targeted for redevelopment and we believe that businesses lists in the legacy registry should be exempt from this program thank you very much. >> good evening, commissioners i live and rent in the city and i wanted to talk about kind of my jurisdiction in a grandparent live in san francisco and their children live here i'm the oldest of 10 cousins we live the bay area we are coming of the age to find housing there is no where for middle-income families it to live the city and most of bay area e bayview the shortage is real my friends and colleagues and cousins and brothers live in converted

garages and is a studio with someone else and hanging on with rent control but time to move it is impossible i'll probably have to leave the region some of my workers' compensation or coworkers live in brand new condolences for $5,000 their some of the people lives in them pay the whole represent but the two bedrooms have shopped up into 4 bedrooms and 4 or 5 people live there and one bedroom all over the city cabin converted i want to say this shortage is real to renters and people that can't afford to buy a home and there is an opportunity here to doing everything we can to make it easier for people to weather the

shortage to move in that direction the housing shortage is real no matter what people have told you thank you. >> good evening, commissioners you should reject this plan completely it starts with the first lie affordable the plan is not affordable the words is a banned and misused all the time it has no definition that most people understand the last gentleman thoughts that would help the affordable housing crisis this plan will not help the affordable housing crisis that will not help the thousands of people that are annually the accident happened who are we kidding this is a gentrification plan it guts

housing that is affordable to thousands of us being displaced this at least within attorney has truldz the city is in compliance with the bonus law i don't why people repeat it didn't there is prom as part of planning code 101 section 101. which mandates that you respect the current character of the neighborhoods and sound housing this plan will demolish assigned housing you have no authority to do that and why were you want to cut yourselves out of progress this is within of the few bodies the public has an opportunity to participate in decision making about planning in the city don't cut ourselves yourselves out of

the process we need communities consultation on all the development that happens the city thank you >> is there any additional public comment? >> edward mason i think we need to look at had from a regional bay area plan san francisco agreed fine abag and mtc i was shocked they - if your car is towed you have to go to daily city where do you go growth is not funding growth for the infrastructure the transit sustainability fee

only kicks in other 21 units no few minutes for the bottom of iceberg and the cumulative effect of in file we'll be experiencing exercising we need leadership in the area of sharing the sxherl text between where the employees work and where they reside at night i think there is someplace in minneapolis a hard look to look at that as a funding source that is a real predicate we need to look at the regional level and continue on from there thanks.

>> dpedz and jennifer if the east side of district 78 i want to let you know that the meeting on this task a topic was not in district 7 and my neighbors nobody knew about it i saw it next door from some other neighborhood thank you. >> good evening, commissioners items i'm alexander i lived in san francisco for 3 years now and i'm here just to speak i think an experience that is common amongst people my age we live in as other speakers mentioned two two bedroom apartments subdivided into 4 and

not enough living spaces the only way to remedy to build more other people noticed the consequences might not have an immediate effect but dooerd that will be huge the sdisz decisions not to build is effecting my generations making it does the for us to move we heard benefit from rent control because things are so expensive to begin with and i just think that a lot of the people in opposition to this plan don't have much sympathy for the young in a few years we will yeah you know we'll be

living here and we'll have to deal with the prices then thank you. >> my name is anthony i live in district 3 in 1997 while working as as civil service employee that the statistic i become homeless because the 1k50i7g9 recipients on the other hand, rents owe slept in any pickup truck and in hotel rooms i lost any truck and lost any job i gave up willing to work it was discouraging because of skyrocket rents i picked up a drug habit and became hiv but thankfully today, i own a home through the san

francisco land trust and work for protecting developer and property martin luther king firm i'm here to strongly advocate for more affordable housing at all income levels if i lost any home today i'll not be able to move anything else i make too much more for rent-controlled unit and can't afford at housing i ask you make sure the rerdz are off the table and sources neighborhoods are protected i ask you support of affordable housing program because it promises to be a great way to add affordable units to protect and moderate income housing one of the few wow. ways to provide opportunities for teachers and

firefighters and police officers and middle-income and working-class people mrs. have the courage and conviction and compassion to support this affordable housing bonus program thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay public comment is closed. and we sat through close to 4 hours 3 and a half of public comment i know that director rahaim or gil you have something. >> go ahead. >> just we had a few clarifications to make about fifth story will take a few minutes might resolve some the miss understanding. >> john may touch on this

staff are concerned about displacement issues we've talked to you we want to get through the notion of how to preserve the affordable housing this program is the budget of adding to the supply of affordable housing through new construction so that's the big discussion not we're not sympathetic to the people we completely get that on the other hand, there has been a certain amount of misinformation we want to factually correct and continue to have a debate on the merits one thing the mission district is not doesn't apply that is one of the eastern neighborhoods planned areas and that density deregulated by form rather than density this is only program this program is the

disabilities in our material for which sdrents is regulated generally speaking by units per lot area and so the density relieve that is so you get under the bonus program is if those controls so and by adding additional vacuum in some cases to that the reason with for saying that is that we have applied this program we're talking about the thirty thousand parcels it is true if you add up the parcels the zoning district this might apply ends up with that number because the states density bonus applies in those areas it is important here we thought to create a viable local alternative that is better than are better in terms of the neighborhood context we are

having a meeting in district 9 i think it is combined with another district 11 meeting in february the one that was scheduled for district 9 even though the majority of the district doesn't apply skeleton on a night mission interim controls was discuses that was a bad thing we've rescheduled this cuomo and another comment about the prospective gains into this program we've stated our about 2 thousand low to moderate unions and those excuse me. and 3 thousand what did i say 35. >> 3 thousand up to 5 thousand so totals and we should correct that because since that time the

rent control was taken out we took out the rent control so those numbers are appropriate and other than that, basic thing we're in total support from removing the rent control stuff we've asked the supervisors office to clarify that including the one year term piece so those numbers are the aspiration in both categories on the income levels you have information in the packet it is worth saying this targets of mixed income is low and moderate and unfortunately described as middle-income so for some people that is out of the range of their affordability it still a category as you've heard testimony is underserved and another concern has to do with

to do with families you've heard me the beginning we have changed the initial proposal to make sure that the requirement for 40 percent two bedroom is is included you can debate that is standard from the plan areas the codes so we've transported that over to make that clear and finally we have heard a number of concerns quite understandably about process for review change and those are quite a few divided into what is the commissions over purview in terms of making decisions what is the appeal process that changed and then what about ceqa this is somehow treads differently under ceqa i'll ask

staff it address those 3 quickly. >> good evening leslie deputy environmental officer i'll speak to a couple of statements there is confirmation about this complicated program one thing is clear subsequent projects individual projects that come into under the program will be subject to environmental review this program has nothing to do with with the process the california environmental quality act establishes an environmental review process that the program can't preempt that and that review applies for all resources categories assessed the california environmental quality act secondly, we heard that the program will result in significant impacts on historic

resources we do have our preservation coordinator here today that will speak specifically to the process of reviewing the process for impact i want to say this program will not have that effect, in fact, the projects that result if the historic resource are ineligible for the program and this is a more reflective requirement than the state dents bonus law that only limits projects that would results under an impact on california register our definition of how we evaluate an impact is much more board and therefore impacts the many more projecifair to sasfair to sa fa

>> thank you. >> corey vaunt zoning administrator yeah. some comments about what the process will be based on the projects compared to was proposed not apples to apples comparison all the projects can come from all over the city and triggered the

conditional use authorization or some type of requirement but some of them can not come before the planning department unless a discretionary review so all the projects without this program will trigger and conditional use with the necessary and desirable criteria ensue under this program whether they would have triggered the hearing they've take advantage of the program will be required to go through one entitlement streamlined entitlement be in front of the mravgs modeled on the discretionary review conditional use in the eastern neighborhoods so similar because that's a requirement that projects come to the planning commission we don't keep up the discretionary

review application the appeal process will go through the board of appeals. >> i can answer any further questions about the appeal process that is through the board of appeals like the large project authorization. >> what it says here on page 17 of the exclusive summary that is similar to the discretionary review authorization it is the public hearing they have the entitlements into a single case the commission will make a venlgd if many part of the project that triggers the large project authorization but it allows the commission to grant provisions shifting the mass to the context my question is in

district 4 i'm in a commercial district i want to apply for the bonus and as part of commercial space put a medical cannabis dispensary a cu under this promote section will we as a commission be able to vote no on the project because of a medical cannabis dispensary or because of design. >> my understanding the formula retail will come before you but this is wrapped into this new 328. >> again, i come back with something that required to be given we really don't have any power to recollect of the mcd or the design. >> no. those are two spate issues in that somewhere that scenario the cu is required for the mcd you can't theoretically

disapprove but still grant the prestige. >> when i talked to the staff they indicated only mandated requirements. >> voter mandated. >> yes. anything. >> sure can i provide a clarification i think what our agreeing monique mohan if the planning staff they come with the building rail and don't know what the retail space so the section 329; right? and if that new - if project got approved and built a new retail space that will come back before us of a conditional use will be required as cu. >> but part of project will we be allowed to say no because of the mcd not because of the bonus the bonus is bundled.

>> it requires a cu it still requires a cu. >> a conditional use. >> it requires the consolidated disappointment process if the cu is triggered but that somewhere happens the project sponsor knew sorry - from the project sponsor know considering knew coming out the process that would be a mcd and conditional use is required you commission has to make the vmgd its necessary and desirable and as part of whole process thank you. >> commissioner wu has a question and i know you want to give you a little bit of a followup but suggest if we end up continuing to the next item there are multi spurs to this thing i think we what have a

separate conversation on the small business and opportunities and so on so if at the next meeting are with between now help us breakdown it into sub titles categories i think it might be better to have conversation up here and maybe better for the public to understand that's my suggestion commissioner vice president richards and i had to discuss we've done that with formula retail complex issues forces formula retail let's try to - >> sorry, sir public comment is closed. >> let's keep going unless the folks want to take a break ambassador director rahaim. >> thanks i just want to clarify a couple of things i appreciate gil and this staff clarifying the confusion it is a

little bit confusing i think what is interesting today, we realize we have a goal to create affordable housing and on both sides of the table people being evicted or losing their homes we don't agree how to agree on the program is innovate to destroy the west side of city or create rich developers this is a program to create more affordable housing in a way that didn't involve. >> huge expenditure this is tool in the toolbox for the $300 million bond issue we

created the housing trust fund the city building affordable housing in many parts city that is helpful but not a silver bullets not one program that will solve this program and the confident of housing is astronomical to builds over one and 70 thousands of lands and construction multiple about we're talking about billions of of dollars not millions but billions this is is trying to find one tool in the toolbox to help to solve not a silver bullet not solving the whole problem and not going to recognize it recognizes there are issues that need to be addressed only one tool in the toolbox and we're lucky different ways and means as well

we do urge you to give us our comments we can breakdown the comments and urge you to continue this to come back with better answers. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you appreciate all the comments i have some comments of my own and hopefully, we'll address and been on the commission 14 years one thing is consistent we've built very little housing for middle-income groups and you know that was the case in 2002, it rims the cost by percentages lower than it has ever been the fact we're talking about middle-income for somewhat higher medium income group is ruled while slaerlz are there's significantly in san francisco

for people who will be considered middle-income the price of housing has increased hugely it is impossible for people who have what in other areas considered to be significant incomes even two of them two firefighters, you know two police officers, many other progressions even combined are having problz buying maufts market rate housing talks about a segment that is essential to our contingency that is a very good legislation i think so i may be corrected this will allow for a higher and descender building under southern circumstances corey broke out up

those hearings will come up as large project authorization if i'm not mistaken and someone in potrero hill and another eastern neighborhoods they were long drone out battles some of them have not yielded come to us we've not heard a couple of them and the ones like 470 south van ness and others we modified significantly and make a lot of changes nevertheless of height and bulk as well other parts before they were approved so, i mean i know that if this is a measure of the kind of process we're going to go through i think as long as we have that it is fine and make sense it does expedite it to some degree ibarra might not be as high always as cu you're trying to

build housing that is affordable to a vast of income groups and another thing phil reuben, junius & rose testified and concerned about the height bulls this the lp a i'm users west portal you'll familiar you have bank parking lots and are you probably won attire that might be 10 or 12 feet as a right they're probably 40 they can con assembly be 100 percent bonus part went through a shock and would be a huge-

that could happen all ever the city we have to be okay with this it but not going to approve 60 feet only 40 i mean, i'm thinking this should be our ability there are circumstances that might make that more desireable for these to be somewhat smaller the other thing on businesses being displaced a valid criticism what should happen the project sponsor has to agree to give the existing building first right of refusal when the new building goes on it make sense didn't mean wear restricting the ability of the owner to charge whatever represent he feels is appropriate he can do that now, in fact, the people are at

jeopardy in existing businesses can be evicted or charged high rents increases and forced to move out of these areas because of the owners feel they have a guy that come in and pay more not really changing i think at least putting that provision would help and this year might be a provision but could be a provision whereby since giving those bonuss the pardon has to make a reammunition of the displacements not saying how much it should be but would not hurt to answer the concerns of those those small businesses are driven out like i'd like to take this opportunity the dashboard comes to us one speaker said they didn't get the dashboards

we get it is that a matter of public record. >> a document the drortsz saw so it is there. >> and the other thing on housing the 40 percent two bedroom is good but all to see that a high percentage of two bedrooms broemz and a significant number of three bedrooms the need a middle-income with children they're the ones if they go to oakland over and over someplace to afford so you know if we have 35 percent three bedrooms and other 25 percent two bedrooms that brings us to 60 percent with 40 percent one bedroom and the other commissioners may not agree raising the bar make sense

and we are giving a lot in height and bulk and ask they provide family sized units i'd like to see that done as a the other issue is parking this is brought by the western neighborhoods if you're building the one bedroom and two bedroom units are of in singles that use a bedroom each they'll have cars and, you know, if you put it in a neighborhood like the responding and clemente and geary all those places that is impossible to find a place to park just for those of us using it for commercial reasons not those who are in are apartments without parking or driving around looking for parking we have to be realistic this transit first step is a nice idea but don't have straight

that goes everywhere for anyone in west portal could go downtown like the marina or another district will take them two or three hours and worse to go 0 visitacion valley or some other part of city then i think that it is clear they gave his figures not discussed it shows we have had a large increase in the number of one speaker brought up a large increase in the number of jobs for people in this category of you know one and 20 to one and 50 thousand ami which which is gone from i think to one and 20 to one and 60 thousand jobs

during that was 2000 to 2012 e.r. 2013 we've had you know moderate increases in drops in some prior to now called middle-income like the to one and 20 or one to a 50 we've seen a drop in the number of jobs that are there so i think this is important to realize we have taylor our housing to some degree one speaker criticized the fact that tech companies were hiring people in san francisco that goes against the grain we want as many jobs they're going to get hired unless we restrict the marketplace unless we can't find

a way to make that possible for more units to house those people they will compete and drive the prices higher those are some of my thoughts another speaker tried to bring up the things that some areas are ethicly different i mean there are actually all the areas that are considered in the western edition and the bayview are areas that are very diverse ethicly so i know not to say this is no take into account not as pointed out has to do with with areas that have zoning based on you know units per square feet of land area as opposed to situation bans density as the eastern neighborhoods i have a little bit of concern about the 100 percent affordable

given the 3 more floors you know i i mean, the impact will be negative of a building that is taller and 3 floors instead of 2 floors that is legislation that is being proposed by the supervisor wiener and it would eliminate conditional use or you know 100 percent affordable buildings that maybe enough to incentivize it without adding an additional floor the two floors is a maximum for the height addition is probably all i'd like to see then people were complaining about the prices of - it was statistics it cost about 8 hundred thousand to build a units they're selling for sales units average one million dollars and the republicans are average 35 to 45

hundred brings the republicans down to an average like 25 hundred for 3 people and the sale prices brings it down to 390 for one percent and one hundred thousand for 3 percent family that is much lower than anything you'll have seen relatively i relatives and children of that age group shop around the city looking for housing looking for small unions this is much less than they'll pay for that existing and there was somehow this policy will increase the population the population will increase to one million by thirty 32 whether or not you have the housing the less you build the more competition they're coming anyway whether you like it or

not and i think that's probably about it a question about is merger i think this is a values question one speaker time to make that instead of one and 25 feet limit it might be limited by the length felt block that is certainly anything to look at some neighborhoods have blocks that are much longer and less of an impact to create one and 25 foot, as opposed to blocks that are really short and takes up the whole block maybe worth looking at that and the apartment buildings from the 1920s are beautiful one speaker was complaining been the one on steiner near alamo's square it was well done we the things right in those days we

articulated them nicely and setbacks and reveal and you know really nice architecture so i think that is a good program i'll almost finished does apply if the rh1 and rh2 we've talked and one speaker spoke about towers being torn down and into crime areas i've seen that geneva towers remember that way but a lot of towers like the embarcadero and park merced and other places that stood the test of time and remained save and so you get after even though this is a tower those are hardly towers but 57 percent job growth as opposed to 14 percent if

santa clara county this is in an urban setting so thank you very much. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks so follow-up on the dashboard question the public commenters was saying the dashboard was not updated in the months i so i sent a quarterly e-mail so is at this point its not posted in a director's report so hopefully next time on the larger exclusivity that's mention for the goals we uphold for the city to me and 3 legged stool about protecting the units and the productions of the units and it is also about p the people that live in the units and director

rahaim you talked about having the density bonus program one tool tool in the toolbox but the sequence of the tools matters you're balancing the 3 legs staff said not just about production but protection that is really this is something we talked about it is about business within public commenter brought up the use projects that's we think area we hadn't thought about the projects were affordable and the restrictions are going away i hope those don't turn to the market so to follow up on the 328 conversation so if staff could answer in the case any fee for example, the cu for use size would it still need to be the need to have finding on that cu

in the 328 process. >> corey just san francisco to clarify that's the point we were trying to make the goal to create kind of one entitlements style review process for the project and so the way it is proposed now other than voter mandated cus others cus will be drafted not be a reminder or sprament conditional use authorization but any finding are now required as part of the 328 review hurry reviewing the same issues you would have rectified without the multiply entitlements to the same project. >> in your opinion is that does that move the bar a higher bar or what. >> in terms of decision i

mean, you you have the ability to make separate decision on separate parts of projects and in terms of the commission has before maybe approve the large projects without the mcds the planning commission can do that if like two separate applications sometimes those are the bigger projects sometimes projects come with a cu plus you know all the letters; right? the case reports on the ends the letters what's the distinction between one that has all the distinctions and wrapping up into one lp a approval. >> the distinction varies theoretically those are set up for different reasons and different procedures and come from the planning commission but usually diversity finding and different