extent of the brevity of the conditions related to the noise in particular and i'd like to thank chris kern that did an excellent job of responding to questions one remaining appeal wards to our

discussion on the design review for the component of the project to be heard at the end of the january 2nd other 16 iris was heard a year ago you took dr roefk the stairs between the floor and the project was a modest one story addition appealed by the adjacent reasonable person property owner with various concerns excluding the feasibility and possibility public school the unit maybe merged and the stair was removed but concerns the stair was illegally installed and additional interior changes but the board announced to deny that appeal and 75 howard the section thirty 9 you heard was before the board last night and some of

the commissioners have strong annexations to the design of the project with a vote of 2 to 2 there was a motion to deny the appeal and allow the section thirty 9 that motion failed but the project would have within approved typically a super majority to overturn departmental action for this section it was slightly different just the majority just 3 tloets votes to overturn two commissioners felt strongly in opposition there was a missing commissioner to so that commission can have a sticking vote and continued to january 27th that has a related vaurnls for the project that has been appealed they'll consolidate that and take it up with the missing commission i'm

available to answer any questions. >> thank you commissioner richards. >> what was the concern with the design. >> commissioners commissioner honda and commissioner swig felt strongly how to integrated to the waterfront and noting the prominent nature of the sites their concerns didn't relate to the gap building next door some of the major concerns were the materials noting there was brick used in the gap building and the substantial setback that the gap building harassed we argued that would in the be practical howard is much, much smaller through the lot as the gap building is to, yes commissioner honda said even though building design was okay. but not there and commissioner swig had stronger go words and felt it was appalling it was the word he used but again going back on january 27th. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move on general public comment time, members of the public may address the commission of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i do have several speaker cards. >> okay (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners joel would with the landline workers local 6 and the electricals association i want to brought to your attention the project we're tracking what a large issue as you can see on the overhead there is a news

article written about two months ago no october about the construction project at 58 are third street this project is being built with all modular prefabricated housing we have in every way cut out of this project the modular seeing pieces are built in sacramento they're not built by electricians their shipped by trucks and put together by an out of out-of-towner contractor our entire industry has not one minute or one cent involved in this project as a whole so again you know, i represent 32 contractor electrical contractors that are here in san francisco they pay their parcel

taxed and operate businesses and employ residents we another part of the industry i don't talk about the material tool supply when we order light function turns come through a distributor in san francisco the wholesale and tool sdrrth is non-exonerate and as far as the workforce no residents on this job no residents electricians or apprentices no women no man-hour to do with san francisco is involved with that job granted i'm taking specifically for the electrician not for other trades and not speaking for the building trade council just speaking for our industry we're completely cut out of every

portion of this job i know the mayor has goals of unit of housing that need to be met that he 2020 more affordable housing and low income housing this type of construction is the golden ticket as it stands it's not the golden ticket this would be done a a thought-out way in san francisco with residents with the building trades, with apprenticeship programs and local contractors as long as it is kept in san francisco it is going to be satisfactory as it stand innovate going to work 90 percent of construction is offsite and 10 percent identical we're not even doinnot even dow

>> 1 eeb studio talk about howard. >> i'm concerned about the following shortcomings of '75 howard the removal of the parking lot diminishes hundreds of parking sfaulz i stalls it a commodity in san francisco could not an underground garage you been permitted not allowing affordable housing onsite but in the neighborhood is a disappointment 75 howard is luxury housing preliminary for investment purposes for the weight has few people living under without affordable housing onsite this creates no new housing than

housing thank you. >> hello commissioners i've lived in san francisco as a homeowners on jesus street in innovating for the last 4 two years and my grandson and daughter we are born here what is happening in the neighborhood i joined a group that came together to protect at charm it sounds like peak up but a group of citizens that came teeth pause of the rammed destruction by luxury development that is out of scale we do not seek to freeze the character the city is changing and will continue but the features that attack people to noah valley are disappearing

in the so-called remodel as it stands ouch in every direction except the street front and at the expense the quality of life that lowers property values i'm concerned about the encroachment going into our mid block open space that constitutes much of our uttering and it is home to a wide variety of birds and trees i came here to urge to undertake a study of mid block open space in our neighborhoods and other neighborhoods and the rapid rebuilding citywide you can't see those spaces from the student but easily from an aerial view the comparison what is visible and existed when for example, google or streetscape was launched will reveal the

cumulative impact of the rear yard shrink age that benefits us and freshlgz the air and contact with the nature for birds and honey bees and our children enjoy i suggest you update residential design guidelines so they'll be more responsive to the nature of the current development i have a friend that came from hong kong to spend a year in the san francisco on a sabbatical. >> - there being replied by little rooms we're losing

something that can't be retrieved the people who live if a small house and suddenly have faced with a big wall next door their lives are diminished why is that okay go they're for sale at the expense of other thank you bye. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner can i have the overhead please one year ago we were here on a rainy day not a fake rainy day that was the project with a dr i was one of the neighbors you took dr and made a few setbacks the neighbors wanted more and more i don't know be looking at it now you know i'm glad what you did but i kind of wish more

were done this as a huge impact on the mid block open space some changes were made in the addendum that goes on i think quite a bit unfortunately, like those nanna rules were add not there when you approved that and also, they took away a parking space and made a fifth or fourth bedroom i'm not sure but where the garage had been i don't know on our decide making in terms of the setback that happened after you are barbara hale e dealing with it as you can see the prominent pattern and the other thing about rear yards in noah valley this is actually, the yard that was there one of the big things you have a year ago that was the yard but what was happening and most of them are

called remodeled that is a remodel are things like that like the house is extending into the yard the square footage is extending into the yard you're losing a yard and creating e e creating an entertainment area, a ultra huge patio are full of cement and different levels i know that each project is different and everybody has the right to what we want it going back the design guidelines and we need people in noah valley feel more protection and preservation of the what is there now. >> and what makes noah valley and all residential neighborhood special in san francisco i don't want to think that is a enemy be

thing i know we're privileged no noah valley it is something that in terms of quality of life and in the city the design guidelines and expectations that needs to be discussed more that's why we brought that up today thank you. >> is there any additional public comment general public comment okay not seeing any, general public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> question 40 for the city attorney we had a speaker talk about the hiring and city residents being used do we do a cu can any of that play into the decision-making process. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles. >> the city has the first source hiring ordinance that applies to certain types of projects i think the commission

regularly applies those requirements when they apply. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to our regular calendar commissioners two items were pulled off the consent and requested they be considered here at the regular calendar case 1126 howard conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon rick with the department staff the the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to the planning code section to allow office use and allow a changing use of 18 thousand plus square feet from retail to office use wefrm the project includes a change of use and

excludes the limitations of exterior altercations october 7th the historic preservation commission reviewed the proposed change of use and the associated historic maintenance plan found or found to say compliant since the project was less than 25 thousand square feet the proposed project doesn't require a conditional use authorization pursuant to the planning code office use is not permitted except with 9 conditional use authorization from the planning as noted in the the section office use is permitted in the rhd district and determines with conditional use authorization to be compliant by the planning commission. >> the department has not

received any public correspondence overall the department asked for approval the conditions and a qualified hectic property that is encouraged by the western soma plan and maintains the character and rehabs and assists in the areas like the first economic basis the zoning administrator said that will preserve the subject property and it is supported by the historic preservation commission as in the motion and the project is sdiefshl and comparable the project sponsor is present and prepared a short presentation that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of

the project sponsor it converts it from retail to office use i want the ceo matt to talk about the company and their plans. >> hello thank you, very much for allowing me to speak allison park the ceo and skovd of the parks sides be landing we've been doing business in san francisco for 25 years employ 75 college and non-college employees we plan to hire 75 more our company lends to poor if i may housing and economic status we're approved with hud, va and have portfolio pouts

we're no a biotech company our rent was going to double and have to move the company outside of san francisco so we purchased the building and consolidated the business thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioners so again, the full name is the proposing the following the renovation of a hectic building that results in a maintenance plan on the title of the property so in perpetuity it converts the property 18 to 19 thousand for office use for the zoning a little bit the r e did is non-residential and pdr use is not permitted since you may remember as with the discussed the western soma plan one of the few building in werments that has a character for eligibility

for office or retail formula there was only a half-dozen in the soma and a building that is built as a commercial building did work well or difficult to convert to residenresidential s allocation is needed for 25 thousand square feet in the building as matt mentioned using it to move their company here they are in san francisco 75 employees currently and hire both college and without college degrees they're moving from service center and again, this will allow them to grow their business in san francisco in short the project allows for homegrown businesses to double it's workforce and provide jobs to those with college degrees and without for those reasons we respectfully ask for your

support for the project thank you. >> opening it up for public comme comment. >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore ii wanted to share with the commission why i asked for it to be taken off consent none of the things - i'm glad to meet the applicant and describing his business what i was concerned about something unusual and it hsa has to do with with the fact we approve 5 m and took a lot of time in talking about the broader feshz effects of knowledge up howard and mission and really moving the positive elements of the vanity of that project up howard we would look carefully of how buildings were participate and present themselves the first we had a

struggling block with mcd next door and the discussion whether or not that was he will active energizing use i looked at this building a very, very positive buildings along the way we need to be careful of how we do it that's all a postoperative states e statement item for me when we looked at drawing a-4.1 i made the effort to call historic commission president commissioner wolfram and asked independently without having a conversation i asked the opinion of commissioner pearlman without referencing my conversation independently and what kind of calls did you give this in the advisory committee of the fact i described the ideas occupying

our 5 m we did look it as a change in window when a would you have looked this differently if i talked about the comments about the larger context they said, yes we would we would have looked at the more as the building expressing itself all the way to the ground floor and a wonderful historic preservation on the upper part of building on the lower part of building we're doing the opposite we're simplifying the volumes and the subdivision of the building and longer story short i would ask that we maintain the existing administration and not going against any thoughts secretary of interior standards i have a written comment from historic preservation commission

president that they would support if i asked for the condition that will require the lower floor windows to stay as that he are they're in keeping with the building they're more in keeping with the intent of what their trying to do as they're moving to mission street and part of the historic preservation commission with - they'll have full authority they'll support it i'm not i'm using this they'll support us not as a commission statement but as an intent that the idea is correct based on the question i asked. >> okay. another minute to gather. >> - >> so i'm clear commissioner moore you want the front windows as they are.

>> that's correct. >> do to give you a little bit of background on the history we were bagging the original street upon the historic photograph on the property on the overhead what we said as the original condition of the building so for example, you can see over here there were 2 very large plate glass windows and the building was split into basically two distributions on the storefront and generally when we advise applicant that are developing the historic building plans historic documentation we try to go back to that as much as possible and given the large-scale plate glass windows are difficult to manufacture we incorporated the ground floor to allow us to

maximize availability and heart attack else's to the general design. >> i appreciate your knowledge and explanation this has not gone to the architecture review of the historic preservation so our conversation was short circuited by the windowing and judgment we agree with me on what i'm observing since this is floor is fat flat to understand the suicidal intents with the historic preservation commission i'm in support of what is glen eagle being done it was extremely important and a lovely building and distinguishes itself i'd like to see that move forward if you wouldn't mind run that back one more time and would you be amenable to that

decision. >> i'll appreciate that thank you. >> so i move to approve. >> with conditions whatever. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm supportive of the motion and sixth district it and continue to work on the design and implementation i notice the windows were aluminum aren't they spotted to be wood maybe i read it wrong but the specs for aluminum windows. >> the ones on the ground floor are aluminum. >> as long as the historic preservation commission is okay. yeah i like the project for all the reasons statistics the use is loud and a san francisco company they're adding employees and not disruptive to the housing use that are preferred in the area so it make sense. >> so commissioners so i thinks the condition of approval the

department brings the storefront dine to the commission for additional review by the architectural review committee e.r. the full commission. >> i'd like to say the architectural to look at the drawings not the oldest one i i don't have a picture but circle back for this verification. >> commissioner richards. >> i support the notion i see those windows maybe have been added sometime after the building was built i support it and for clarity sake commissioner moore you're condition would require the project be reviewed by the architectural review committee. >> yes. they know what they're looking at. >> very good commissioners there has been a motion seconded

to approve that project with conditions as amended to retain the existing windows on the lower level and forward to the architectural review committee commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places us on item 2 vallejo have the a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission carlly planning department staff flument was a request for the conditional use authorization to permit one parking space per dwelling unit at 546 to 448 vallejo located within the district and the

telegraph hill north beach suspecting to replace a debar ment factory to provide 2 assessor off-street parking one more each dwelling unit and two bicycle parking spaces the garage entry will be 9 feet in width with a curve cut along vallejo street the project doesn't include any expansion of the building envelope to date, no public comment on this item the department recommends approval building that the necessary and desirable for the following reasons to remove a haven't of vacant building and the factory is not permit in the rfp rezoning and it affiliates pressure by removing one sfgh

and meets the code and comparable with the surrounding neighborhood that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> hello my name is karen mary i'm the architect on many projects and also a former occupant of the building my family has owned this building more many in years we have purchased the building when may brother warner who is currently the owner was born and 62-year-old we grew up in that house a small family of 10 and my parents raised us the debar ment froik what preservation a different business so they

turned it into a business it is different my parents passed we would like to convert the ground floor debar megarment to a. >> before i direct the commission i'm a commission and is there a conflict for me to direct this committee and i'm the department of building inspection sit as the vice president though my term it ending this month and will be an out going commission. >> speaking as an individual. >> definitely speaking as an individual. >> unless authority to speak as a commission. >> they don't know i'm here

so my sister karen as the architect said i was born in that building with my 9 brothers and sisters and i'm quite a bit older i remember the building i don't remember from 43 there was a garage in 43 until i was 10 because i remember the garage when i was 10 and my mother pulled permits and converted into a debgarment. >> there's never ever been a eviction in that unit believe it or not in 50 or 60 years never ever been a constriction when my parents and i and my brother owned that as a landlord there was a tenant upstairs we

expected her to remain but she left two years ago we found a place in san francisco so good for her a success story so it's been entry for two years i'd like to move back there my nephew will move upstairs if we get the garage that will open up to other unit my daughter will get any current house i'd like to downsize and my nephew will get out of his place that is two rental units that will open up in san francisco thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioner president fong and members the commission i'm joe

butler an architect and neighbor to the marys on vallejo street we've assisted them in looking at the history of this and tracing to determine this is a replacement of a garage we found that to be the case i would recycle to say no support of project that providing one parking space per dwelling unit will not negatively impact the characterization of the neighborhood the replacement of a availability storefront with the garage in the rh1 will bring that ground floor in compliance with the residential character and finally it contributes to the stability of the neighborhood and has a beneficial development thank you. >> i have one speaker card stan hayes. >> okay is there any additional public comment on this item.

>> okay public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i support the removal of this project i need to restate any n cu that is asking us to look at some something that the necessary and desirable should be not on content we've not talked about it we have different opinions in the ends but a decision is warned on this one to me looking at the drawings is we supported the dwelling units we've talked about them and looked at it four types of where we occur and we're pushing a transit first city we have legislation that was approved we strongly supported it and looked at the locations and suitable situations it is according to the guidance you've gave us of a

perfect location of the dwelling units given it's location on the outside of perimeter walls and with windows facing the alley my first question why wouldn't we consider suggesting that from the planning and preplanning process number 2 i think and i sometimes keep files of things that influence how we make decisions in 2010 we worked closely with the department and at a point supervisor chiu on amending and creating a district with broadway and charge mixed use and the creation of telegraph hill and residential sprkt in that one we look at carefully removing the parking cap in

order to be able to one protect the use of units and not threaten the diminishing of units now with the addition of the new legislation we have the great ability of adding units i as a commission being talked to here every week we're not doing those kinds of things for those are baby steps to support what we and policy all agree on the most mature neighborhoods are the ones we should be looking for the implementation of the use and i am in no position to support loulg two parking spaces it is from my perspective not necessary and desirable and with a family size mr. wu subscribed

with the envelope, etc. moving if if is more about living space and cars and not living space that's my position the other thing when we worked with supervisor chiu dbi came in and clearly statesed about where occurs can and should not be and two percent of inchinese they'll not approve a curve current for a garage when you look at the schematic we're or working drawings of the project they newly installed handicap ada ramp is literally inches away from the curve cut starts on a corner a unifying sdiefshl position i personally think is unsafe and not what a dbi -

public works wants to to those to do that combination i don't want to kick the can down the road but if we are standing for adding assessor dwelling units that is one place i suggest we do that we can't condition our approval on that i know that the city attorney is giving me a look but i can remind ourselves of our policy and i can indeed ask we do not approve the addition of parking space in the form it is proposed. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess i strongly supported the adu legislation supervisor christensen before she was on the board i have a question for mr. mar i'm not a big parking or car fan i own a car and have a garage so

i don't want to be be called a hypocrite why not rent it and have a taxi or uber fund or park go offsite fund for the rest of you're life. >> i'm 62-year-old i can't bicycle even in the city in the best of conditions so, yes, i drive a car actually, i drive a motorbike but the other thing if you look at the lots size of the lot it is only i think i told someone that was 25 by 75 i think i was you don't know wrong it is 19 by 70 - by what - >> 60 a very, very small lot

is that will, cost effective i can't live there this is what you're decision if you disapprove i couldn't live there but am i going to turn that into a unit i can't spend that kind of money i'd like to go back to the house where i was born and live there. >> that's the only reason i'm doing it and downsize from the three bedroom to bathhouse no noah valley i'll lucky to own and give that to my daughter so i can live in a two bedroom one bath flat not without parking. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini autopsy yeah, i'm supportive of the project it make sense the family is downsizing a it's their house not wanting to put

in an accessory unit we support accessory units but not in the position to force people to create units where they don't want to put them and he made the are project sponsor mafrns to me particularly in the hi i didn't dwelling units along telegraph hill going somewhere to get groceries and having to come back again is a difficult thing and as you get up in age man or a woman difficult lingus them up there a parking space is a very important and was a garage between 1963 only restoring what was originally in much of the last century a parking garage it gets a couple of cars off the street whoever lives there will have a car and park that someplace and pdrs is not

permitted very few permitted use i'll move to approve the project. >> second. >> i need to comment that is a unique situation i appreciated pulling off of extent that is interesting i'm tempted to look at this family who wants to return to the house they've grown up in and san francisco thrills american people the ability to have multiple generations to stay in san francisco and his daughter it is unique and asking a little bit of something different from us i'm supportive of the staffs recommendations to approve with conditions. >> commissioner moore. >> as you just described and i believe that everything you said is true in one side of my mind i support what you're saying it is expressing the essence of san francisco a multi generation of

families and you acknowledged we're having a new legislation that has good ideas but unable to deliver it a decome i wish architects would have brought a around ideas forward that approving go parking spaces are only by the overlay of people that schuz the legislation would only be one .5 car not really two cars two cars fall into did face of the other policy that being transit first, we're putting ourselves in an more complicated unresolved because of one to all no basis by which to be fair to what the real

issues are and again technically director rahaim i'm not sure you want to remark because you issued a one parking garage in curve cuts the compliance with the department of public works relative to the closet of the curve cut to the ada ram is a technical issue i think needs to be addressed in the context of what we are doing in the cu because the cu can't be void i'm trying to get media feet ground to what the decisions are. >> commissioners i don't know the specification but adu has to approve the curb cut. >> perhaps. >> if you want to speak to that. >> i wanted to add we've

shared our plans with expelling they've reviewed it and said that was acceptable at this time we don't have a permit pending this they've seen it. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think there are a lot of people who will use transit but a lot of people that find it enforceable or undesirable to live only on transit and pretty sketchy in the city as we know so you know those people or either going to be able to be accommodated or not san franciscans i understand both sides but there is what the project sponsor is president not at all ♪ keeping with the policies to allow them to have this particular units for their own use and allow tore parking

spaces >> commissioner wu. >> i will disagree i don't know transit is sketchy a great way to get around everyday accept and expend open with that said, is it necessary and desirable for me criteria there are other garages think the streets there is a pattern of garages with the land use and historically a garage on this site so although it is not - it is sorts of outside of the normal thinking i guess as commissioner president fong said but i'm supportive of the project. >> commissioners a motion to approve that with conditions commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards no commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with

commissioner moore and commissioner richards voting against commissioners shall we move on. >> please. that places us on items 10, 11 a and b for cases the potrero hope sf this is a certification of the final environmental impact report adoption of ceqa finding as well as finding the inconsistent with the general plan please note to the eir and eis end on january 2016-2017 and public comment will be received, however, this item was continued from you're regular hearing the october 22nd you held a public hearing and closed public comment and continued the item

to today common core in order to participate you need to knowledge pubically you reviewed the materials as well as the video from the original hearing. >> i reviewed item 11 of the october 22nd presentation and great discussion i'm fully prepared to participate. >> i appreciate that. >> i have handouts thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners rachel planning department staff as jonas indicated the certification of the environmental impact report for the potrero master plan project again as jonas mentioned as you may know this item was heard on october 22nd and continued the certification of the eir eis to this hearing and continued the hearing in part so the certification of the eir example

eis is heard in conjunction with the approvals the project market values of approvals being brought today, the general plan is necessary for the critical step forward to implement the potrero hill project the parcel x the board is expected to act on 30 years that acquisition shortly and providing clarification around the residents relocation for the purpose of environmental impact some discussion the assumption in the eir eis the residents will be temporarily logically he relocated on site or offsite housing that is existing offsite housing and no additional

identifying so the additional offsite housing is required will be subject to its own environmental impact report process jonas has distributed the rice version the draft motion to certify eir and eis no substantive changes have happened only update them for the certification item was heard on october 22nd of this year and continued having said that, the the item before you is the certification of the financial environmental impact report and eir, eis for the hope master plan project the responses to documents was distributed in hardcopy on october 9th of this year as i

mentioned a copy of the draft eir, eis and the response to the document is before you the draft eir eis was published and the public hearing on the draft eir, eis was held on december feel 11 and public comment is closed. and the responses to comments document was published and distributed on october 8, 2015, the responses to comments document in compilation inclination with 9 eir, eis constitutes the report that the hope project is u.s. bancorp visibly delay at local intersections and exterior noise levels and construction period criteria air pollutant in the

draft certification motion those impacts can't be mitigate to a lens significant level as a result the commission will need to adopt the offer siding certification and pursuant to california environmental quality act at this time i believe we have endeavored to provide comments to the planning commission and to the members of the public we believe therefore that the eir eis is coyote and provides decision-makers and the public with the information pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential impacts of the proposed project on that basis we ask you adopt the motion before you that certifies their adequate and accurate with the procedures to the final eir

complies with the ceqa with guidelines that concludes my presentation. there's unless there are any questions. >> okay >> good afternoon, commissioners matt snooirtd with the department staff talk about the two actions before you ultimately the project will require a rezoning in the special use district specific for this site and map amendments for taller buildings at the site and on the other hand, agreements between the city and the project sponsor and the property owner of the housing authority the department agreement is formulated and last week to bring that action along with the zoning at a later date, however, want you to adopt the

ceqa finding with the overall finding on top of the general plan and planning code the reason we want you to do that now so that the city staff can moved on the implementing of the measures that are not able the purchase of the property on connecticut we call it block x this is largely outside of the housing authority jurisdiction because there are structures that enables the projects to move forward with construction without having to demolish any other structures enabling the log on e location on the site so that concludes my presentation. and i would ebt to answer questions and project sponsor and the members of the staff and from the mayor's office of housing and community development are also here thank you. >> okay opening it up for

public comment if there is any. >> sorry. >> oh, okay. >> sorry we do have some cards. >> ms. brown, (calling names). >> commissioner president fong this item has been heard and accepted. how many minutes will you afford each speaker >> two. >> two. >> dan adams bridge housing thank you, commissioners i mean, i'll be less than two minutes first of all, thank you for considering this item the second time before you it is a milestone it is one of our necessary approvals but a step forward for the members for the

potrero community and has both real procedural implications and value for the monument momentum for the project in years in the making an important milestone not the only milestone as matt smifthd said we'll be before you for the phase one the construction a small parcel no dwelling unit and no relocations is facilities our work to move forward and before you with a development agreement with the outlining of the relocation and as well as the infrastructure we look forward to fire chief presentations in the meantime i'm here to answer any questions thank you very much. u >>t >>u >>r >>e

> > tuurr >> ma'am, speak to the microphone. >> i'm ms. brown i've lived in potrero hill for over thirty something years we need improvement on that housing and it is sometimes at night time we need to get improved i have a daycare we open there and you know stuff like this i wanted you to know we need to prove public housing an potrero hill thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi good afternoon. i work for bridge housing but more importantly a resident in potrero hill in the terrace and its been a long time coming we've waited for four years now for the eir to be approved and i know majority of residents are really excited and map for this hopefully get approved today, we like left out of here for october and kind of feeling deunderstated that was not approved hoping this doesn't happen today it is time for us to have new housing for a lot of us a way for people to graduate from public housing to affordable housing and so this is a win-win situation for not only public housing residents but for the city because so many

people no way for a lot of of us to stay in san francisco and minority and low income people we need more housing and new housing the eir needs to be approved and they take into consideration starting on the one parcel on 101 con coon so people wouldn't have the be relocated this make sense and then in the process they are looking at residents have been involved in the process from the beginning so it is not like their koirm and telling us that is what you have to do and no say so we've had a lot of input and breg it is diligent about the activities we've had so for if you do decide not to approve that today open up the floor so we can get a clarity why you

don't approve it but if you approve it you don't have to worry about don't let us walk out of here and not approve it today thank you. >> hi commissioners my name is kim christensen a resident and neighbor of the potrero hill i'm enthusiastically support this and hope you'll approve it today its been a long time coming years and years and participated in dozens of community meetings and i want to commend bridge i know the county outreach has been subtle letter and enjoyed getting to know lots of now neighbors i participated in the advisory committee for the people plan, which is going to help create the social infrastructure and program

services, resources and money coming out the community to raise up the neighbors of the people with jobs, training and social services, etc. as important as the architecture and buildings so hope you approve it thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is a.d. i didn't i'm a long time member of potrero and i've been one of the players involved since day one and it's been like you said a lot of strenuous nights and hard work went both this we've covered everything that would be covered you know we've met every

player and we haven't have had any opposition sophomore so far he understand that will be major you know disruption because i've seen it before and here for 9 first hope site we didn't have it in potrero hill they especially\understand it but this time residents sitting at the table we we're work with the developers and i only holed up is getting this eir approved today, i'm happy to say let us get this approved to get to work underway because it is no more than we can do we're met out (laughter) thank you. >> is there any additional public comment?

>> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much thank you for everyone to you came out there was a lot of public comment i wanted to reiterate the reason wear here and not taking action in october a was because of i'll call it a quote oversight i don't know what the name is a period of time we certificate a final eir report those who take issue with finding of whatever it written in there have an opportunity to take action in courts or otherwise to appeal is that period would have run out before an actual project for approval therefore a lot of reasons that is problematic so you have people who take issue with some of the finding around the population analysis but not an actual project meaning site maps

and buildings and actually thing to build so that a judge or any other authority looking at the appeal would be able to judge the finding against the project that's why we detailed it actually today now the project approvals within the period of time anyone that takes issue with the final eir and want to set an appeal the project will be within the statute of limitations that's why wear here today, i think that there were too many issues holding up the projects or not certifying the eir that's why we're here today, i appreciate that staff made mention about accident relocation plan and it's impacts on finding in the eir are impact on how the project will be constructed one of my main

concerns about this project i read the eirs for at this point, a couple of different hope sf and that's been a major concern potrero is much bigger than the alice griffith that came before us hunters point i believe we'll be in a system a place where we're not going to be able to relocation poechl people onsite and can't predict it on site what unit will be vacated which sections will you been occupiable those are variables but i'll tell you if you look at the numbers and the schedule the current schedule of demolition and look at the constructive the new construction a period of time were there will be some

people to be relocated and not onsite and due to the opening issues of housing around the city i can see no other smart alternative but to at least consider the possibility we'll have to picking up put up some sort of housing not on potrero hill so i've taken issue with that for the longest period of time and appreciate the comments here today i've made mention in the irresistance we need to make mentioned of that i'm not necessarily advocating we change the text bull mention that the plan may require new housing somewhere else but those special e supplemental eirs will come before us having said that, i think that the finding the significant or impact that can't be mitigated are well within the

purview of the project i think their definitely are statement of over and over riding considerations take into consideration those significant impacts and well worth it for the change that are not replacement of the delipidated older housing but opening up the community by social design is isolated from the rest of san francisco we're under transit network and with the mixed use neighborhood radios are things that will be definitely to benefit of the current residents as well as joining them since we're increasing did populations on the hill with that, i think i'm thinking that will be good to take a separate action item i'll make a motion to certify the eir. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner wu.

>> we want to echo a lot of what commissioner johnson said and supportive of the project it is never two early to think about relocation and all the implementations as the city is directing with 89 public housing project and thank to all the community that caught the building font on castro hill is wonderful grassroots effort to approach to addressing projects thanks again for coming and your patience and commissioner antonini. >> oh, yeah. thank you supportive of the project it does all the right things you know has been mentioned creates a city grid and open spaces and a mixed income and recognizing the need for market rate housing to help to fund the

project and it is reasonable and i think we end up replacing apa all 6 of the existing public housing and 35 new affordable we are creating a neighborhood that will be joined to dog patch blow it and third street so as not before us a so this is a terrific project. >> director rahaim. >> thank you. i want to say this is a milestone of an important project thank you to the members of the public and the mayor's office of housing and planning department and bridge housing and all the residents so hard an this site i know from past experience those are complicated very, very long prongs and it does take a lot of work as the gentleman said all are meeting we're happy to recommend you approve that project today just to be clear matt mentions a rezoning the

agreement probable in the first or second quarter of next year. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to knowledge the thought of commissioner johnson what i think strikes me most the incredible high-level of attention it detail but making the best designed neighborhood whatever the effort so i'm extremely happy about the consistency of all projects and acknowledging this one. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there has been a motion that was seconded to certify the eir and environmental impact statement on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> (clapping.) >> and are still the remaining items 11 ab. >> yeah. sorry i. >> i was uncleaver on 11 a and b motioning make a motion to adopt but what is 11 a with the ceqa finding and ceqa finding with the offer riding issues. >> i'll make a joint motion on 11 ab and adopt the offer riding consideration and the ceqa finding and finding consist with the general planning code. >> thank you commissions on that motion to adopt with the offer riding considerations and consistency with the general plan and planning code section commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards

commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and commissioners that place us on item 12 case the central soma of the public benefits that is an footaginformational presentatio

>> jonas is this on. >> wonderful good afternoon, commissioners steve planning department staff i'm the project sponsor for the central soma plan to discuss the benefits for the central soma plan we know this is a very serious topic we're trying to have fun with this i've handed out menus and left a pile for hope sf if members of the public want to follow along. >> before we get into the

details the program i want to refresh everyone on the aspects of central soma we're not here that often so excuse me. two main imthank you's for the plan one as you may know in the city a tremendous demand for new space for jobs and housing if we don't accommodate prices will continue to rise this the to accommodate some of the demands central soma has some of the best transportation from soma direct to every surrounding communities and love vacant lots and 200 underutilized lands there is a refresher from the north and 6 to the east excuse me. 6th street in the west and call your attention to the

issues the eastern neighborhoods portion verse the downtown the eermsdz is where the prompt increased capacity and we're proposing to increase the amount of public benefits loud and by craft downtown keeping the heights and zion and existing requirements so all the public benefits we're talking about where coming from the eastern neighborhoods portion there's a planned timeline considering the fist year the plan that's a long time we also know we are seeing a 25 year plan for buildings for over hundred years one of the slide the draft eir coming out in may this is a few months there is work to be done as you guys are more aware the level of security new required on the

environmental impact report through the roof want to make sure that everybody or everything is perfect on the eir that's the case hopefully back to you next summer to initiate the plan and if everything workouts perfectly will be done at the end of next year or 2017. >> to the plan central soma is an incredibly complex plan can be boiled down to 3 objectives first to accommodate some of the demands for growth we've seen in the city and second a tremendous amount of affordable housing and transit, open space all the things we'll talk about this afternoon and third the respect of the neighborhood character we have a great neighborhood in soma we're trying to enhance what is great about the neighborhood not create a different neighborhood that is

about what is reflecting and a tremendous overlap between the objectives and we hope with our help and the communities help 9 central soma plan can nail all the objectives there's many ways to implement the plan and spent month buzz the controls and all that setup stuff but specific to the public benefits this is a stretch that is the slide i ever when i was here in june the goal to set the requirement for public benefits and in the right sweet spot where the city has maximum benefits in return if we set the requirement too high you'll not get the public benefits they come from the development if you set the requirement too low you get the department but in the the public benefits it is the

bargain we are striking and all the funding we're talking about is based on this agreement. >> so let's get into the menu what's in the pantry lots of you know food open house by way of last night and we're trying to keep it starts from the city didn't pass the central soma plan $3 million in public benefits that is approval under the existing contracts where it is occurring in central soma. >> where were the city to pass the plan over $2 million that's a 5 hundred plus increase and if include the one billion dollars for the revenue of the general

fund for the plan from property tax and savings that can be spent on benefits that we spend money on that the city how are we paying for the central soma new development and 3 main ways development requirements when the city requires the developer and no transaction between the city and developer for example, onsite conversation hoosiers and the second the it impact fees the eastern neighborhoods impact fees and the job impact fees lots of impact fees that is where the developer cuts a check to the city before the construction against and the third a melrose district a special kind of tax they put money into a kitty for public benefits so we've been thinking about the

plan in terms of basic ibm ingredients and additional benefits the basic ingredients are definitely in the plan the ferns is 33 percent of affordable housing now it is not the existing requirement the 33 percent a huge leap for the slments plan but we definitely can get there by enabling the requirements on both the residential and non-residential developments providing money towards affordable housing from 26 to 33 the reason it is in the basic ingredients prop k is a good policy we fully embrace it to get the additional ingredients you want everyone to play with hey not putting 33 percent on the table only this is the plan and other public benefits come from the existing impact fees

they're in the eastern neighborhoods are paying for and for example we get enough funding from the eastern neighborhoods and transportation sustainability fee for half the streets to be safe for people walking and bicycle and having money for a playground and recreation center proposing to require all office developments to provide open space for the ground floor we can have up to 4 acres of office space from this requirement and the repair in parks program it funds the arts in the neighborhood e.r. developments into public art terrorists for artist and programs in the neighborhood schools and childcare this is basically established a nexus for childcare and other benefits into the plan can't legally ask for more money and transit 200

and $80 million towards the maintenance of the existing fleet and muni program all told up those add to up $1.4 billion one $.1 million from 9 impact fees and $300 million from go basically requiring 33 percent affordable housing radios are the basic ingredients and the conversation how to pend the other $6 million we've prepared the repeats and their method to exemplify we can spend additional money on all the topics api i've talked about or pend money on superintendant and hectic knows in the

neighborhood and support of nonprofits all told to ask for all of these thing is more than $600 million with the constraint we have with the setting the impact fees playing with the $2 billion what do we want to extend the money some things will not be funded at this time so what we did in the menus eave started and created those entrées around the amenities provides up to 40 percent of affordable housing and do all the complete streets the second one around economic diversity will fund production, distribution and repair jobs and fund nonprofits, and protected space for nonprofits and distribution repair and funds

the reception for the maximum a lot of the historic building they're not new they'll have cheaper rents so finally not finally the third is green and mobile neighborhoods the green neighborhoods is fulfilling our goal of having a eco district that requires the buildings and creating renewable energy and improving air quality and investing in the adaptation of seawall rise and almost three hundred more million dollars in transit and median for complete streets. >> the fourth entray it will pull some i think ingredients from a little bit of everybody but not full portions of everything and finally because we know in this town everybody

wants to be the chef we said here's the ingredients go to town tells us what you want the only requirement you're proposal is the same amount of money adding up to $2 billion don't go into the kids pantry and use all the money. >> so as we said we want people to tell us what they think and went last night with a community meeting and got loves responses and here today in front of you with an online survey with a questionnaire a fundamental tool i'll record a voice-over and power point on the website so people get the same experience as the public

meeting and had last night was a board for each topic and the nutritional calorie count and so forth so people can make an informed decision what is a temperature check and 23 it is about having the best ideas and want to hear if as much peep as possible with that, thank you, thank you i'll be happy to answer any questions sorry commissioner paskin-jordan no food but looking forward to hearing our questions. >> okay. thank you open up for public comment first.

>> sue hester i've been through the the processing the didn't division of the planning department guarantees people that are implementing the plan don't have any roll in developing it the project planners that take this menu they're going to look at the code all the airy fairy things an this thing don't mean a damn thing unless the real step is a code and their told her to have to read the planning documents my guess from experience is that people who really internal listed the planning documents by this planning department through

the implementation if i get 20 that he is is i'll be surprised they don't read it they don't understand the intentions they understand the code language and in looking at this we have developers that are rewarded for open space next to the project and their credited for not the open space for the community but it is clearly built to benefit their projects and anyone who is honest about that really knows because if you have a nice park windows you'll spends more money on your house the second thing that's been an abject failure in the eastern neighborhood south of market still as poor transit circulating in the south of market and has huge rocks and

the same with potrero hill and dog patch is absent better but squashed on third street affordability the rent-controlled units if no one is loudly to be demolished we're lucas affordable housing and the candy department did a radius this is all affordable housing around there and it happened to be they were counting the rent-controlled units as affordable housing there's a mishmash how to deal with affordable housing the other thing i want to point out i'm well aware of it most of area is an historic marsh what i've learned from the big battle you get around things by making the housing construction more expensive by anchoring it or by various mechanisms that are not

we will thought-out eventually so this needs a lot of work at the planning department level. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi my name is teresa from the housing program last night we went to the south of market plan community meeting and as part of, of course, you advocate for the community planning a process we would like to request a community meeting for residents where residents can take questions and/or have questions the planning department staff will reach out to the residents south of market we hope the communities meeting will a lot look like so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> hi my name is e my name is diane i'm in my role as sponsor we attend the meeting last night this is the beginning of a conversation about 9 community benefits we appreciate we'll be continuing to meet with the planning staff and some of the things i wanted to bring up good to have an analysis of how much profit to the landowners and developers and given the $2 billion will be if you have is this another case of throwing money of the statement of overriding consideration like the 5 m project like avoiding the nightable impacts another thing about the draft eir in the current version the chris a community alternative that it says will be lead by todco and this process has not happened

and the draft eir being published in about 4 months that would be great if planning staff can make that happen especially working with other groups as todco and bishop and a lot of diverse nonprofits in the south of market and as part of community benefit discussion i think we need to have a really close novels how the funds will be distributed this is a beginning discussion and a later discussion but the soma - a lot of people's opinion to look at what this is really the most effective place for distribution of funds and there there can be an enabling prosecutes for the residents and nonprofits to participate so we

can all benefit from what is happening as well as try to get a full analysis and look at it what possible impacts there will be thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> commissioners joseph south of market community action network just a future not to urge that the alternative community vision written into the slments plan move forward love to see todd could see leadership that is a participatory process and next i'm cancerous on the housing report that was published in september and again in planning report here somehow it is 33 percent passed by this voter was 50 percent above grade

below-market-rate it says 33 percent and 167 target on top of 50 percent target and next is on the concept of benefits the speaker mention the private benefits would be nice to see what the private benefits are as they relate to the public benefits so to see from the dial is set in the proper balance and then late is about the private benefits what we've seen how the department has been pursuing other projects and see 20 if under those a prohibition on the special use district we think with community planning a good way to go to engender trust with the community after the 5m and the way the planning department pursued that project by carving that project out of the eastern neighborhoods plan and caved it

out of the central soma and basically pursued with the developer a single project sud that is completely out of the character regardless the planning staff said the ingredients is respectfully the planning character it goes a long way for the prohibition of this. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john from the taco grew up in terms of the public benefits programming and priorities i'd like to focus on the transportation and the parks element of it you probable are aware that the eastern neighborhoods clean benefits fee will apply that is has substantial amounts for transportation and parks but it

whether not coffer all the needs and so additional funds will be needed from development a mill rose to meet all the needs in the central soma plan the city is already proposing to extend substantial amounts of eastern neighborhoods fee own the makeovers of fulsome and howard and associated work on harrison and that alone b will take one and 50 millions not much left for other things other kinds of projects and the key goal for the neighborhood at least one of them make over the alleys open this diagram all the alleyways in central soma that could be dramatically changed and xhofldz but the funding that is beyond what is available from the eastern neighborhoods fee

likewise from space-year-old over the next 25 years $30 million or more for major capital renovations with no funding source that is identified by the city again, the central soma district benefits can pride that funding finally the concept the believe district will need substantial funding in order to implement if it as we depict we urge the city to focus on the free the caltrans freeway and troovrm that into a real part of the neighborhood and if whether take substantial fund when you add up the melrose fee from the commercial extremity in the district should coffer all those kinds of program expenses

and - that would be you're priority the residential fees should go to affordable housing no question but the commercial fees will help us build our neighborhood that's you're first priority thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon commission passport cotton with the housing council organizations i wasn't intending to speak i'm just capturing a couple of things from the presentation you've heard from several of of our member organizations here but to the point one speaker made in the process i certainly hope we're maximizing value capture every penny possible and that should be scrutinized and scrutinized and scrutinized a lot again, i remember in the

roifsh the only thing that would be supported 3 bucks a square feet and low and behold bedtime that happened the fee was 24 user 25 bucks a square feet and rincon hill is doing well, not suggested that jump but certainly worth scrutinizing and within the menu cleaver the buffet i'll focus on affordable housing as the beginning ingredient i don't know what the details are but a key point prop k to one speakers point was a total of 50 the 33 for all of a sudden low and moderate income if below one and 20 percent of ami a loose conversation what affordable housing is in san francisco we need to zero in and middle-income in this case is 60 to one 20 or 80 a abag piece if

we think about what we're targeting for 33 percent i want to make sure that middle-income is not deyou cannot term part of the next 17 percent up if you want to look at that but 33 is blow one 20 ami is pretty good that is exactly the middle and geography you'll hear on the next about the inclusionary but the geography is critical all that housing in a buffer but certainly local affordable housing is what is going to make that ski whether in the building or offsite and thirdly, a linkage of the affordable to the market-rate some folks with more sxerndz about affordable but one thing the pacing of affordable housing is tied to the pace of market-rate so you don't have a point where market-rate is

building or built. >> and have ava lagging that's the kind of disruption in the communities where we're not able to link so well, there be a conversation about lincoln affordable housing meets that 33 percent goal along with market-rate and those are the 3 comments thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson >> thank you very much thank you to the staff for this presentation i think that is clever and helps to clarify the thinking as a personal thing i'll be like that sound like it is great can you make that without mushrooms and cheese he hate that. >> you know i kind of see sort of the same thing here even with what we were calling bails

indwrents a couple of quick topics this will come back over the next three-quarters i want to pick up a little bit on mr. collins comments about phasing and brought it out not just talking about affordable housing but community benefits that someone is well-versed i'm again sort of attached to the view you create comprehensive plans and phasing of that it is holistically developed the plan with transit and plans for community infrastructure lifework fire and police and for housing and plan it together and you actually create an entire schedules for all of that that's not the universe we live in only office space so much we can do with affordable housing if we're talking about making sure we have sites within the central

soma district that can development only 0 so much to do to make sure those are tied to market-rate because it is not redevelopment but i do want to him concerned about the phasing thought just generally, the community benefits that are here i think one of the major thing i've heard about many of the neighborhood plans i'll the same thing with stick with the eastern neighborhoods highlighted die is that the open space and transit benefits that was supposed to be funded have not yielded come online with the housing i think that there is some aspect of experimental outlet we'll not be able to plan and not redevelopment but i think that having at least a realistic schedules and not just saying the benefits that will be there for some point in time when it is all said or done

we'll say what we know bans market conditions we'll get some of the comprehensible and market-rate development in f this period of time for other benefits i want to see that as we go forward and maybe we can do something about a 5 or 7 year lag allows us to have better decisions in the public realm and allow us to plan we're not going to get open space for 10 years what else can we do can we fund for development and more benefits yerba buena area or anything else we can do we door to door don't get that discussion if we lump the benefits together that's the first one and the second thing is i'm not sure how well-formed this question is right now but it is something that hopefully,

we'll clarify over time so central soma one thing i've also thought about knowing that will come to us in the future is i'm a little bit unclear as to you mentioned there is $350 million approximately benefits we will get without any central soma plan of the development currently able to be applied for and i think i - it would be again good to understand there are some benefits that question might get as a baseline and unclear which of the ingredients have baseline you'll get some portion for example, with open space or viral restraint sustainability we have conditions around air quality and 2450i7 which ones have

baseline and which ones don't if we don't have a line item we don't get it at all it would be good to understand i think if i refer to the 5 m project i personally had a clear idea but not sure in the public realm a lot more things if we didn't approve that no baseline i don't get them easement as clear with the central soma plan that would be good to understand and in terms of entray number 5 build our own meal i think that would be great the condition to be talking about as it intoxicates comes back to us which things have to go together i think there are some connections between for example, pdr space

and nonprofit office communities services that we really can't separate if we want to radiating create a integrated community and not randomly choose the 3 you'll get the level of community there are certainty aspects i'm hoping that will be part of our conversation and just the last couple of things i'm glad our marrying the survey online now i didn't say that i said - >> (laughter). thank you for the great radio voice i'm hoping people will respond and looking forward to hearing from a different constituency then we sometimes get every time we talk about those larger items that communities may know something

about these things and final quell you mentioned in the beginning can you explain one more time steve why downtown section and the eastern neighborhoods section of the central soma area that we are considering why they're separated and eastern neighborhoods we're focusing all our attention on new plans for community benefits downtown we were focused on what is there now >> sure we are all the community benefits are bans the new development and the eastern neighborhoods portion it the portion we proposing restoration value to the property so any development that happens in downtown e goes to the city ensue the eastern neighborhoods portion is what we're playing with we have to e a fee that

didn't apply to downtown not a lot of possibility no downtown and really in the rational was to cover in the eir some of the improvements to the streets and open space and other goodies but not proposing an increase in the development capacity in downtown the downtown plans are separate we have the transit and not an update but didn't look at the larger downtown to up zone we're playing with the flubs just within the eastern neighborhoods but the eir is covering also for example, improving fulsome through werments we used this opportunity and leverage points to include in the eir by you not include them where we increase the fees for example. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think this is a wonderful plan and it might be

one of the late great chances to generate the kinds of benefits in san francisco and have lots of needs a couple of variances first, the housing thing you know a key thing to be it all based on what you consider to the affordable the level what about higher if you have a dial where you allow some of the after a higher ami because less of a subsidy when you have a ami one to one and 50 percent you can establish a considerably higher affordable fib at variance levels of affordability one of the biggest deficiencies is moving in the right direction middle-income so one thing that is important you have to set this so these are the rules and if the developer conforms to the

rules they get to build by the can't say we need a result amount of affordable housing district wide we can't predict the results so sort of like equal opportunity equality of the result i mean, you give equal opportunity but not guarantee everyone is end up the same the more important thing very important i agree with the gentleman need more money into transportation, into green space and improvements that are actually isolated for the neighborhood itself utilizing you're ends the freeways make sense fixing up the alleyways make sense and our transportation numbers will have to rise considerably over the 200 and i $80 million we should have a bowl this area does not

only fund transportation benefits for the area itself but it contribute to the downtown extension towards probably some other subways or transit in their own ross's i want to present 7th street a great opportunity to connect the middle of san francisco on fourthly with or fourth street connects with the mission bay so the other thing i want to mention a small item funding towards the old midnignt we're historically and now renowned world-class wildly and have a museum we need in terms of expenditures it is a small

amount of what can't be generated and technically within the profile of the district and think it needs to be getting adequate funding some that have my main feelings on this. >> director rahaim. >> commissioners i wanted clarify a couple of things in response to a couple of the speakers one sure you all members alcohol, tobacco & firearms departments have been involved in this and people into implementing this plan 19 are involved additional working closely with steve and other members of the staff on how this thing will be implemented, and, secondly, to remember or remind you the menu is for discussion the final solutions and final requirements the actual impact fee requirement will be specified for the as if a menu floating that the developers got

to choose but a final package in the specification that are the fees are required and exactly how they'll building used in the implementation plan i wanted to clarify it p thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> sir, thank you for this fun new way of looking at funding i have a question he kind of know the answer he want you to say it all the numbers that were presented in the context of knowledge are not pro rated into this particular finding; is that correct. >> none of them show up. >> no open space no kindergarten. >> no. >> thank you very much for saying that and the second thing while i see all the refinancing of the ingredients and whatever they are but i guess i have to get is that but be sure soorntd

e.r. sooner or later you'll show me that for me prison speaks in the same tone but i'm looking at different ways by what i get when you put that into a context where are the uses and the heights and the building striving for and how to works together ultimately in the balance of those things economically which is a very strong under binding pining and the most fundamental way of understanding but the quality of what you're sample choices are i personally would be a better participate as you know my we are to see that particular i think that will be part of eir that is as much the equivalent quantify will ask for a qualify

active one; is that correct. >> probable a statement i'm not sure. >> with the vikts our planning to do is the best combination of ingredients. >> for example, an open space plan or a streetscape and a vision or open space open space is in between but basically the will troorpgs of a larger point you've putting the bonds on the eastern neighborhoods and people are asking what does it look like. >> we certainly will come back with the next presentation in the spring and remembered everyone that of the 3 dimensional of the blaun i hope you're saying the balance and i think ingredients come to to mile menu and choicmy i think

ingredients and this is the diversity of choices if someone likes mexican museum or italian not just the benefits but we've been working on the 3 dimensional modeling scale and want to present it to you commissioner moore and have the commission work on that because recently, i saw the renders of that solidify. >> in terms of hours it will be important because of investments for or for housing and how we form the neighborhoods and that is an objective for the eastern neighborhoods we'll say the

manifesttion. >> commissioner richards. >> yeah. question on the arrow lied we've talked about it the sweet spot on getting the exact amount of the maximum amount of development and maximum benefits at spreadsheet it was 2/3rd's. >> yeah. between 2/3rd's and three-quarters it is something we presented at the june very long informational hearing again for that but we went into a lot of detail and question posted online many more tables p than most human beings need to look at what we can making and how to recatch almost all the value through the city i wanted to

here on behalf of the appellant and so for the june meeting until today over needs are around the infrastructure 2/3rd's. >> actually no what the 3/4ths is the development creates value we increase the value and recapture that everything we can to make sure they build the project. >> so from what i understand from market octavia and maybe recapture we grant so much extra potential and tray to capture 2/3rd's but backpacks they understanding the market octavia the needs are the only funds up thirty to 40 or 45 percent of the actual needs in terms of the masses so the dimension of the go together. >> a soar spot we were junior

in calculating how the post benefits are infinity demand for transit what's the demands so we stopped putting a maximum and would the plan pay for a everything central soma is more intense upcoming zoning we added second storys this is a much more substantial. >> so sure so take 5 m as an example we always have in our refresh memory and putting documents together with the d s hearing that the gentleman put together saying wear granting one plus million dollars for the development potential and the office put together and central soma plan and now the 5m development agreement take into

account go what they were granted i'd like to see something like that we're connecting the two. >> sure. >> if i may typically wrementd to 5 m or. >> you know i articulately asks for the for percent and the tag seeker verse what we arrogant new that would be a great exercise to see so much additional recouping of the needs. >> the question how to begin needs last week transportation that's one question and come up with raw numbers but remember the impact fees can acknowledge address the nexus. >> impacts create by the new development cleaver existing

needs. >> so charge with the impact fees what will be that's the maximum so finding that would be pufrl to see what we're actually getting and for 5 m, you know, the additional add one of affordable housing and never got adams to the bottom line so i didn't see the numbers that would be very powerful. >> a couple of people mentioned meeting notifications like yesterday and the postcards gut to everybody their packed in newspapers or how i mean that was widespread participation from the communities. >> about 75 people there last night i don't know everyone that was there and community members and developers and architect peep of like you know special

interests you know, like a bike coalition we have a mailing list all of our plans in the city you'll go to the wednesday night over 12 hundred people on the central soma mailing less norway efficient than the postcard with that said we've repeated and you want us to succumb to you're group we'll come and as representatives so yesterday happy to come out. >> talk with you guys we've done that and been to 20 community groups a much more effective way. >> so can you give us comment on what else you're looking for in terms of outreach we're not doing. >> because we want to get it right. >> there is a process to

develop a community alternative for the central soma the draft central soma plan actual plan in the eir is not so much about the benefits we're discussing although that a good thing to discuss in the alternative but an alternative vision that was supposed to be kind of happening parallel with the process with the meetings that were going on kind of that were more honestly a lot of developers were attending those meetings that happened last night it didn't create inclusive space that is actually something that the planning department acknowledged an different community process they built it into the draft central soma that something should have happened has not happened. >> director can you comment on

what ms. reed's just said is there a community plan process. >> that was the community planning process ultimate planning process i've heard of the community to have a community process we stated to the things in todco eir not a separate eir we talked with everyone the developers and communities and you want me to come to the planning department we've talked with several people whatever you want us to do but not sure what an alternative we've talked with john anticipate and picture of the coffer at slvm it would not be mine but john's such a substantial involvement and i want to make sure the best ideas and we've been talking to

everyone. >> sir, can you come up and talk about you're thoughts on that, please. >> thank you, commissioner john this goes back to when it started 4 years and straich inscraping scat eir earning an alternative in the eir we did and some kind of generations etc. we and succeed in convincing the department to do that we did it didn't get framed that way as how the whole process would go when we saw we didn't succeed and the department sanctioned an alternated plan we sent it it and have been doing that so we just we're doing our own taco communities plan but not representing all the groups in

the neighborhoods it would you have been nice if there had been alternative processes for the funding and staff to come up with the zone but didn't go that way and now we're here how the community may you know the variance segments of the community can put something together continuation a good question and niece resources >> i am not i just you know if from is something that is missed thousands of people have been talked with and the planning department staff. >> no what do you need. >> you need professional support it is one thing to brainstorm but come up with good ideas for the city to do or become a pencil out for the developers to have the experience in house or have professional support to do that

that's why i understand community planning have a solid basis of technical committee the communities that used to build a vision that is doable that's my idea of community building. >> when i worked on market octavia we have the staff emry rogers and kirsten and the list goes on and on we come up with the meetings and have long discussions around is if possible or not with technical experts and onto the zoning abusing laws and it worked would that will something we could do maybe you getting the community together package it up. >> the central soma is complex more than market octavia and millions of dollars how that works and cf d with the structures of ins and outs it is

drastically complicated and that's why i think you need a solid basis of expertise community members 19 can their, their vision. >> the departments have done a great job i'd like for our you to come with a piece of paper and i want to get a good idea and get back to a 5 m situation. >> the quickest way a well establishes i know urban planning firm in the city there are many to provide the sxur to a community of organizations. >> thank you. >> continuing on with some of the other comments that commissioner johnson and members of the public we have a long lead time in terms of the eir and the buildings happening and

the capital budgeting i think we could link things and make them better than the the eastern neighborhoods so completely support a tighter linking by this this and that comes working more in harmony than years later with the projects i'm trying to understand with a big puzzle you're baseline i guess you're mitigation needed from the nexus studys and the additional studies and how does that add up if i could see columns. >> we'll get we the this for 5 m the lady said you get this and that. >> all the other things that would be nice to see if i could

order my dinner and couple of more things i completely port some of the robust funding i think that as traffic thank you unless to get that thing rehabbed quicker it's been a decade in 1996 this is 2015 and far the last 10 years lafrnd so robust presentation money and in terms of the 3-d modeling a great article in the san francisco magazine on the hub not sure how they did that but something the department can learn from i don't know if you saw it i saw it wow. this is what the looks like great work. >> thanks i wanted to add a couple of comments on what the

commissioners said there was a long hearing in june and there was a detailed depression of the value patched it is a lot of what i'm hearing at public is asking for again, i want to ask about the framework the value xhach that will available to the public that is interested in going over it it sounds like a need for a meeting with you know variance community groups and bishop and soma and other outside of room language assess it is important that is a great idea to do the voice-over for the people that speak spanish arrest tagalog arrest chai- dyn a fan that language lines or professional just professional

translators trying to someone that knows the vocabulary the planning and how it is real on the ground i'm supportive of the ideas of phasing it's great to have commissioner johnson and her friends we're struggling and paying the price with eastern neighborhoods with people coming in at almost every meeting and saying the transportation is not keeping up it is putting a burden of proof on their neighborhoods and lastly i want to say in prop k the 33 percent that 2014 prop k the 33 percent was go one and 20 percent ami and a maker of 50 percent being available for the neighborhood i don't know if the one 50 was not defined i wanted to bring that to the forefront again. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think make the process as

inclusive as possible and going on for years and in san francisco a process goes on for a decade and everything is at table but finished we have alternative plans it seems like to work that way all have input outdoor consultants are involved to answer questions maybe we can get something that we'll have a consensus when it is passed hopefully, we're his own it for the future and not change in the few years ago i have a question do you have ideas of percentage relative to the percentage of office envisioned at it particular time. >> the square footage is 50/50 we have we're proposing the large size to be most of them to

be office sites the last opportunities in the city to have office in the transit rich between mission bay and downtown sits on the $2 billion central central subway the transit is built and the central subway $2 million but the in fill they'll not want to be office the zone is flexible to that degree and seeing some office they come in under the 50 percent that's a different kind of in fill. >> the reason i bring that up specifically we'll have to look at the whole prop m this might be another cycle is comes to

realization like rincon hill the thing you'll get a certainty amount of affordability out of housing and you could probable have some commercial but a lot of the other stuff been financed from the office development but if they're not allowed to build no interest because they don't mind paying a higher fee or melrose or other ways of generating but no certainty they're able to develop their fighting with each other you'll see a lot less we have to look at the whole issue in the future and try to figure out what can be crafted perhaps presented to the voter that will allow a higher percentage to be built so there is certainty in the plan whatever the plan is activate and commissioner hillis. >> a question on the sources

of funds you mentioned melrose in the presentation how much do you rely and does that require a vote by property owners to enact. >> yes. it requires a vote by property owners to enact and the first question we rely on the degree we can't get the development requirements and impact fees those are more simpler tools and also depends on the mix for example, affordable housing and people are building the units with a higher percentage that's where the money goes to we don't need a melrose if we doing free greening are seawall that will require the melrose district. >> it is hard to convince they when there is a developer

treasure island development authority board or somewhere you're developing from 9 grown up but not requiring a small you have a finite group of developers but have to convince everyone who votes. >> we did it in transbay. >> how many good afternoon josh with the staff we're still figuring out exactly what scale, what universe of potential development sites would be subject to the melrose like similar to the situation in the transit interest a small subset that gets the sixth up going on and especially a condition of taking advantage of the up zoning yeah, we recognize that will, impossible to get a vote so it will be primarily the largest cancel of the sites getting the elaborate up zoning.

>> we're not continuing on a huge amount of 2 billions. >> we are working with cf d to get a better fix on the revenue potential we say a plug number in based on the internal emphasis steve with talk about to reiterate it depends on the package if you going for transit and it is expensive in a nexus study that allows us to go relative to the fees so there is room to charge for impact fees where other topics so we haven't built for pdrs not a fee mechanism to do that we might i don't know if we legally could use the melrose but depends on where we lands is it for example, the eco district to do

a green roof and all good things in this case we will reduce the amount of fees they'll pay based on the cost to do the projects. >> great more ground more space and that's the requirement that ongoing 70 decreasing the vail of property and can't charge as much for other communities benefits. >> there's 2 billions in fees how much in partitioning. >> the back of the envelope was done when we with the the plan in 2000, $12 the value of property is going up faster than inflation might not more than $1 billion the $2 billion has nothing to do with it is totally separate if the general funds.

>> the billion dollars unanimously announcing. >> i wish but a 25 build out. >> i think that is an important distinction because of the maintenance of existing fleet is not a good use of impact fee funds doss because you'll need to maintain the fleets in 10 or 15 years i think you have to marry the type of funds with the type of projects so you know, i think that is more suitable some of the transit we've talked about the capital improvements are more relevant than the impact fees in, you know, i agree with some of the comments like affordable housing cereal a priority and i think alleys are special to the neighborhoods and making alley

improvements and making them usable and inviting parks and open space parks on the northern side at yerba buena gardens needs to be additional parks probable the one arbitration variety under the freeway is tricky i don't know i'll spend a trillion amount of money but generally passive open space didn't so i think people it doesn't work to a great stent commercial activities on the freeways and work with caltrans but i emotional one way or another what people said about the old midnight it should, is burden should be on the plan area i mean it is a citywide important historic building few minutes if we are going to

decade the few minutes it should be but owned by the city and an important historic building in the condition it is so hopefully, the plan will be implemented $2 million but not something that will do anything and the arts and cultural space is important whether it is ground floor buildings but we hear that often and seen the displacement of kind of that art space how you go about doing it and getting that space is critical thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> one last quick comment any discretionary money that is a request to get one plan and one all the folks in that is bona fide to get the money from 5 m two versions just if we can do

it let's try. >> thanks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to the next item number 13 for case. >> of the inclusionary affordable housing this is an informational preservation.

>> thank you. >> game-changer commission diego sanchez with the san francisco planning department i'm joined by kate coroner and kate had a rightly with the mayor's office of housing this is an informational presentation regarding a ordinance tried by

mayor ed lee and supervisor avalos and supervisor tang for the inclusion affordable housing that is broadly sections so i'd like to give you an overview of the presentation remind you this an informational presentation to be seek our suggestions and questions about the program and the proposed change in the ordinance there is no action needed to be taken at hearing and later on in the slide we'll show you we have schedule american people adoption hearing on january 31st all we intend to give you a bagged background and the i'm going to that fetish and decided to have the broke down of the 4

seconds that deal with how the program works today and the proposed changes in the ordinances i'll be putting these into offsite the dial program and the program changes and code clean up and classification after the four sections we last week tie give an opportunity to provide that input those questions and suggestions so we can get a better understanding of what you're opinion and lastly conclude with the timeline talking about the next steps for this ordinance so right now i'll keyed the podium to sophie and. >> good afternoon sophie hayward from the moechls thank you for the opportunity to present as plaza noted this is

an opportunity to present the status for the inclusionary program to answer questions and get feedback and any members of the public that comment on that i'll stafrt by providing background information and a snapshot of the program and wherewith where it is trending i start by highlighting the oewd for the housing policy and providing the finance and presentation and rehabilitation acquisition to provide economic and community development support to strengthen and monitor and implement the city's inclusionary housing program this is just a oh, on the screen at least or in front of you a snapshot of our affordable housing portfolio and this is meant primarily to give you to

put the inclusionary housing program in context our largest set of units are the multi single-family dwelling from public subsidies through tax creditors and bonds our sclrgs inclusionary is the rental unit and have we've provided down payment assistance for the first time homeowners our units serve a range of income and brought copies of the ami chart and over on the see for the members of the public to give a little bit more information as we referenced the term ami which is meanwhile income you're multi family rental unit is offered to folks making up to 60 percent ami but priced for households

making less than that our inclusionary portfolio housing earning up to 45 percent ami and the inclusionary housing ownership units merry household earning you think to 90 percent ami our down payment assistance programs for the higher ends the income supreme those are households that struggle to gain a position over income and don't qualify i want to note that one of the important roles of the inclusionary housing units the ownership category is it that they provide one of the few opportunities to reach the households that earner two of for the rental units but not enough to afford to live in this city in this market. >> this is a little bit of

background about the program the inclusionary housing program as think outside the box in existence since 1992 from that to 2002 codified in 2002 and the program governed by the planning code as well as the procedures manual that was adopt by the planning commission and 3 major updates relative to the ordinance and smaller updates over time in 2006 the program was amended to so that was applicable to residents with 5 or more units with 1 units oust to be affordable in 2010 there was an amendment made in response to the palmer court decision when the program was a fee first program with alternatives that a developer

could with qualify to have - in 2012 and 2013 after the passage of prop c there was conforming so the planning code requirements matched those are the prop c and it create the housing trust fund and changes the lore of the requirements for the inclusionary housing program it is a fee first program and applied applies to programs with 10 or more units to say this is our attempt to do a flow chart at the top in the program pays the fee the fee goes into the affordable housing fund which we use to fund our pipeline into building affordable housing that is what the fee goes towards

avenue we finance and develop there are two alternatives to paying the fee unless you live in the eastern neighborhoods there are 3 the first for 12 percent the principle units onsite and those can be ownership or rental their baufrt the second opposite to provide 20 percent of the principle unit offsite in the area of the principle project and again those can be ownership or rental units and within the eastern neighborhoods there does exist the lands dedication option instead of offsite units you have hard copies and have hard copies of the presentation for the public this slide shows a snapshot of the completed promotions and anymore specifically what are the elections that projects have

chosen the vast majority of projects for the inclusionary fees opt to provide the units onsite and one and 71 have made a 741 for a total of one thousand plus units while the majority of projects choose to have the projects onsite many choose to pay the fee 19 percent of projects choose to pay the fee upwards of millions of dollars and those fees go the affordable housing funds in support of housing pipeline and a few projects selected to have elected to provide the units offsite specifically 9 principle projects have schulg that alternative and put them into 10 projects that 4 percent of our

portfolio the reason we have a pie chart and graph i want to make the .4 percent of the projects subject to the requirement have chosen to provide unit offsite a significant number of units produced i believe there are 5 hundred and 46 with 27 percent of portfolio are offsite units. >> so you're looking at on the left the exactly same pie chart you've seen our completed projects that is the choices that the projects have been completed made on the right a snapshot of pipeline or cue what we see looking at this chart is that there seems a trend towards paying the fee rather than having the units offsite or onsite the gray is

where the fee one and three 9 percent of the projects if the pipeline are opting to pay the no other and in the pipeline no cue that made the choosing choice to have the units offsite it means we are more likely to allows within the few programs with provideds units if people choose to provide the households united at 95 percent of ami they're the harder peep to reach and you've heard people making 90 percent ami are struggling in the housing market you've also heard a housing crisis and the mayor took a number of steps to address the crisis in 2014 he formed a

housing workshop that was brought together a large amount of stakeholders including some of you to make actual recommendations to help us work towards a solution and there was a subcommittee that was dedicated to look at did working group and offline we have 14 meetings and unofficially many, many more conversations the charge for if subcommittee was to one include the viability of offsite option to basically make that an tentatively of alternative not to incentivize the off choice it overwhelms the committee moved the needle to choosing the identify to no projects and the second large and dense effort to create a dial and that was what we call

the program that allows a developer to choose to provide unit at a higher income level they're not stevedored by our program but still retain the below-market-rate requirements defined in prop c and then number 3 and i don't mean to make it sound like an afterthought that provides an opportunity to be look at the section 415 the planning code and make suggestions so some of the changes we've preeptd in the draft legislation are meant to clarify or even make it easier for a developer are a consumer to open the planning code and clearly understand what the requirements are.

>> so from here i'm going to turn it over to mr. sanchez to talk about the specific components but i'll reiterate i'm available for questions and mcd and others that work on the program the longest at mohcd. >> so right now i'll talk about the all the times proposed in the ordinance and right now as mentioned the market-rate developer had the method of compliance constrict it over inclusionary housing units at a rate of 20 percent of the market-rate units and the ordinance proposes to call this the core project method and is terminating the nonprofit partner project as shown on the

slides the j v method anytime there is this election of the director of mayor's office of housing will have to verify the capacity of the nonprofit before consenting to this method of compliance which one selects the in time method it remains at 20 bus but meets 20 percent of the residential floor areas of offsite units this allows for flexibility in the offsite project provided inclusionary housing unit must have the average by bedroom count that is the principle project provides two bedrooms, two bedroom per unit the offsite must provide two bedrooms and this allows the in time project

to provide a different mix of units not necessarily have to copy what is being provided in the principle project i want to talk about changes into the x currently, the program requires the inclusionary housing unit skewer they're first certificate of occupancy no matter the the principle secures that document for occupancy the ordinance is proposing to allow time for this and in any since the director of mohcd will have to allow this under the following circumstances one of the project sponsor of the principle project provides a letter of credit with the inclusionary fee that would have been owed prior to ovbt it's first certificate of occupancy the next circumstances that the

offsite must be entitled by the principle project is entitled i'm sorry before the principle gets it's first construction document the principle or the nonprofit partnership must have acquired the final circumstances the offsite performing project has to have pits first document secured and ref the first certificate of occupancy if these even about 5 set of circumstances that have been met if the could he project is able to receive a one year extension and the other language that allows a third year by the director of moe in all cases failure to complete the inclusionary housing unit will result in a loss of a letter of

credit that's a security in exchange for the extended timeline the last topic on the slide the geographyal residents it requires that all offsite projects b&b be located within one mile radius of the project the ordinance b will extend thereby to 1.2 millions miles or the same neighborhood determines nuance with the planning and the mayor's office of housing and the suggestion that a map the planning department has as map used for what a neighborhood is the next set of this is the next set of amendments currently project sponsors inadequately have 3 options they can pay the fee produce onsite or offsite

units the program is suggesting a fourth option when a sponsor pays and fee directed to the small program under leo moe and purposes the properties within 25 units and helps to preserve the units help to stabilize those neighborhoods in terms of graphics those must adhere to the location within the 1.25 miles of principle project or within the same neighborhood the amendment is the pricing amendment currently existing oivenl ownership units must be targeted to housing of 70 percent of ami in case the ordinance will raise that to 90 percent that aligns with the

current onsite and the last offsite amendment will be for projects that use federal funding for the housing currently the program allows the project sponsor to sit back with the fund to finance their obligations if this is is elected they must provide 25 percent of the counts that will be lowered to 20 percent and align with the onsite alternative for the projects in finance this concludes the first section i'd like to open up for questions or comments. >> opening it up for public comment and sorry we were thinking that we would this is a complicated ordinance thinking we'll take a pause and ask for commission questions or comments first and there is a second round the presentation.

>> so we were thinking to take questions. >> relax have a seat. >> commissioner antonini. >> thanks this has a lot of potential yeah having the flexibility to determine by floor area addition to the number of units units or are deft sizes this gives us the flexibility from you know the same number of square feet which feet will be a way to satisfy the requirements and extra times for completion as long as everything is locked if the thing a maid a reasonable amount of extra time for reasons of funding maybe the nonprofits have to gather funds from other sources or something to make that work i'm not sure how it works but you reasonable the distance ross are ownership

units as i understand we're aiming for the 90 per actually; is that correct it is ownership or rental it could be rental units. >> for the offsite they can be either register and the rental will still be low okay well, i mean we've had some in the last few years there is a demands for housing in almost all san francisco neighborhoods so you know and i think that this kind of so some degree mitigates the idea of the distance being so important because you know it will allow a little bit more sponsors to elect for this method if they have more possible sites to find

and maybe it was where it was right now a mile was tough i see a two mile radius more sites are available and more nonprofits are vertebral their good evening to be not like our having something done in an entirely different part of the city it is still a mile and quarter is no extension and can be burn that you want them to opt as appoint even though the percentage was smaller in terms of number of units a lot were created and one of the few ways to create those ownership opportunities and then the option of doing the small sites that make sense although i'll assume the mayor's office could came back the fee and use the fee for the small sites this eliminates the middle step and

the target for ami make sense to be a little bit higher for the ownership that will start to address some of the mifrment people who will probable be to be able to continue to make the payments and maintain the hoa's or whatever and probable more income anyway and at least opens up to an area that is badly under serves with few middle-income people that are taking advantageing and the government makes it consistent with the percentage i think almost all the parties i agree that it sound like a good solution. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much yeah, since we have part two i'll be talking first responder did memo the first one is absent

comments and last questions on the timing fee first of all, i understand that we want to incentivize the offsite program i think that zero percent of a project in that program there is something that nobody can pack make that work or not sufficient incentive so some changes are necessary to incentivize that one, the main reasons i advocate for this program a lot of times the developers are faster than the housing and the mohcd or city so when we talk about the timing this first concern but not as concerned the question about that given sort of the boirltd to get the extension in the zoning administrator counteracts the argument that one way of bringing the

feasibility analysis of the inclusionary housing and the market-rate development they can do it faster but some organizations can't do to faster my question really quick where do we come up with a year as sort of that timeline for expectation that main and helps to incentivize the program verse some other length of time or no extension at all. >> i'll separate that out two years for in time joints ventures they will have diversity - >> sure that the year timeframe came out of suggests if the housing group that constituent the market-rate developers as well as nonprofits

developers and many other so the feedback we got from the private developer was building the offsite units as opposed to getting more bracketing room to bring it online we heard from the nonprofit that is not sufficient they'll need an additional year. >> obviously this is something somewhat a little bit still in the works i'll make sure if there is any way to sorts of so willed that and reach out a little bit more the reason he - a construction permit for the

market-rate development and have to have the affordable inclusionary construction brown-bag you get to the occupancy there is still things that make that not really a year i'm sort of wondering why six months if you're going to do the project i feel there is other elements that are much more solvent. >> to respond the idea we wanted to make sure that we provide some relieve from the retirements that you open those projects at the same time recognizing that a year is a short amount of time you'll have to meet milestones to not go beyond the i don't think year although we have as mr. sanchez described and letter of credit sort of system in place to fall back on in the worst case

scenario the building didn't open that's the worst case scenario you're goal to insure the success of the units online we need so have more than a year but makers to should progress not water until the three hundred and 64 day to get it done. >> and just the second thing on j v this is interesting you have more experience you're looking at either j v or in time developers more affordable housing so the sort of change to go with the square footage verse the unit count i think makes the offsite requirement penciled out easier for projects i'm a little bit concerned that you then will end up not getting as many family sized unit not that we

don't want to do that but by square footage and sort of make sure you're moma out the number of units that you need to have to get the offsite that will be very hard to get a lot of especially three bedrooms in that requirement of square footage verse the unit count i of wondering if you guys can comment on that. >> i think the square footage is an option i think that the add flexibility to allow nonprofit developers to serve their communities a little bit better than know exactly what the principle project that may not be suitable for the households by the nonprofit developers. >> that make sense the other piece of that to there is oftentimes especially since we're drawing a circle around the principle project being within a mile and a quarter

distance or so there about these we're saying we're more so sort of forcing j v and their nonprofit partners to find on size lots like 9 ones in the tiernd to be able to do those sorts of projects be within the boundary so to make sure you have the unit count right along with the reality that in many district yourself you'll be looking at odd size lots you're therefore assuring have to have smaller bedroom sized to make sure you first all the lego blocks together that's one thing of the concerned about. >> kate haiti letter mohcd i wanted to note on this point in particular we wanted to give nonprofit j v partners

flexibility when the principle project has large sized units in many cases we want smaller units for special needs population and in many instances studios and one bedrooms are the best units for seniors for example mentally ill households and when we go to leverage oversee funds with tax credits a minimum three bedroom requirements in almost all cases we will have the bulk of the units be two bedrooms if not for special needs to let us deliver good program without being limited by the core project necessarily. >> okay awesome that is good i want to go last but one of the things will be about project by project i'm certain we'll see

hopefully, a couple of more zero e zero that will have the if not for special needs but add lots to make sure they're in the boundary and you're limit with a bunch of studios and one bedrooms right i'm thinking the offsite they're affordable and have those thoughts so at this point i'll now and the small sites real quick are we saying an election into the small sightly programs you'll elect to have you're fee. >> that's correct. >> you can - this ordinance will allow sponsor to direct that fee towards the small sites program. >> any developer. >> for smaller developments up to 25 units. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> several things first mr. sanchez this is the best pieces

of information i've read kudos to you conceptually so thank you pursue a question about the offsite and the 9 projects or one project and i was looking at the 9 projects you gave us a handout on one of the $1.25 million and beyond number one and two and the question i have is we got a letter in sf pack only one project elected to do the policy goals was what was the 16 hundreds market street if you look at this am and miss reading there truly were other ones within the mile that was bona fide i want to understand how successful that is.

>> hi, i'm shandra with the malice and i think i can answer you're question it is try one project one offsite 0 project that comes through the rules for a change that requires you have to be within a mile the 16800 market street project and at the same time i've seen projects great so it is a timing thing. >> a couple - first floor two things on the pie chart page it says fee projects 412, 18 percent the number of units to 15 percent of bmr is bmr units be at zero with what i'm reading all the fee money 20 percent has innovate built us any units is that what it says. >> it didn't build new

inclusionary but affordable units that mohcd finances i'm sorry this was not a distinction. >> okay. great. i think to commissioner johnson point i favor the omitted of onsite election it gets them built when the project is implement that is less but in terms of creating neighborhoods it gets a lot for us the 20 percent fee of affordable units if you were to go back and look how many affordable units were one mile or 2 mile radius any idea? >> that's the big complaint you build over here and it's built way over there. >> there is it is a geneva or geographic connection between the projects part of the reason that the fee for the affordable

housing funded it's joined with on the fees and there's not a direct connection between where the fee came from and the affordable housing not a time connection so sort of two different animals. >> i think like the onsite the question on the ownership 70 percent on the dial there were 90 where the the greatest needs in terms of you know where we seeing the hole in the whole delivery the housing for the in case levels he a long time this chart over here those charts here where is the greatest need? i mean they're all moderate in this >> that slides is respect to the dial program we've not covered that hold that question. >> okay. great when but lock

the flexibility absolutely this gets done faster and all support it i love the sites program thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask a question about traditional planning and the definition of neighborhood and what exactly creates the metrics of one $2.5 million neighborhoods and traditional community planning are defined by a quarter of a mile the ability of someone that lives anywhere within the quarter of mile 89 ability to walk to the corner store their, their milk and newspapers and a kwhoel bunch of other things and many neighborhoods within san francisco are somewhat within that commute walk sheriff's deputy of a shed of a quarter of

a mile that's the nature of traditional planning but also the metrics of smart growth planning because as we dense, if any, the city it's not alert to become half a mile or mile parkinson's we're not walking any faefrts than we traditionally used to do and in san francisco you calibrate the top debris those working radius us are the same excerpt in a to b you walk slower and need more time for doing so i'm woorpd as you're looking at ahead and looking at subordinate envisioning the city of the future we're talking about

inclusionary equitable and the policy framework for future planning set on those principles how are we justifying this as simple question perhaps mr. hayward can answer that how are we justifying this stwra radius and meeting the olympics we're giving a realistic helping hand to the planning department i don't see quite how it comes together but happy to hear you explain that. >> the way i understand the radius is the distance to pride that connection between the principle project and the onsite units now the one mile can about one of the changes in 2010 this ordinance is allowing more

flexibility to this offsite project and at the same time the notice to maintain that balance between the principle project and offsite project the ordinance is also proposing to allow projects to be within the same neighborhood that is speaking to our concern about someone being able to walk and find that connection one to describe a connection to ones neighborhood from the impact of the market-rate and the mitigation, if you will, of the affordable units and just for a reference he wanted to put up the neighborhood notification if i can get the overhead. >> the bold lines with delineated the neighborhoods. >> if i could this allows for

a project to go somewhat beyond a quarter if in the neighborhoods browned but you're point commissioner you'll come to the be neighborhoods services a metric we use this is a little bit different we talk about a site for avenue project within a reasonable distance so the idea the difficult and the reason we believe that one of the reasons that few projects chosen is because the small distance didn't allow not available lands for the affordable project so the land is more expensive we're trying to magnify the lands use. >> it becomes for did the from theory into practices practicing and needing to stick to the broader policies we're trying to limit this project but still the

principles of equality the theory is hard to understand and almost interesting for you and i'm looking towards ms. hayward the work you're doing is exemplar and distinguishes it's from light years but love to see the tracking of how successful we are between having done certain things and moving there are projects that have been we have been delivered and people in the world that kind of noted we're doing it here to test how it relates so we have at least the group of candidates because all in theory it will be

overwhelm for us to sit here and make the correct decisions the policies particularly any credit ability has to carry through an this amount of limitations. >> all right. commissioners. >> next phase of the - >> now i'd like to talk about the dial program that was developed by mayor's office of housing with consulting that can be seen to the scarce the housing for public finance for housing with moderate in case the goals to expand the housing to middle-income and produce

more units than under the typical dlrgs housing program so if i can quickly walk you through how to works the general basis it is that the dial program allows the project sponsor to serve households of higher baseline the baseline is 90 and 55 percent but in exchange they'll be riders to produce for units than the baseline requires overseeing combinations are equivalent if you take the opponent rental in the upper right hand corner flats existing program will center have to provide 12 percent of you're units as inclusionary and egg for household with 6 percent ami and the project sponsor to dial-up

as the term to extend 90 percent of ami that in order to do that has to produce additional inclusionary housing units and hue the ordinance treats the dial for the declaration of the used by the department e.r. planning commission you know the project any changes in declarations including the dial program has to have commission approval if the dimension action is required in the first place and the next is the provision of 40 percent two bedrooms under the eastern neighborhoods plan areas those requirements must be adhered to and no exceptions so this concludes a broad overview and i'm going to turn it over to commissioners for thoughts. >> if i may. >> yes. >> in the interest of time

maybe go through the rest of presentation. >> okay definitely. >> the next group we'll talk about the general program changes and the first sliced points on the timing for selection currently the project sponsor is required to declare a message of compliance prior to the development over planning commission to talk about the tolerance the declaration to occur the neighborhood notification or any department of commission action by a declaration regarding the method of compliance for the ordinance that will proposes to codify the policy in 2011 that allows the project to switch to the prior construction document administratively and to expand to switch to the offsite option

as well that allows even offsite or fee projects to switch to the identical so onsite and so these a little bit of the program i'll go over them quickly currently the housing income can't xeefdz a southern point of ami and also rules around applicants for new bmi and proposing for the applicants of new bmr units to earn 10 percent what the ami target for the marketing of the units and the last one is the yields around the requirements of program and those are killer

availability to the developers and buyers it restrict it to buyers and if i may do one more slide. >> there are definition changes there are certainty amount of christmas eve language in the code regarding what types of hours can qualities to qualify the housing the ordinance to simplify that and call out ami levels like householders earning 50 percent of ami or 90 percent of ami there are some elimination of dated references to the language around requirements of 20 feet in height and that was prop c propose to clean that up and eliminate that language so

that's the end of the substance and i'm going to turn it over to you for more questions or comments. >> okay. now open up for public comment. >> (calling names). >> good afternoon. my name is are still paul weber i'd like to say that staff did a pretty good job putting this together first of all, i really am concerned about expanding the area the radius for finding offsite sites the reason i say that this is

supposedly inclusionary program and inclusionary means including people that maybe in low and moderate income circumstances in experiencing those neighborhoods that the units will go if you expand the neighborhoods or radius as someone mentions two miles walk off two miles from north beach you're in a very different neighborhoods be all the way downtown in one direction and in the marina under another the idea this goes into areas right in the neighborhoods which the housing housing is located it is problems as of inclusionary housing i have ideas i think that is something that needs more work, and, secondly, on the issue of

deferral or delaying the construction of the offsite unit through partnerships or directly through detailed construction i think the concept is fine but the person that benefits is the developer he didn't have 9 cash flow demands to do both at the same time theirs nothing wrong with that but by changing the cash flow demands our basically allowing him to take 9 cash from the panhandle activity and put it into the offsite units and that's great for the developer but i understand the idea we'll make that airtight and bulletproof that the real world not realistic let the developer fee out and by x dates whatever

a year or 6 months whatever is appropriate he hadn't gone on the money for the offsite improvement improvement goes into the funds i think that foolish to rely on contract you want median you want right now and you want don't want to be fighting with the bank whether or not the conditions are better than satisfying thank you very much. >> game-changer commissioners tim on behalf of the busy and individual members i want to commends moe for its the exemplar work the current rules for inclusions are to preventive developers from using the option we've considered the offsite

option a shame there is a wide group of stakeholders that make that more triech we on the changes are sensible but keeping the offsite radius that says they must be built one one mile of the principle project the radius what is adams in the 10 years since we're aware of one project that was built with only the required radius by way of over 10 hundred signatures and he would say two educational events to to the communities about reform it to increase the production of new affordable housing without a public subsidy a tool of mission street an ironic example of a bmr project

that wouldn't be permissible under the current rules of radius was based on the premise or the hope if we restrict the bmr production one one mile of the principle project we can create mixed use community now we support mixed use did you notice i communicates but the reality none it using this option we don't think that increasing the radius will increase that option we see that the radius preventive them from the policy question which what the city prefer will promoting the offer e hope of mixed use community or building more bmr's the clear evidence the radius has not worked we urge you to consider amending the legislation to allow the waivers in two circumstances one

in a market-rate developer build a project in neighborhoods to displacement and evacuees as defined by the planning department and we know of several incidents in which onsite bmr projects could have been built except their foster from the principle project and two if a market-rate developer as entered into a giant venture we hear again and again that market-rate europe's dispensaries wasn't like to team with the blue chips and build affordable housing the question i'll leave you request is this: are we're going to go to all the effort and expend the energy and time and money to amend this and

keep in that a restriction that keeps it from going forward thank you. >> is there any additional public comment jonas one card that was placed there. >> public comment on this item. >> hi my name is shannon i work for an organization calls homeowners the coalition of the in time that provides the education for the inclusionary housing program which is riders for all home buyers that participate we work with the clients who you guys are in the future i work with the legislation he first, i want to applaud moe for an may i have a motion process with the group housing around that was quite

and lengthy maneuver they did a phenomenal job of bringing up the sites together with shawn i admire the work there are a couple of things i want to add to the presentation first with regards to the pie charts an page 8 there is two other things that helped to change about the marketed that have not been discussed and so the first is as a part of housing trust fund negotiated actually, the 12 requirement was reduced for those ownership units and so i think that we need to take into consideration as we look at the future and how that plays out the big thing potentially much larger an issue of the units we've lost is that the fee has innovate gone with the market prices are going up quickly and developers are business people

they'll do what is most advantageous for them this is up to the people involved in the process to make sure what is most beneficial is beneficial to the city i have some concerns about the dial program and particularly with the dial happening at the same time question move the offsite up to 90 percent that really does away from the mechanisms to people are earner below 90 percent ami we see a lot of people in that range you know we see well, the numbers have been doubling actively for people needing add housing help we see over 5 thousand clients and place about 200 and 50 to to commissioner richards a thing about the need we definitely see the need cross the spectrum you

know there are very if i opportunities forceful for 80 percent ami range i think that we're doing a much better job of meeting the needs of 90 or 100 percent ami my concern with the dial we'll see on this one and 20 percent ami numbers. >> thank you. next speaker, please and. >> commission joseph south of market network action we're still as some, some - it's interesting ami i want to respond to commission comments the program the inclusionary program was to prioritize the

program for the income diversification within the principle projects and the other piece of if we're looking at an that oivenl kind of incentive program the concept of a joint venture with the nonprofits in order to achieve that we need to use the remaining sites in our communities for a 100 percent affordable housing and if you join with the nonprofit developers nonprofit developers build 100 percent affordable housing rather than a dial program which is interesting but the offsite should be towards one side of the aisle rather than a portion of that so the inclusionary onsite and any offsite alternatives they'll truly be 100 percent need to be

prioritizing that one thing that is problematic in terms of process around the joint venture for the developer to select the nonprofit partner i think i encourage the commission to strongly recommend that that election is of the nonprofit partner be done through a mayor's office of housing and community development once you get into private negotiations or slvltd negotiations end w up with a pro question you can't tolerate that we're clear we don't want to see that dynamic we need that through a competitive process not as pro could as before thank you.

>> diane we're already at a deficit to introducing amendments that would actively create for lifetime is ill logical we had a vigorous debate about the public comment for 100 percent volleyball projects in order to speed up up and now the planning department is introducing measures that create more lag time doesn't make sense we should look at increasing the fees and i really want to caution against creating pocket of luxury basically in creating you know south of market to be the new luxury neighborhood and san francisco and having other neighborhoods kind of take the you know low income residents

of course, developers will want the higher ami residents in their building closer to the high. residents with higher market-rate so why not go for the lower but go for the higher the 90 percent folks that are prioritized if you create that option they'll want to have the higher income residents within that believe so we have to look at what are the consequences for irregularity diversity if you're targeting and incentivizing a higher ami within the building so i on the gentleman from hawk brought up a good policy question that is something we should consider are you going to continue to create not inclusionary growth or are you going to try to incentivize more

inclusionary growth and kind of get out of the hole you have you know creating details make sense you know we removed public comment were potentially removing public comment to accelerate the new development of affordable housing now creating more lifetime and complications really need to consider that thank you. >> hello my name is silva johnson we have first cheaper things than now so don't realize they've been - i think that more proceedings

done we preserve in blow 50 percent and encourage to programs under 70 percent and non-o 90 percent of measurements and - and we need more to direct our programs that makes detail in projects and the are really now we really have more like 10 percent of our doing 20 percent you know - their public households we need you know put

5 percent on 50 of the programs in what we have direction and that the fee - the fee we dell out in details which were we have you know rooms and have major with the different precise damageing and there are several increases on the rent measures removed you know on our - i'm looking that library for more building construction on those

matters and that that you might not be any measurement but able to see more economical in our 10 percent advantages how we direct the design and i have put more and more 70 in our housing design. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners passports cohen council of community housing organization i think a little bit of constitutional memory 2002 we

spent a year working with supervisor mark leno the purpose and policy was about mixed income housing the first speaker mr. webb to make sure that low and moderate folks enjoy the same neighborhoods as market-rate neighborhoods we debated the details not about fees and off citing but mixed income housing that was 13 years ago a lot of creativity thinking how to ledge that it is important to remember are the still what a lot of folks want to see in new development mixed

opportunity inclusionary not x clurgs i have comments about this trend we heard staff says we seem to be seeing a trend a doubling of fees paying the reason the fee is too low and disincentive towards the onsite bmr's and cheaper for middle and large sized development it is a one-size-fits-all it is averaged every developer pays the same amount of fees per unit whether a tall luxury tower or a 5 story wood-frame building in the southeast you have a lot of developers in a hot market minded the fee how the easiest thing to write and a a check and financial cheaper than you're space for a bmr or offsite how how this was designed to

discourage offsite it is one tool it gets some of the units on the gone are two quick comments the timing is a huge give i heard none that is an advocate give ann an center year is neefrms give and should be recognized geography needs to be local we only allow it in the neighborhood and concede to canned it by an extra quarter of a mile you lose the purpose of local lynching the disclosure of developers should have early with no games up front notification of the choices is for the developers we have plenty other notices when they

come up again. >> tommy from the human rights committee two things struck me during the presentation by the planning department the first, it as speakers have said the problem of offsite housing again you know this is called the inclusionary program but it is not inclusive if you have the richer folks living over here and the poor folks get shuffled off over two miles arrest 20 or 50 miles it creates segregation you thought wisp about san francisco values and it is about integrating people bringing pocket together and circling people to live and work and get along together we're doing the opt by encouraging the offsite development operating by economic by class that is class

the issue if america we don't want to talk about a class but we're separating by class that is in the daily problematic objectionable but the second points commissioner johnck's what's the biscuit hole where i stand in the housing world what i see the biggest is zero to thirty percent of ami that's a group of people not captured by any of our existing programs yes, the mayor's office of housing is to be building but we know that is not enough it is not enough they're the folks i think in the most desperate need roadway and it feels to me in many ways like somehow the agenda has shifted here in san francisco that surgical moderate income people are our biggest

concern we were talked about but it feels like more and more shifting to moderate income people we're not saying we shouldn't care but about grew up of people that commissioner richards said the biggest hope 90 in our system we have a problem and strikes me struck me while staff was talking about that once again, we are talking about people 90 percent of ami maybe higher than but the people i see in my office that see all the time the people that are not getting enough housing those are the two main points off the top of my head having heard for the first time the details of the program i own you'll consider about of those points as hi 2011

a tera from the housing program i've been repeating since last week i think when it comes to fundamental we need to discuss about rents or the how much the mortgage or a qualification for the homeowners is rental one concern about the offsite rental is really the dialogue the 55 percent and the thing the developers have come when they talk about and we've sat down with the developers they push for the highest ami they're allowed to so if they build thirty percent it would be great if there was a diversity of ami but but no, this is and the idea this is joint venture with a

nonprofit is dangerous dangerous thing we also think that nonprofits build for 100 percent affordable housing and for low income extremely low income folks and we also offsite he ownership are service if give that kind of service we've seen people in our communities that are 70 percent ami and often 1400 mission street we ask people to apply this is a big opportunity for working-class or middle-income that can forward to own a home so the big on or about for our community here is that if there's an offsite rental in our community and this is doesn't compliment to what the

composition of our neighborhood to and also i had a question about mohcd i think because i know that and wreckage increases the rental on the other hand, rent like 200 - 100 percent ami if 90 percent ami what's the lusciously increase of income to like 45 or san francisco or 90 percent what are the details we want to see next time thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> some general comments and questions this is a really good idea and the developers should be able to partner with whomever they can partner with the city shouldn't- we're not in a

controlled economy we will get for production if we allow more creative joint vuvenlgz years ago we did an r m a with a developer i don't know the exact distance in the leno legislation no restriction how far away the offsite building had to be done the one on jennings was xarndz with the infinity it creates housing in a different location it was you know affordable to people that might not been able to afford to live in the infinity and probable created a set of housing i'm sure and i i'm seeing saying the offsite to be 5 or $6 million away but creating housing if you create prices for housing some of that

a distance away i think that is a winner so i'm very much in favor of the quarter of a mile a negotiable way to open up sites because a quarter mile radius when you draw a circle pick up a lot for places and then i have a question about the dial program whoever wants to answer i looked at this closely the builder has to provide did percentage at the lower ami and build above that for the dilate program or the dial allows them to build at a higher income thank you. >> if they decide to instead

of 12 percent of the units have to provide 16 percent so whatever you dial-up in exchange for the privilege there is an exchange. >> they can do all the 16 percent of the 90 or paired with a certain percentage. >> indians it is all units all 16 percent at 90 percent of ami. >> yeah. >> all right. that's fine i think that is a good idea here's the problem somebody tried to bring up the problem the needs for middle-income since i started it on the commission every time the annual report can you came out we built nor a suggested amount of master and virtually no middle-income so

the big deficiency is middle-income and if we incentivizes the production of some of that in a higher percentage you can instead of providing 12 they can provides 167 or thirty percent depending on counts number they choose two effects it houses some people in these units but it also makes them non-competitive for the existing housing if we can house large numbers of people in the middle-income they won't displace or compete with lower income housing a significant effect on keeping or preventing or minimizing displacement you're satisfying the needs not satisfied now. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much.

>> again i don't think i can vote but i appreciate the staff and mohcd and those who participate on all of this this is a lot and great to have something on paper to respond instead of talking in circles a couple of quick things from my prospective definitely public comment that made note of the fact we're losing site of some of the philosophy on the inclusionary program i at least have not's heard that for me the underlying policy that i've seen if i can say it if layman's terms we don't want money but unit that people are living in whether we get it faster because we will discuss whether or not

mohcd is building it or incentivizing nonprofit or other developers to build the units we want unit don't care dollars but the other thing i totally see how people see the narrative shifted from mixed income communities i don't know that i necessarily see that marriage chapping as the grown changes that is where i'm going i think from a policy prospective those go overriding circumstances i think may have facilitated the deductions in previous sclrgs programs have not yielded changed that much a couple of other things since the last round of questioning we had someone here that talked about

the radius waivers a comment about that i think that is interesting to look at if you were to not have a radius how much would the choice for 9 offsite housing over laptop with mohcd pipeline if i take out the prime sites for developments particularly in the southeast and say eject we're not doing a mile and a quarter quicken the sites that those projects may choose over laptop quite a bit with those in the pipeline how to get those units faster is that the city building that with other funding or through private developers with their resources so i think it chase taking out the radius is something people are considering and makes more

and more questions than fewer why do we have the program if not this radius but some kind of waiver instead of the criteria wear suggesting when doing a j v it can be anywhere or in neighborhoods that are strong transit dwrament displacement it can be anywhere maybe what we do go back and say what when it is compatible to bargain for the count of bedroom size that are compatible to the principle that is where it can be anywhere you kind of get impact some of the capture allowing the project not near the principle project i question the value of getting i know the value of the j v anywhere in the city you can do

j v colors to the projects a quick note many of the nonprofit developers are trying to diversity their portfolios with larger more diverse companies with the oivenl requirements before 100 percent footage i'm not sure this serves the needs of nonprofit to grow themselves and grow their portfolios and their asset base to do more in line with their mission i think the only other thing i'll say is that i don't know that this is the right forum to discuss whether or not the fee is too low so the onsite fee mr.

cohen made mention of the fact part of the reason the offsite inclusionary program was in the being used is because the fee out option the fee was so low that situation rather than going to built the units offsite there is merit but if we increase the fee the current oven program has to many barriers and so many about it no the assistant line with the facts on the ground today even if you doubled arrest tripled or quad dropped out there is strong barriers to meet the identify program i'm hoping to separate those two conversations because even if you you make the fee large enough it needs to be a program

that is workable and now aspects that are just because of reality of the grant are not workable appreciate all the with work and looking forward to it. >> commissioner richards. >> yes. the question i keep coming back with all the discussion and different options with the mayor's office may want to say a words why an fee why not 12 percent onsite for that all projects. >> actually deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles maybe the right person it answer this but due to the right prom it's a legal requirement to do a fee out process. >> yeah. deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles ought not an absolutely requirement but inclusionary housing ordinance that we've seen have options and

the court have spoken about the project manager different ways to meet obligations at this point due to the palmer decision as ms. hayward said a fee first orientals in order to apply to the ownership projects so at this point we're organized that way and it was of is - require work to go change that arena >> i guess mr. cohen i'll thank you ta take up you, your suggestion i'm a few minutes guy you don't say have to pay the 25 verse the 50 why is it cheaper how it it charger for me and walk me through that. >> in today's market, if you will, imagine a little with one

hundred units decade to bmr's the fixed price point set by formula you have what is called a lost opportunity cost those 12 unit can't be sold but in this marketed let's say call a common you're selling a condo for 250 making sense maybe could be sold for one million dollars whatever the lost opportunity the developers think it is the subsidize they could write a check 20 units worth a 20 percent fee out but 20 times the cost of those unit about three hundred and 50 thousand per you add up and that's less than the lost opportunities on the 12 so mates the math valuation.

>> the fee is based on the - you it's a no-brainer i'll go for the fee out doesn't make sense well, there is a logic to the fee the affordability gap the construction cost verse the sale but from the developers stand point the choice is in the calculation i'll say if i can the reason 76 percent of projects with onsite burglars month communities have fought for the orient bmr's if so little i think tuition or financial inclusionary is not what the developer choose to do the highest hassle factor we want the mixed in case income this is 76 percent that makes it for attractive.

>> how would you disincentivizes the fee hey one hundred unit. >> there's two ways staff is coming up with several incentives to encourage the developers to do offsite bmr's the only story the public policy from the community stand point you'll hear that consistently that folks imagine realtime and real unit mixed sites but to the extent to make that work is a viable option to paying the fee create another carrots on the offsite and onsite on the rules and the other side to make sure that the fee didn't become go easy of a temptation a tier feature you're capturing more of a fee higher tier fee if middle

and large developers frankly that one-size-fits-all fee is cheap there was preconsultant because of the prop c my change this year a combination of strengthening the fee and incentivizing the production. >> i think that is right on tuesday. >> so i think one of the questions he have is in terms of the dial we may as heard from some folks over and over folks saying western edition and soma and we have from the district 3 a lot of the folks if they're facing displacement they can't afford a unit because they don't have the no objection riders for that is an issue many of the other speakers they speak of zero to thirty we'll coffer for

bases what do we do that that worries me because coming back to the federal reserve with the chinatown 20 or thirty some people make less than thirty k it didn't qualify for the 55 so sleeping on someone's couch we need to look at that and on the dial to take it from 70 to 90 is not great public policy we'll have no control we want a mexico of 70 and 80 and 90 we may get all 90s we have an open access but in the end the fee out that will become a miracle exercise so we have to figure out that

and i think mr. cohn's point in keeping people in the neighborhoods doesn't make sense get get rid of of the program and the other we have to balance that with getting into the weeds of the program but the environment shifted in 2002 to 2035 and looking at the offer riding considerations more units a balance between production and social equality and diversities to be honest the 16 hundred microsoft might look at how to walk the genesis project one mile or 25 miles it is not the same neighborhoods i'm struggling with the miles so

1.25 miles how much can that will a couple of more comments i like the proposal from hawk on creating an incentive for the production of offsite for high levels of displacement so that gets the social equate a lot of times people moving into units and environmental impact people with no where to go and more bmr in the neighborhood not the same as the original project but to the same goal and the radius somehow with the offsite in the adapted neighborhood and partnering up i consider like a unit mix requirement will something we're really to to with a policy obviously a huge objective and keep on working o on it we can figure out this is

fantastic work on your part look forward to the next chapter. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to continue to find incentives for onsite onsite that didn't median necessarily encouraging the disincentivizing fee outs but find a balance the question i'd like to sharpen the commissions ability to use what many of those larger projects require the exceptions and expectation to continue to encourage the developers to choose the onsite this commission is successful in doing that when you look at the last six or eight years that's been very many bold developers without being asked and others where there was a strong need from the commission to use that tool the question i'd like to

ask perhaps like many cohen are there mixes and matches and partial onsite with partial fees another way to look at the problem and not perhaps the same metrics as we're custer using but some way of still delivering both we are running out the sites question indeed can capture the large amount of constant falling back of numbers we need to find if we can't find mixes a matching to find out ways of please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, cohen was suggesting. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. real quick an comment on looking at the zero to thirty percent ami population i have maybe this isn't - what i

noticed is very, very close offer laptop with that population that is for special needs or other community supportive housing for that i'm not sure that specifically the offsite inclusionary program it is where we want to go we have to remember for that set of housing we're leaving it to the market to build it if you're choosing that opposite you choose our partners and choose what you want to build and were you want to be we've seen to the 5 m project what it is for and what program i'm not sure what i personally seen from the city is that is a direction we necessarily want to go in i think that is the only reason inch not mating made comments other than that, income spectrum the option for the offsite

inclusionary housing program it is a huge need and acknowledge a few ways to address it two projects there is other funding for supportive housing it is almost as much as a detriment for funding and programs for that population and their income there is nothing it is just unless you get private subsidize from housing there is no distinguish programs to provide housing for that income spectrum i wanted to make sure i wanted to put that out there and ii thought and just say i also agree with commissioner moore commissioner richards we want to as much as possible the onsite honestly if we didn't have restrictions to make it difficult yeah to be able to do that frankly i don't want to bog

down the city with lawsuits and not getting anymore onsite projects but that will be what i would advocate for those who - any program we say we have make sure it is workable and realistic and option that people will apt commissioner richards one last comment been struggling whether a developer comes to the - we start putting up the onsite verse offsite and people have rewaging and they're standing there they realize the project was in jeopardy they through the onsite back in as a volunteer thing and i'm not here to extort are leverage but developers to understand it is a preference to the associations and us have.

>> ms. hartley you have follow-up thoughts. >> briefly kate hartley i want to note we have over 17 thousand below-market-rate housing affordable units that the vast majority is available to housing of 50 percent of medium householders we're talking about our portfolio of 3 thousand units many more to serve the deter to thirty population than to serve the 61 percent to one and 20 percent population no state funds no federal funds so this is really just another slice of housing of the housing program to serve a population that is in great need and our assessment we've only produced 19 percent of middle-income housing we've produced 62

percent of very low income housing we need so all of our 11 thousand units rehabbed or new construction coming online or 50 percent and below and most of those projects will include a 20er period of time set aside for homeless and that serves a thirty percent population i want to put that out there. >> thanks for the context jonas i think - >> very good. >> moving right along commissioners that will place us on item 14 for the case this is a planning code amendment commissioners requiring a conditional use authorization to move unauthorized units as well

and. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and other commissioners i'm kilogram planning department staff i'm here to today to talk about a proposal that was by supervisor avalos and supervisor kim the proposal proposed legislation required a qualifying for removal of residential units either of the supervisors office are going to be here later on and be able to speak about the legislation as well. >> this legislation was first introduced if may have this year and since then the department long with the supervisors offices and the district attorney's office working closely to enhance the proposals from the legislation and in if a substantive legislation was

introduced a few weeks ago that includes the result of over work together the policy for this legislation lies in the housing elements and the mayors director of 2014 the city's housing element calls for protecting the residential housing unit that was reemphasized in the mayors with grifk advertised had a stronger housing need and analysis of the one jr. data indicates higher both higher rays for sales and higher number of register the housing stock compared to the net increase in the housing built we have a 3 percent 5 and 10 percent rate for rental and one percent

increase net increase for housing built one year. >> the existing housing unit is generally larger in size and more affordable compared to the new built housing since 201010 percent are three bedrooms and before 2010 are three bedrooms or more and the newly constructed renal units since 2005 ask for more three hundred to 5 hundreds dollars the housing element calls for minimizing and dlooesh displacement this legislation would also aim to implement that policy removal of the rental units is

one the caused of evictions and related to unauthorized units approximately 45 hundred no fault evictions in the past 10 years about 11 percent were due to unit removal. >> this is the presentation you saw that map showing that a number of evictions in the past year due to the unit removal and you see that it is on in the neighborhoods that we more unauthorized units than number of evictions that the unit removal or higher and those neighborhoods are outer sunset and bernal height in the next part of the presentation i'll go over the existing proposed changes

before i continue i'll transfer to danny he'll speak about the system and i'll go over the details. >> good evening commissioners danny for supervisor kim i'll keep my comments brief this fills a need in the district i understand 1942 citywide and encompass more than we need it for we're happy to co-sponsor with supervisor avalos as the lead over primary concern the displacement of long-standing artists and march of this year they support the rezoning requiring the removal for the unit the controls were adopted by the board and needed many of the units are unofficially zoned as

commercial had been experienced to residential use without a permit and artists were willing to occupy those buildings but the economic sclafrp as changed and there's a strong demands for commercial pace adjacent to twitter and urge symseveral property owners have aggressive conversion in violation of of interim controls and they railroad operating for a long time it will technically return but requires a displacement of the lot of the units it aims to change this by requiring the commission forgive any conversion citywide it requires a conditional use authorization to remove the units whether

legal or legally but preserving the affordable housing unfortunately jeremy legislative aide to to supervisor avalos was not able to attends due to the time but his officials of other was want to emphasize the loss of in-law units there this legislation would greatly help in that capacity and my understanding there other was are working with mohcd to subsidies low income homeowners to legalize these units staff is more livingable but you're consideration is appreciated.

>> 3 categories for commercial or anything else and section 317 has the findings for those different types of removal so we have the existing planning code requirements we have a set of interim controls that were also sponsored and adopted by the board by madam chair rosales in june of this year so the interim controls we have the promoted legislation before you in order to simplify the complexity of those i've created a summer table you have and so i'm go over the existing and

proposed changes for each those categories the first is specific zoning district that will be remain intact the rezoning district r t r and mohcd we have the cu requirement for removal of a residential unit the other is the zoning district and the interim controls for the zoning district for removing a unit is a conditional use for building when our removing 3 units are more and bmr for two units or a single-family and the interim controls made removal of units in those district restrict and the process review stricter and

remedies a cu across the board for does not of the unit the numbers of units and the type demolition this higher threshold is consistent with the city's policy on protecting the existing houfrts what's the difference between a dr and cu in this case of a dr unit removal is being approved unless the majority rule a reached at the planning commission to disapprove it and cu the removal it reached to allow removal so the cu is stricter with higher tellers a doctor relies on the section 317 only a cu also relies on section 303 of the planning code that determines whether or not the register removal is necessary and

desirable for the neighborhood that is also is stricter review for removing the unit going back to the table 3 is our administrative approval process that exists for single-family units this thresholds changes as we just want the thresholds every year and the proposal removes this administrative approval and proposes a cu setting this threshold is the process for some draw did you a backs it's to the neighborhood specific one price for the entire city the householders affordability varies across the

neighborhoods and setting a threshold to determine whether or not to determine the administrative approval is necessary e.r. it was here on behalf of the appellant could be arbitrary and both the removal of the process updating this number is complex and not flailless the proposal decision will remove the approval and create one simple sew simple rule the staff will not use one numerical threshold to determination whether or not the unit should be removed but the flexibility will be there for unit removals but a factor of numbers in the cu process and staff is proposing some modifications to

the finding to further this flexibility and he will discuss if at the end the presentation going back to the table the last one is the loss of an unauthorized unit as you may know the existing legalization program is a volunteer program the only mandate that exists some that the mayor deputy director from 2014 creates a mandate dr for 3 or more illegal units since then not received a single application for dr for removing an aunt that doesn't median we have not received the removal of unauthorized units we had within and 81 permits of two

units or single-family home and the permits for legalization 75 percent of those units are located in a that building or single-family it is safe to assume it sfrmz are in single-family home building and the mayor's director didn't go far enough to capture those the reason at the time there was a coast implementation to legalize a third unit in a building in terms of following the dbi and fire safety codes and since then they have modify the codes so the proposed legislation fulfills the directive by protecting the houston and pretending tenant displacements the proposed legislation is a cu

for an unauthorized unit the finding whether or not the units is eligible for the program and second the cost for legalization is reasonable the way to determine based on the cost of collecting from our legalization permits and the thirds findings whether or not legalization is financially feasible that means if the value added to the property due to legalization is equal are higher than the cost of legalization the appropriately legislation will discourage the removal of unauthorize units but provide flexibility from the removal is warned the family housing being created there is no tenants been displaced or the legalization is two costing another exchange with the

current regulations the exist controls the planning commission disapproval for the illegal unit didn't require the owner to legalize theory units so the proposal fixes that by amending the building code and planning code to legalize the unit with an authorization of approval are the staff strongly naeng supervisor avalos and supervisor jane kim for taking this important piece on the proposal will prevent and protecting the units an effective tool for to prevent displacement of the tenants and protecting the houfrt and creating the highest

threshold of review would also help to retain our existing houfrt the importance of our houfrts relies on 3 points the strongest goal in addressing the housing demands xafrdz to the newly built housing and the houston is usually larger in size and more affordable compared to the housing and lastly the promoting legislation provide necessary flexibility to allow the removal of units when eligible proposes some administrations to have the removal of the demolition to provide flexibility for those permit the first finding two finding being promoted whether or not the displacement will maximize density under the

subject with an increase in the number of units and second if whether or not the new project enincumbrance all the units with the same size and the same number of bedrooms and the second modification regarding the finding related to the cost of legalization for the unauthorized unit the way the ordinance reads right now it uses the cost per square feet we're proposing to whang that cost per unit gnaws of the way we've been collecting the data we have got cost per unit and the last modification to clean up of the code for other articles to reflect the promoted changes thank you that concludes my presentation. >> okay opening it up for public

comment. >> maybe if commenters want to line up on that see of the room go ahead sincerely. >> thank you, steve tenderloin housing clinic speaking in favor the legislation and the motion there's a great needs for this i represent many tenants that are facing eviction because of the removal of their unions considered not permit for residential occupancy or not a clear history or not clear what the actual loudly use the this is below the no fault eviction a lot of the evictions were not screwdriver no fault in the past but illegal use so those are not recorded in the 11 percent we closed that will that and the

eviction reformed 2.0 passed and stipends can i the mayor all units whether a removal of residential reviews to illegal use get a permit which means we'll capture those through the legislation and be able to have a conditional use authorization process took place to try to keep those at residential units that is a very big need the only suggestion i'll make you have a provision in the lay in the proposal that would exempt ground floor unauthorized unit in a ground floor of a c-3 district that are some buildings where interest is many units

that are - i suggest an application that will result in the loss of two or more residential units on a empowering of a c-3 or a unauthorized units on the ground floor and one or more above the ground floor that requires a conditional use authorization thank you. i have that written out if you like. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is bruce i'm a residents of delores heats and a member of the club and land use commission

i want to congratulate even on the changes in addition to the recommendations and the draft resolution we want to point out another way this can achieve the goals and actually unit loss i ask the recommendation be modified as i'll describe the proposed ordinance didn't cover the loss of units through lot mergers the blocks are h zion can result in the loss of potential hosing and nothing not subdivision laws about the loss of housing unit it should be misdemeanor for the permits for demolition that will talk about lot mergers and of the residential units the yufgs be required as an example there is a proposed project in delores

height that proposed to demolish a small moderately home and build a single 8 thousand square feet home on the lot one moderately and one vacant lot together two housing unit only one wildly one that falls short of meeting the objectives of the proposed ordinance under the current law they didn't require the mandatory discretionary review or conditional use to limit them is desirable for unit size and affordability see for example modifications one for the was on related to demolition all the discussion if this paragraph and have applies to

the potential loss through lot merge and should be extents through a simple change. >> next speaker, please. >> >> my name is silva johnson i think you should be interested in cost - costly and remember support and models of the housing unit code and but on new projects to you know make it better represented

and thirty percent of response to changing for the state code for safeties codes and margin codes and i think for more projects i do think that you are right on putting you know i'm having what you call languages and unusually people die from that that happens. >> you know i'm still maintaining and still alive, you know, if that process but i think that margin you need to be projected you know measurement and with 80 percent - with 8

percent economy model languages and our he safety keyed that we put in you're modeling staffing that modeling for our you know economy and how we work with our and not called - you know i guess you call it staffing and in our you know, i which should be getting thirty percent in staffing i guess what we call workers and i'm still trying to get more mainly in the you're putting our

tools and our legacy you call it different things but and needs to be among the safety projections you know that we when we use that - thank you. >> good evening, commissioners my name is janet i live in noah valley we're remodels i'm speaking mostly to the third item of the legislation we're remodels are recently sold homes are de facto demolitions homes that sold from one to $2 million and sell for 4 or 7 millions this is drooefk the market and not creating more housing homes are less affordable because developers

and investment groups have been told they have been told what they need to pay in order to keep their remodel exempt to obligation ordinary well-to-do families cannot compete the developer is the higher bidder and structurally sound homes are bought by comes up that pretend to want to move on those 1906 homes are bought by developers that strip them to the bones but likely respect them with much more expensive contemporary homes that are encongruent with neighboring homes but the character and economic completion perplex and the nice neighborhood that put up would