affordability requirement i urge you to support this this give us a higher amount of affordability thank you. >> good evening commissioners ami i'd like to focus on one aspect of the proposed legislation the likely impacts of administrative resources the city the packet in the presentation today reshudders the commission that no historic buildings will be demolished to allow for projects increase in program in our view, however, the program is very narrow definition of the hectic resource leaving the vast majority of resources eligible for this program and vulnerable to demolition after years of studies the planning department is nearing completion of a commercial storefront in san francisco that

will identify at least 10 eligible historic district and potentially thousands of eligible historic buildings this proposal, of course, simultaneously will automatically increase the development pressure o on those developments only the facades of these buildings will likely be protected as a result we fear the result of the proposal is widespread façadism and the guidelines if our packet bears this out the facade of a hectic automobile garage paint in front of a new construction project behind it the historic preservation commission has recently taken up the issue of facade ism in december and continue the analysis this spring we urge this proposal present to the hpc to have their

recommendations regarding the impacts of the legislation lastly we are also very concerned about the liberal impacts think legacy businesses in buildings and parcels 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 appeal options and so if the cus are wrapped into the lp a the cu goes to the board of appeals. >> correct. >> i think i've heard a desire to keep the process as is doesn't mean this is no a plat for administrative sdrooil but sdrooil but from the board of supervisors to the board of appeals will be continuous and moving on to rent controls this still i know supervisor breed amendment there is still a provision in here for replacement units both local and state bonus program not allowed

to demolition or convert why include the next forgave. >> thanks for the link afternoon together you're looking at the piece i hundreds to you the conner johnson shared it the state of requires the replacements of units so you're looking at one felt programs individually requested withholding affordable we'll have that replacement requirement. >> one time. >> 100 percent this says local and state. >> that's a great question we can get a revised language of conor's version we're striving

through the replacement you can't demolish a rent-controlled unit i apologize we've think working closely with sxooepd city attorney's and the mayor's office to get this language really right. i think through the confusion your packets didn't get the update and i've heard complains what we pocket into the next legislation that helps clarify the ambiguity. >> i'm appreciative of the work that staff is doing this is an issue since we met wherever the first time it is frustrating not to get the right piece of paper and have questions about whether or not reversal is good next issue on so there's one sud that is taken utilities called

the north beach sud it refers to something call avenue incentive program i feel like if there is another different program if this pathway exists i suggest a number of neighborhoods facing gentrification and i'll name tenderloin and chinatown and western edition and excelsior and hayes valley that is not at the top of list but feel like if there is one exemption what is special about the north beach that is different than the other neighborhoods. >> i think that's my comment for now i want to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm really trying to the more i spends dedicating here at a time to this particular

profile the more sxhufd i get it is still last august to say the least i was open to a broad based approach but the more i heard about that the mover it shifts away my confidence that this was really something we can constructively layer that slowly convinces the groups that were meeting to come to terms and find themselves on another aspect how it was present which were asked and answered to the repeated listening to people's comments and unanswered questions i remain as large as number of truly unresolved issues with a certain amount of

uneasiness that is not possible many people told me it was a one-size-fits-all presentation and i couldn't say that request conviction i've heard it several times i have heard that repeated questions asked in other neighborhoods with a slightly different plan and it will be roefdz and really no primitive way of answering those questions and there was continued a.m. inputs i'm reporting i'm here to listen to what people are asking me and staying the credits fire of that difficu

dialogue- it is too much more but few and two the for the many as much i'd like this to work and such as i feel the fire under my butt it just seems like i'm spending more and more time my pile of letters and rubltsz it is hire a their people that are bringing facts to the tackle i've not heard adversarial shared i'm sitting here to do something i don't have all the information at the time i need it including the more open discussion with supervisor breed about what really protection of the rent-controlled unit means i don't feel i have have that confidence is it really an

incentive for market rate housing is that because of the all right existing overproduction of market rate housing and the under production of affordable housing that we're trying to resolve yet we're grandfathering in this the bam that's the most amazing part to me moving forward with similar assumptions where i personally see myself not being 45 anywhere slipping slowly into that income category where i feeling where don't i fit if i'm quite nervous when i hear the numbers they're not better that is working for me, the numbers are more and more to what i end up probably having to destine myself into the lower income bracket of people that will be looking for

this kind of housing i'm using as an example to speak about myself standing the crossfire the legislation at this time i feel the questions are learn the answers and the tools given to me i have a big issue with historic preservation commission and take it from the top not necessarily the order of priorities and lock orders i'm strong with liveability with respect to what we're building but those who will be effected by the building and people that will be living next to buildings where the answers have not yielded been addressed and the location and density and equality we only talking about rh3 and the

districts they have already an awareness as commission you spoke about certain parts of city have qualified to be exempt we also heard that in particular direction very particular sites and properties have been pulled out there is racial inequality where the most impacts will be and ultimate i'm concerned that the commission authority and oversight is diminished and not clarified as to the extent i can sit here and vote while you rely on us. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you for everybody who has testified and it's been enlightening i think this is certainly worst the effort it is

complicated but every week, we face the question to to build more affordable housing and the status quo is 12 percent inclusionary housing we ask started again but 12 percent go inclusionary housing and that's not working for anyone so we have challenged staff to come up with ways to increase the amount of affordable housing we built in the city i appreciate this came from that challenge to come up with ideas to generate more affordable housing in we've looked at you know we should encourage 100 percent affordable housing projects and protecting rent control you know eliminating the ellis act and building higher percentage of the clvrgs is important we know

that and the broader city elected officials are looking at percentage but the most aggressive proposals i'm here is 25 inclusionary and the question that the 25 percent pass the 18 or whatever ends up will adjust as a result of that so you know gets kicked done the road that's a question we need to address the idea a simple obviously did details are complicated but we have questions about what the i'm should be and in exchange including more housing to be billion built and certainly this raise questions it didn't work one-size-fits-all approach it

works better on a gas station on 19th avenue and geary and 19th street or vacate lots an lombard or wheel lands avenue in visitacion valley are a barky think dwoirth so we have to get at that and figure out how we get into more detail one-size-fits-all approach and maybe a gone story and kind of our more narrow commercial with a lower percent or two stories and some of the thirty percent i don't know but we have to get at that question it is worth continuing rent control this commission was where i worked before we said rent control we shouldn't allow this to happen where

rent-controlled unit are being down the road and the commission agreed the last time supervisor president london breed's legislation we say we - so - what even the indents program you that is contrary the we think is ami levels where did we come up with the one 40 the one 20 was used why did we settle the 3 person household at within 40 that could be two individuals with a child the affordable is 518 we're above we're building

you know we're over spilled we're building for one 40 but i don't think that exists so why not one 60 why not one 20 give us your thought why that level. >> kristen department staff if i could have the overhead or laptop we did the work would the mayor to think about what they mean by middle-income and the bonds work up to one 50 we worked with the counsels talking with people with the inclusionary housing people that are looking for housing through the mayor's office and as you can see on the slides you'll see

is income levels the one 20 and one 40 for a single permanent households or a 5 person households the very low we're serve with inclusionary we're having technical difficulty and as you can see on this slide over middle-income household a one person household can afford by afford spent thirty percent of their income and the market rate housing is 3 thousand 4 hundred so they're not able to afford a home the same analysis to the right for a 3 percent parents and child 8 thousand and it is unreach able to our point

the income group we don't have yes commenters are correct the market is the not serving we vice chair, have lots of conversations what are redrying to do what we're serving. >> a various by neighborhoods you know value of housing or the market-rate of housing it various widely i don't know if it makes sense at some point to adjust those by neighborhoods because unifying obviously it as 3 person household four discounts if you're downtown along with the waterfront and if in the europe sunset i don't think there is ways to do that. >> we have thought about that

we were concerned about what happens when the market goes down we are offering one 40 their subsidize and when the invoice so they're required to do a market study blow ami in blow the neighborhood market the neighborhood market is low and the one 40 is matching we're required to do the middle-income markets gone o 20 percent blow that. >> the 20 percent business issue is complicated you know, i think we started with protecting the legacy businesses and certainly i'm not interested in you know giving k f c a relocation sups but somehow bridging that between the legacy

business and a bank are title company not interested and it's a complicated issue exist law didn't protect that one story can be a lease can be termed terminated under the new program so it get complicated but thinking on more the best ways to protect small businesses that would be helpful and on the cu kind of approval given the concern and given some sites might work why not continue if you need a cu now you he had on a a cu you know what i'm saying i'll roll over what the existing

approval process is into this because i think there are challenges there are some sites might not work you might not fit the level of density so i generally think this is heading in the right direction is needs to go nor nuance but i know you took staff recommended continuing if we do i want to see the same level of effort and community involvement to groups you know starting to tease those issues out so thank you. >> i wanted to mention there's some very nice comments by the public and it is kind of difficult i identify and completely understand people

that are deadly opposed and identify with people that are supportive this is part of san francisco the unique blend and the variety of income level of folks one commenter struck to me i don't know if he supported or opposed but what makes san francisco are the people of san francisco what use to be multi generational the old joke how do you know on old san franciscan they ask where your fabricate went to high school we're losing that i don't know if we will gain that back but the city is changing commissioner antonini is rights population is growing we'll be bigger and we'll be more folks i believe that ties into prauchl we talked about the 3 legged stool in housing there is certainly we're out of the

chalk maybe some things not in our control i wanted to again point out it is a reigning implication we're in a position i think to lead that communication so some observations that strike me i did not hear anyone from the bayview it is the most impacted sorry thank you. >> one there was one okay. not many but if you look at the dotted map that is highly impacts but the idea we're maybe be exempting some districts kind of rubs me wrong it is difficult to make those kind of citywide overarching policies and decisions what makes san francisco unique is that it is a

you know you have to we've sat up here for years every single case is different address by address their unique what is next door is different next door to that it is difficult but want to be supportive the things i'd like to see thought about kicked around between now and the next meeting no demolition of rent-controlled unit i'd like to learn more about the 320 and pretty close to our process now i'd like to explore and maybe hear offline or online any demolition of units looked at and district exemptions what makes that district special versus another one but i'll leave it the worst thing we can

do is nothing of we approve this program it is water down the worst thing for san francisco not build any more housing in my opinion commissioner vice president richards. >> so i have 13 pages of notes it will be awhile seriously first of all, i feel like tonight it is not 11 o'clock short-term rentals it is not the closet things we cut off a 10 cancel and another one wraps us around the next but in september prior to that it was to be funny it was in the summer but one wields things mentioning the experience and tonight's at that

point, we had the same potential for voter potential owners we don't tonight as well and initiatives entered and it is the same feeling of impact what are we are doing this for this might be history in 3 or 6 months i want to put that out there first mother of all questions for the city attorney i - we've heard from mr. welch we're in compliance and someone can someone comment on that about the state law. >> curious stone we were talking about the housing element with the mcd that calvin brought up a document claim we are in fact, in compliance with the housing element law thereer details into the approvals and mcd was the the requirement we

complete an ordinance implementing the state density allow i'll provide that documentation at the next meeting. >> second question then would be second mother of all issues is rent control i'm seeing the new supervisor breed amendment that talks about signs affidavit the form of a acceptable form their subject to the rent control the question i have on that if i have a building and it was built in 1910 and 4 units and he 6 years ago i ellis acted it and now applying for the states density bonus 5 year period and my belief is not under rent control it was 4 units built in 1910 it will be rent-controlled unit and it follows the building as long as it is standing regardless if

you're in and out of business is that the case? no >> i was going to say i'm - i know enough about rent control to be dangerous so i want to say the intents of that which is to certifies close the door on a loophole your imagining so someone ellis acted they're building and use this program so the idea of that time lag to greatly disincentivizes and prevent that so my thought ellis act never altered to create the disincentives creates the loopholes the legislation this did not demolish remove i think

the word should be prohibits the words versus it is kind of a work in process and keep going down the list here. >> the whole issue let's talk about historic preservation i have photos i took when i talked u walked around noah valley i'll walk you through there it are numbered 1, 2, 3 and mr. butler pay attention i'll ask your thoughts so number one a fuel view last thursday we approved the demolition of a single-family home in the 24th street mcd? especially for if i friends in noah valley pros and cons to protect noah charms we got a

flood of e-mails to is a see we approved the demolition if you lift this up it says 24th street i know pa a no density bonus was kwaed the developer was going to demolish this above the garage the notification created 5 units in this site i walked home and the church the basement of the church i'll look at 24th street and the reason i'm concerned i looked at mr. kelly's description of where this house sits no historic district so i can see those addresses all had significant work done but it passed they were not historic so

this is the storefront but the details and the one above is altered like the one demolished go do page 2 the same block 4 is thank you very much oh, okay. that's what we approved and so i wanted 0 people probation officer realize under the current program an incentive to demolition the buildings to make a profit and we approved that that building i think that was unanimous and reduced it a little bit so the house is not there page 3 please so furthers down the block we have those hours single-family homes addresses again and according to the addendum the eir talking about historic preservation commission and the

staff report only identified historic resources will not be demolished the definition was recurs labeled code a the system in our planning system so 4143 is a g and they're all b i'll walk into the planning information counter and hand in my permit what happens walk me through. >> tim frye with the san francisco planning some sorts of historic planning to determine whether or not it is a historic building for the sake of ceqa so it necessitates some rectify category a it is, in fact, a resource so whether the project

sponsor prepares their own information or we use the planning department preservation staff prepares the information we will make that determination the building was, in fact, determined to be an a it will be i think eligible. the local pr >> i respect completely we didn't vote to don't worry about what was historic what other incidents about the resources process. >> what we're looking for whether or not the property is eligible for the california resources there are 3 cc&r criteria that a building is eligible within significant events and two b significant persons and 3 or c is architecture it is related to

the design are placement architect. >> so if someone slept there and harvey milk that's where we kept his storage we're making things up or a you know a pristine example this is axiliary or what percentage of a hundred. >> this is based the current workload this is about 20 percent of those i find a historic resource and b the other 80 percent we don't. >> in our example excusing that two of the three houses probably are not historic and one might be. >> potentially depending on what we found. >> i see the garage added and

stuff taken away and one is sensitive but not remarkable so my concern then for people to think that soft sites apply to gas stations they're having a rude awe wilma pang when bulldozer if thai think this kind of charm needs to be paid for lack of a better term so to the next slide please so those are all b and ethically street is concerning bus elizabeth is street mostly noah valley is in between noah valley those houses i thought oh, my god this is an ugly 3 story

building and put a 6 story next to it i'll don't worry about that this is one is an a in the eligible so even though the pressure is there to go higher thank you. the next one and across the street 375 ethic look like they're kind of a pair but 375 is an a not here the 379 b will have to qualify because there are go historic next in your opinion. >> 379 appears to be the venture that is a very old early structure for this neighborhood we'll be requiring that historic resource to determine whether? an a or c. >> let's assume george

washington didn't sleep there let's assume it, it's not remarkable architecture because it relates to 375 is that a leg up to consider it to a. >> it is something that individually is significant. >> okay. >> a district would be two prosper. >> yeah. more than one sometimes a church has a directiony that could be a two district. >> we had a project on 27 street georgia is link gone probably this is determined to be a district but allowed it won't happen the construction i'm trying to make everyone clear we will you the first 15 feet to be kept like mr. butler talked about but those conditions that could happen on

nonage pd projects if in their determined to be ceqa eligible and correct and an important clarification for a district the recurs under ceqa is the whole collection of buildings so a change could potentially happen to within of the buildings and not result in an adverse changes that is under ceqa. >> i'd like to have mr. butler talk about that i'll be asking you some questions please inform me we have a noah valley district under the park we saw a district in noah valley that is a collection of buildings and i want to demolish within the 15 are ton what is my protection on the house or the dwelling. >> well as tim mentioned we'll

looking at the hectic resource that is the historic resource that is protected and then they will look at whether or not the district with remain eligible or perhaps three or four of those building if over all the co-he'sness remains. >> that's a staff detector and that's right the local historic district and the hpc. >> and under b no protection. >> i'm sorry and the b designation has on a protection. >> i'll interject if it is a b we'll have to make that determination to demolition we'll have to determine if it is a resource. >> you've been the department

a long time have we allotted the demolition because it a within off and a co-heaviness of that one building left. >> how many structures if that district it's interesting they're the ones that want to be exempt. >> fifth story hundred can we go to the next one mr. butler mentioned a very large document can you get the address if there go please 4107 the commercial state and federal or storefront somebody cads i want to look for this and

inspector so many pages how would that structure be treated under the context statement. >> the department received a certified grant it conduct a city of the commercial we've surveyed 6 thousand buildings and the context statement provided a framework how to look at the buildings and determine chronicles with not - it will be on the website and start the community outreach component and hope toe excuse me. house the historic preservation commission adopted in june. >> so i'm the owner of wings in amnesty and it looks original i don't know what is survey says i want to commends this is rights for me and the city napa valley from the developer i want

bulldoze those we we will make a determination prior to the documentations whether or not it is a resource and if it was a resource not eligible. >> thanks and any thoughts, sir anything to add. >> i'll say in our neighborhood in our offices you have a van ness auto eligible district which is in an area up zoned that increases the pressure on the auto garages that is a relevant ground example we're losing 0 those garages to high density because of the pressure to build on the structure even though not part of bonus program. >> let's go to the next one i

think there is two more. >> so down the street open 24th street there is a portrait so this is 3 again, this is 24-hour we're the middle the business district not on a side street verbiage so 3 whoops too much as you can see 3820 was a right projectile i know the developer that is 1, 2, 3, 4 stories i guess 40 and it can be entitled up to 4 actually ones and juxtapose next door is a cottage we also interesting enough approve the demolition this is for people to understand the relationship between what could happen and

what is there add stories to the building on the right and nothing to the building on the left this you'll end up with one huge thing and across the street another next slide that is kind of i want the people to envision this across the street this single-family home i'm not sure but noah valley with the kinds of buildings with the various building covered by the program i think i asked staff for this relevance of what we do tonight a map of the a structures needs to be super impose on the map so people clearly say that will not go away or an inhuman effort to demolition that that would be helpful mr. butler anything to add i want to give folks maybe the

commissioners and maybe move on question came up in public comment that was in the addendum to the 3-r several commenters said up zone the 25 zoned gags and parking lots we'll get up to 16 thousand units why not that's what the eir says on page 19 why not do that that 20 would be simple people had been saying let's do that on page 19 of the eir why not the proposal up zone a small portion of these i think what you're hearing people are concerns about raising the height limit. >> on the 240. >> wow. >> sorry i think your question

why not scale the program down sorry. >> peter we've heard this question and put a lot of thought so really the answer is the parcels that are included in the program area are if i believe eligible for the bonus this program and the states analyzed program are better options even though we building the 240 sites are the ones to take advantage the first intent when we designed the program to creates an alternative to the way the state legislation will require us to implement the states density bonus law. >> of they were not the thirty thousand left you can build affordable and get the bonus you can't do anything about that.

>> that's correct. >> we have density bonus and only the 12 percent bonus. >> one comment on the design i think rarely what we go with section 328 i mentioned on the guidelines lecture he time to see in the staff report how the programming conforms to the guidelines and any delineation what's the trade off so at least the public can say i get the people say this didn't consortium and it is nice toe hear the staff have that put that out there i have issues with block combinations and one of the speakers said 200 and 50 feet and 6 hundred plus south of market is not covered it is probably 650 i think the lot combinations need to be thwarted

to the district they're in. >> the man with the hat on if you had toe summarize what to do to make the program better what would it be. >> my main concern is open space a roof deck or a balcony is open space but i mean, if you go to wishes to speak medicine and look up open space open space is soil

when i started you i can't have a backyard ground level because it is caged in shady and unused feel but this is helpful i think staff it will be - >> that's my point with this in fill in density going in way we're not building anymore parks we're losing. >> one of my comments to staff like the lot mergersers the building evolved to the street had been proportional and you

have noah valley two pain streets geary boulevard is almost an interstate make sense to center taller buildings on geary i asked staff to look at this i appreciate this work small businesses. >> i'm worried about the displacement of small businesses as well i think that i would exclude the legacy businesses i think i said that early on in the communication to staff i know ma'am, you mentioned in the noah valley a federal logically occupies there was you mentioned in the noah valley meeting a federal relocation something i said i was going to ask you what does it include the type of businesses that will be faced with has to leave can

anyone comment. >> we're trying to rack our brains but it has to do with with the requirements that are placed for in need of affordable housing project that is displacing residents or businesses some sorts of types of services and benefits they offer this is to when our using the federal funding it is limited to federal funding just to update you on what we are doing to the small businesses you're aware we're providing early initiatives for time for is planning relocation and get out, get out the services that oewd has developed and continue to develop not just

issues related to the program but citywide. >> okay. thank you. >> so this that whole issue around the impact on moifrpt communities in the western edition and bayview hunters point which are having percent and 23 percent of this potential eligible sites produced and interesting in sunday's paper talking about real estate in the examiner the spotlights on the bayview so the gentlemen the back congratulations you're in the hottest new neighborhood in the real estate section somebody approached me i know that mr. welch you mentioned in case income levels of from the african-american can you explain that and my colleagues participated in f that prom i

didn't understand the earlier question but i'll speak to let me deal with that question i'll speak this is parts of one-size-fits-all approach that is so outburstable we talk abbj about ami. >> we're talking about a district ami we use hudson regions ami and it is stunning to me that the director of the mayor's office can't recall whether or not a local ami no local ami it is a regional number so when we eye a regional number and most importantly when we apply that to households in san francisco it is one-size-fits-all the american survey american

community survey of the essence sews breakdown by ethnicity in 2015 issued a report on san francisco why it's white mooemdz was one and $4,000 asian medium income was $72,000 latino households income was $67,000 and african-american household income was $29,000 it was a huge issue and the african-american community when we talk about where this mapping that is in your report says most of sites exist and where most of units will be built if you take

neighborhoods studies improve the significant or majority asian black and hispanic that's 60 percent of ah bp units proonld we're project by project 64 percent of this fireman to work the lowest average households income in san francisco so the only way those income those people will participate so a sell and get outs. >> so i'm in within of the neighborhoods and i'm a comedian how would i participate in that can i get a bmr units those are to $97,000 that put the medium income of asians latinos and african-americans at

the bottom ends african-americans fall out the bottom they can't participate at the 12 percent unit at the 18 percent of one 21 to one 40 none of those medium incomes meet the inspire level to participate in 18 percent of the units this is ethic cleaning up this program using city-state regional based income figures misrepresent what actual households incomes are the african-american, latinos and asian population in san francisco. >> thank you i punishment that i had a concern about that. >> if i could reply i don't understand whether or not state law the whole question of the

housing element the housing element specifically said the city will continue the policy of establishing the special sud and height exemptions intend to support of development of affordable housing by allowing density bonus for higher speciality needs housing that's the city's program codify that as the program you do suds that is what was in the housing elements and i will quote the letter of certification that the department of these it in full compliance with state law says your no full compliance of housing element law but in in

violation of the density i'd like to see that argument this i remind you is 37 years after the package of the states density and the state housing of communities development fast forward the density bonus policy fully compliance i'm not a lawyer but gosh why do we finally say i've seen no opinion of the city attorney i've seen no opinion on the website or gold opinion piece that is specifically saying doesn't interpret interpret that is as the law here's the license

number law we were fully compliant after is license number decision. >> so the suds on the project to date is less than this program the percent the quotes i mean. >> your staff report says 12 projects were done pursuant it is more one was on my block on eighth street withholding favorable senior developments there was no option from the communities and that happened automatically no problem it was a density bonus it converted church to unions okay. mr. smith director any comments. >> we're trying to have a reasonable complfgs and mr. welch this is offensive and enough i'm willing to have a

conversation when you use that kind of he terminology is down rights offensive sew it is offensive to me offensive he to me san francisco proposed a program supposingly affordable housing higher than the income of the 64 percent of neighborhoods you'll does it in it is offensive to me, sir. >> thank you moving down the list i have something called invest in neighborhoods how does that relate to the process is there a relationship how - >> let me think about the relationship. >> you know in general we've invested in neighborhoods

working with planning and the office of economic workforce development mostly around business protection of the businesses sups and as well as improvements through the skraptsz and so forth and the neighborhoods we've talked about expanding that kind of program to engage if the community life and the housing and parks and open space and so forth. >> great, thank you thank you one second. >> somebody wrought up something on a map about - is that something we do? yes, we're working with the

churches and provided. witness rationed of that request what is the sort of development potential on the different sites >> trying to understand where the units will be one thing we'll come back with more detail and hoping we'll respond to the value of the map. >> so somebody maybe i have one thing i think the gentleman

speak market rate housing is not solution i wrote down where's the money maybe mr. commissioner white i don't get it did i misquote you i'm sorry how 100 percent of a private developer. >> yeah. i wouldn't put that on planning 100 percent but market rate housing developers should be held responsible for fees including the units as capturing as much the value as possible and saying that we believe that the city needs concentrate

making sure we were aggressively making sure we were aggressively pursuing that acquisition program to maintain the rent-controlled unit stock. >> one speaker talked about how to get off the ground did it available i mean and i think that came from one of the community members the coalition but we've been ward's that's itself mayors group the list of consultant groups that are a list of participants and several meetings i don't believe that any of the working groups kept detailed minutes we've put on line the comments and questions we've received. >> i think that's it i took a

lot of notes. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> yes. thank you been a 48 year residents of san francisco my dental business is 4 years i like to think of my people my patients as individuals not grown-ups ambassador but my patients include all members of ethic groups and multi generation and many of the patients are at the age they are looking to try to buy or rents something in san francisco and many of those public safety are the category of the one and 140th percentile and there be here and looking to buy are rent here and so that is the way we should be viewing this situation think of people as individuals i know that emeralds took 10 years

we've bone on this two years these myers are productive sxhivengs as identified a lot of things that need to be looked and the historic part is really important ways we don't want to see a incentive to destroy a lot of our historic houses of they don't qualify because it is what people come to san francisco because we have victorians or eras we want to preserve we should incentivizes towards gas stations no longer here and other types of uses that are a little bit better certificate sites not saying out of the question having others included and also been stated there's an overproduction of market-rate

housing not true under production relative to a demands for housing at high prices that exceeds and will continue to exceeds productions and is invading and will invade the housing stock that is what it is all about i know that some i've heard opposition to building housing for middle-income residents but, you know, they're going to be here out of college and group and collectively rent units that are are rent-controlled unit and market-rate they take units off the market that could be rents units that might be afford to lower income they don't provide other means they'll do that and continue this is what this program is all about and not

much talk b 100 percent and lowr here on behalf of the appellant hardly anyone brought that up but seems an option about the group that gets the at least housing built in the middle-income residents and commissioner hillis brought up obviously this will be subject to whatever legislation may pass in the future sometime that will change the inclusionary requirements this will go have to be dovetailed and a dial that includes the middle-income housing that will answer our

question so i'm going to - one question about users the eastern neighborhoods we can't put this go eastern neighborhoods their rezoned that's a question that is up to staff to reply we're not picking on neighborhoods only making available in southern neighborhoods. >> we're looking ways to deincentivised those maps this sxhudz the financial analyze and but i think the focus will be different the zoning controls where different the density krofldz or form based codes so that's why we separated the two. >> the nature that is an area that fits the description under which that is why those neighborhoods and areas are they

fits the description of the corridors which support more housing and greater housing and dense we're not singling out areas i'll move to continue this item to april 14th. >> second. >> i'll suggest in addition to that motion we look to see if we can do another informational symptom in march have a discussion like this so see if there are existing questions you can't have enough hearings and answer all the questions there will be some people that don't feel the questions were answered but a better chance. people to bring up things and with all due respect you're hearing through april are quite full if you'd like an informational

hearing we'll calendar it but still be here longer than tonight i believe the request to april 7th from staff >> i will. >> before april 14th. >> either one it doesn't matter give us more time maybe better off with april 14th any feelings commissioners i guess we'll go with the 14 a possibility of trying to work in some kind of informational if we have an extra week. >> commissioner wu. >> so i want to be respect of staff but the request for a continuance was into my i'm on saturday morning arrest is report had been releases on january 14th i don't understand why the request for continuance

for me, the - we've had three or four or 5 informational hearings and we here got an answer on rent control this is breakdown to consider as pieces of legislation i've heard a number of gels to create rent-controlled and some around goals with the density bonus or the 100 percent buildings avoid the suds i think that the roll for this commission on this piece of legislation was to name the issues i feel comfortable pushing it for the record to the land use committee i have a list of 10 issues i'll not read them

until we see what happens. >> commissioner hillis i'm comfortable with the continuance i think we need to look at the issues especially things like t inclusionary housing a bunch of issues raised by the commissioners and public which i think needs to be addressed and need to get into more detail on the legislation and definitely have another of your calendar is full another informational hearings sometime in march but to get the answers in clarity i think more meetings but we're not demoing inclusionary housing but the status quo we'll see the developments only gas stations

or in noah valley that have commercial buildings and the question is that appropriate is the are they appropriate we get more again thirty percent affordable housing we can debate over the level but to me that is not adding to gentrification or displacement that is helping by providing thirty percent affordable housing at times when the boards is debating 25 percent inclusion it is worth continuing the discussion and having for debate this has been constructive i haven't my left side of e-mails and public testimony the only developer that calls me was bridge housing an affordable housing developer that encouraged us to pass the program and again, this -