>>[gavel] welcome to the regular meeting of the small business commission on monday, federate eighth. the meeting is being called to order at-i'm not sure is the correct time. it >> it >> it's 5:34 pm. tonight's meeting is being televised live tonight and the small business commission thanks media services

sfgtv per letter area by the commission and need get the meaning can be viewed as a david e or live stream going to sfgov tv.org and click on, watch sfgov tv two. member's of the public, please take this opportunity to silence your phones. during public comment, during the meeting is limited to 3 min. per speaker unless otherwise established by the presiding officer of the meeting. speakers are requested but not required to state their names and complete a speaker card. this will ensure that the proper spelling of your name in the record, in the meeting record of the minutes and you can set your speaker cards up on the edge there. additionally, there's a sign in sheet at the front table that those would like to be added to our mailing list. sfgtv please showed the slide. >> first off first day of

lunar new year's day. the year of the monkey. this is our time for a public service announcement. just to remind everyone, the office of small business is the city's central point of information, assistance, and referrals for entrepreneurs and small businesses in san francisco. the office of small business is the only place to start your business in san francisco. we provide free and one-on-one assistance to help each pipe achieve their business goals and needs. our service includes a checklist of required registration, permits licenses zoning requirements and we can connect you with city funded business resources, resource partners to develop a business plan, access finance and legal and technical support for any other business assistant. again, start at the office of small business. the office of small business is here to

support you through the many stages of your business, not just starting but also throughout its lifecycle. please stop by our office which is here in city hall, room 110. we are open monday through friday from 8 am-5 pm. you can also call 415-554-6134 or, of course, a new way visit us online at our awesome new business portal, business portal.sf.org. we provide services in english, chinese and spanish. remember, the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco. let's move on >> return back to the meeting. moveon to item number one, which is though call to order and will call. >> let's have it >> commissioner adams, here. dooley,, here., dwight, here.

ortiz-cartegnea, here. >>[applause] tour-sarkissian here riley, here. and zouzounis here. mr. pres., you have a quorum >> awesome. on item 2 >> item number two, gen. the public. this allows members of the public to, generally on matters within the commissions purview and suggest new agenda items for the commission to future consideration. >> this is where we like to remind everyone that we are open for new business at the small business commission. if you have new business that you would like to for us to consider work you just generally like to comment that is something not on our agenda this evening, this is the time to do it. i encourage people to come out and sound off about

things that affect small business, and we also encourage you when you do that to write down your comments because you are here to get them into the record. oftentimes we get excited when we get to make a presentation and forget where we are. if you write it down, you get bonus points for reading what you wrote. it's the best way to get it written into the public record. anyway, do we have anyone from the public that would like to make a general public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 3 >> item 3 is a discussion and possible action to make a recommendation to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 150969. this is the planning code "and bonus program. this is a ordinance amending the planning code to create the affordable housing bonus program consisting of local affordable housing bonus program the 100% affordable housing program, and analyzed state density bonus

program and the individually requested state density on this program. to provide for development bonuses and zoning modifications for affordable housing in compliance with and above those required by the state density bonus law. government code, section 65915, and to establish the procedures in which the local affordable housing bonus program and the 100% affordable housing this program shall be reviewed and approved. adding a fee for application under the program, adding the planning code to exempt projects from height limits specified in the planning code and the zoning maps. affirming the planning department determination under the california environmental quality act and make findings consistent with the general plan. tonight, commissioners, you have a presentation by planning staff kristin bissinger. sheila nikolai

bullis is also here. and then deanna ponce deleon is from the august office of economic workforce develop budget >> welcome >> kiersten-plant manager for the affordable housing bonus program. i apologize. i forgot the hard copies of the presentation at a make sure to get back to you tomorrow. i am here to represent what the department has been doing this is better sponsored legislation in response to the affordable housing needs. you may be a member about two years ago the mayor put together a working group to come up with a full suite of solutions to respond to the affordable housing needs. i'm going to talk a little bit about the breath of tools, but this really is just one of those tools. keep that in mind when you're listening to it. there's a few other legislative efforts and of course you remember we just passed the housing bond, and

housing trust fund, a lot of local sources to fund lower income households. so this is just one of those pieces. mistaken our team about two years to develop the program that is before you. my goal today is to give you a high-level overview of the goals and mechanisms and zoom in on the program with your interests which a small business. i will start with why are we looking at affordable housing needs. of course, if you live in san francisco and you're aware of anything you know our affordable housing needs are very intense. this is an issue we share with all major metropolitan areas. we are seeing a resurgence of people choosing to live in the urban environment and that can pound it with what about local economy, has really doubled the affordable ability and sparsity. we are gaining about 10,000 new residents every year. ted egan niceties economist

has done some great analysis on the census to find that actually we are losing 70,000 and gaining world we are losing 16,000 and gaining 70. so there's a lot of displacement could a lot of churn. a lot of people choosing to leave to affordability issues. i think when you learn about this program, keep in mind, the who and what we are leaving and for me, a lot of people ask me what we care about affordable housing for anyone but the very neediest and it really is that diversity of workforce and that diversity of community that were looking for. so, this program will he speaks to that issue. how do we make sure that all different kinds of workers can be near the jobs that we are creating and working hard to keep in the city? there is a need for prominently affordable housing. i'll go

into this a little more but this is the first program that the cities ever contemplated that offers prominently affordable housing to middle income households. so that's a new offering to this program which is been getting a lot of attention in the media and will be talking about that. it's important for me to also emphasize we are doing all of this work without any public dollars. so, this is in addition to what public funding is able to accomplish with affordability. finally, no one likes to know just where in the state of california and part of what were doing here is getting the city of san francisco more in line with something called the state density bonus law. essentially, that says if you build any affordable housing you're entitled by state law to a density benefit or to be able to build more residential units the idea is that the kind of helps offset the cost of subsidizing those units for the developer. it's an internal subsidy. like i said, this is just one of the many programs.

you probably can't read the fine green here but the top box was always the programs that really focus on a very low income households. those earning up to $21,000. this is where historically, all of our affordable housing dollars have gone. our largest affordable housing supply is in this bracket. 100% of affordable housing project really focuses on this level. the below market level. we also have a program called inclusionary housing. it requires developers to make 12% of their units affordable to a certain household income. that is the below market program. that's it in a slightly metal bands. finally, we have some holdover homeowner assistance programs that reach a higher level. i think talking with regina a lot about this program and she's been saying one of the issues your commission has been talking about and small

business owners are talking about is how do we retain those lower income of $15 per hour households. so, this program speaks to vote some of those people, especially if they're in a married household or household with a child, but also relieves the pressure on some of our more traditional affordable rent control units. this is what my favorite slides because it tells the history of the work of my team. we been working for about two years with architect david beeker firm. david beeker's architecture firm rather than a financial consulting firm. basically, we start with a box on the left. it's three i was kind of undefined. that's how the state law leads. it was our work first, to put parameters around the state law and that's our state program. then, we said we want to go further. we want to get that 30% affordability. that's our local program. building on the

analysis we did to put parameters and make the state law work in san francisco and be very clear that we created the local program. under the state regina write off all four programs. one is focused encouraging people to add about 30% affordability of the total units, and then the local program also gives incentive for people to go further. these are all optional programs. developers can choose to go with the zoning they have right now or seek these incentives by providing more affordable housing in their project. here is a summary of what those programs offer. the state law says if you're from 13-20% affordability, you can get some density benefits up to 35% more units. sometimes you also need height through the get with the local program, we say, if you do 30% affordable housing, a

level of affordable housing that we rarely see, but we have passed proposition k by motor voter mandate to achieve that goal, you would get two additional stories of height above your existing height limit. and you would be getting is 30% affordable units. very small but important part of the program is the 100% affordable program. this enables projects that are funded by the city that have all our public subsidies to get three additional stories. so there are many sites the city has control over especially in the mission for example 17th and folsom. there's about one on street. those projects can get way more units and we can really get much more for our public investment in those units. so this program helps them along. we only anticipate 2-3 projects like that a year just because it's so funding intensive. what is affordable? a commission talked about this

a lot. affordable actually you're spending only 30% of your income on housing. their federal state and local analysis that says those dollar limits at different place. 57, 59, they are different. this is what san francisco affordability levels are by very low, low which are really the workers are most were focused on. moderate and middle income. that income varies by household size. so, if you've got two earners then we put it in a slightly different place. this chart goes out to a seven person household. this is just to help you understand the steps in the latter. this is why we need affordable housing for all those income levels. you can see with these people can afford to pay a month if they're only spending 30% of their income on housing. so, burial low, nine or dollars a

month for studio one bedroom were $2500 for middle income. and something in between. on average market rate unit that household size is going for $3490. so for trying to recruit more employees, if we are trying to allow households to move from single life to their family life, we need to make sure that housing is affordable to these various income levels available. quickly, about the program, the program area was defined based on the existing zoning controls. so, we are trying to get-we are trying to be consistent with the state law and implement that. the state law says anywhere you allowed to build five units or more are eligible for this program. generally, this is areas were not resounded

through market octavia or eastern neighbors but if they're the old kind of zoning where density is regulated by a ratio of units per lot area. you really are including a lot of the commercial corridor. the neighborhood marshall corridor and the larger streets. almost the entire program area is within a quarter-mile of the muni rapid network. a quarter-mile is generally considered walking distance. rebuilding housing where mta is investing in transportation services. so it's a nice synergy there. over the next 20 years, we think this program could generate about 5000 new affordable permanently affordable housing units. a total 16,000 new units. that's the program area. just to give you in the program area does

mean you can take advantage of this program. there are a couple-there are many different limitations. we are not including our rh one and rh two districts adjusting the family home districts. also, you can't abolish rent control units. you can demolish a stork resource. >> quick question. we say rent control property i think this is kind of important. let's say over ground floor retail with apartments above it all rent controlled. those status and? >> that's why. >> thank you >> the rent control housing supply i was get the summer run about 52-54% of our units. by making the demolition ineligible for this program would dramatically reduced the number of project parcels that could potentially participate. we'll see that as a change in the program because our intent was to never see a change in that housing type. we are really looking at soft sites.

sites not used for housing and all talk about that a little more. again, you can't demolish historical resources. also, you can't cast shadows on parks. those are things that we generally regulate through ceqa but for these programs we put them in a legislation as absolute cannot. not it possibly made. there's no gray area. if you want to do that then you can't use this program. this is a map of the program area. you probably have seen this in the media or perhaps on a telephone pole in your neighborhood. it can be a little bit overwhelming. it's about 30,000 parcels. this is my favorite color but for other people i guess it feels like a massive change to the city. it's all of our neighborhood commercial corridor residential commercial, and residential

mixed use. just to understand -i'm sorry, to understand here is a look about two different corridor. here's district 1. richmond. you can see the yellows are rh-three and that purple color where it would marshall corridor. if you move just the rent control units not accounting to the various historic pieces you can see it's much smaller portion of the area that's even eligible for the program. we've done a lot of analysis on this. it's reductive analysis of 30,000 to what we think will happen. we actually identified about 240 sites that we think would take advantage of the program over the 20 years. >> is this richmond only? >> in the whole city. good question. this is district 3. again, if you look at that district supervisor peskin to

that district and said that's my whole disappeared of course, that's one of the older neighborhoods. it's really well built out so when you see you remove the rent control units that's a dramatic reduction. what we are not seeing when we remove from there are healthy residential buildings, leap tall office buildings that also aren't subject to this program because no one in their right mind would want to remove the stork resource. just to help you understand scale of the program. then, district and and the reason were focusing on district and is the opportunity sites on this district. we are not allowing this program to be used on pvr sites or m1 m2 size. places other competing that are important pvr uses. the business. there still are a number of residential zones or neighborhood commercial zoned large sites in the bayview, which is why we're seeing most

of the-almost a high percentage of opportunity in this district. again, point out the rent control units alone reduces that a lot. i could do that for all 12 and some suppertime if you like. what were these buildings look like? like i said, there 240 soft sites. we think that is where this program will be used. our analysis has been tested. we look at eastern neighborhoods, and we project development whether it did it actually happened we corrected our predictive analysis if necessary, but those sites are used about 5% or less of their total development potential. of those 240 sites, about 98 car parking lots. so where or gas patient it was no structure there. 27 are gas stations. 98

our parking lots or vacant. and 26 have formula retail uses. 11 sites have restaurants. we did this rate down for you because we understand that the issue for different kinds of businesses especially as it pertains to relocation might be different. this is a windshield survey. arterial team looked quickly regenerative a lot of work on this, but again this is not an absolute fact. this is trying to give you a sense of those two under 40 sites. 240 sites. again, what are the upsides to this program? what will the city benefit from? 11,000 new market rate units. 3000 new moderate and middle income units. i'm sorry. that's the new type affordability. and in 2000 units in our traditional band of very low and low. that this program is

only a 900 of those low and very low. so we are more than doubling the affordable housing supply for the traditional retail worker or small business employee. what is a soft site? this is just a couple pictures of the 240 sites. this is-a large site. here is noriega and 30th. divisadero and oak street. there's actually a development that you might've heard about. then, this is one that's not actually in the program area, but this is the home restaurant on market street in the market octavia plan on of course, is subject to new development did i think it's been discussed at our commission last week. >> it got approved >> it got approved. ashley. >> that's good. it's right

next to the muni station in the transit orientated project. that's good. affordable housing in it. >> so, this is us validating our analysis that development will go for empty or one-story building. we've gone to those plans and really check. then here is another one on than a street. van ness. what were they look like. we will work with david buechner architect. two of us understand what the context would be like. the building on the right is the building vendor to quit. they always like to say we did not design the building. we just sketched it quickly. the building on the left are actual buildings. there's an actual street in the sunset. under current control we would have 15 units. two of which would be affordable. so, with two

additional stories, were able to fit 48 units and 14 of them would be affordable. there has been some conversation in the community but the impact of the height on these corridor, but we have a lot of buildings in our city that are already two stories above their existing height limit. this is my most were. the redline is the height limit. you would be with the two additional stores. you can see this is three stories about. the whole collection of these if you're interested. not all from the 1920s survey some of the more beautiful examples are. this happened because we set our height limits in the 70s in response to a declining population and in response to

the downtown business interests and of zoning and rebuilding downtown. it was did not want to see that the contagious to the left side. there really wasn't that big move of a population into the city so it was kind of a trade-off, if you will. when we get it we did it quickly. we can look at the context. a lot of buildings over height under height, a lot. for me, this connotes this idea that are height controls and zoning controls our way to [inaudible] rather than a statement on a final form on what the city ought to be. here is another example. this one is only one story above its height limit. then what we are here for . small business. so, there's two different issues we been talking about. one is will there still be that neighborhood commercial corridor

could will existing business continued to get to five lease work on controls to make sure building on the context? our existing zoning controls generally don't require on the ground floor but encourage it on many of the districts. some of our other districts this program hits don't allow commercial this won't be changing that. there are a few corridor in the program area like 22nd st., between third and minnesota, where buchanan where commercial is required. so that's a question should we be requiring commercial were more heavily encouraging it in some districts. most of the new plan areas, eastern neighborhoods market octavia have included design guidelines that we talk about activating that ground floor and really hope helping build that

commercial corridor and making it a place. we think they're lovely design kit are designed uses them of, although they don't actually apply most of the city of any project that goes to this program would be required to meet the guidelines we have here. which, if you're familiar with our neighborhood commercial design guidelines those other areas, the same apply. i'm happy to engage in a conversation about that in more detail. what businesses will be moving into these new neighborhoods? this city is a thought leader in retail and we have done a lot of analysis that helps us understand what size formula retail might want. then what size or smaller operators might want. one thing that regina and piano and i were talking a lot is how do we

make sure we getting knows that would survey businesses we want. in these outline corridor. right here from easy to use size limit for some of the districts included in this area. what about questions is are these right order through this program is there some odd adjustments we might want to make those neighborhood commercial corridor to make sure replacement businesses are keeping with the context of the neighborhood commercial corridor. the second issue-the first is was that corridor going to be like. the second issue, and maybe one more close to our hearts, what happens to any business in those ground floor one-story commercial buildings. could they get displaced? how can we help them? what are the services around that? as we been learning a lot. i think the first time we presented the omega beauty and investment neighborhood scene and regina

was there, the first time by the time people found out there moving we need-their lease is up, whatever the case may be-they don't have enough time to figure out a business plan. the financing. the location, the money capital money to actually make that transition happen. i nursed him with a soft story program you're running into these issues a lot. the first thing we did, and was really kind of simple for us to do and it was within our first iteration of the program. as soon as a developer that the city of san francisco knows they are planning to demolish a building and build a new one, the developer must-on that initial packet show a letter they bring to the commercial tenant saying, by the way, i think about this program project. it's probably 2-3 years until i actually get to break ground because of to

go to ceqa i'm planning dbi with a new building that that's quite a long time. but here's a connection to oe wg. here are some other small business services. get technical assistance to move your business long. we also added this idea because in our minds that will enable the investment emirates team to build up capacity as more of these are sent to commercial tenants. so this kind of goes through the entitlement process are standard commercial building and you can see the earliest actual application will include and requirements of those letters. in addition to early notification, businesses that are impacted by this program would also qualify for the-i

don't know it's actual name. cd3 p. so that would help them let say they get the event that neighborhoods are able to find a location expert rate their permitting process that new location. what we are trying to do here is make sure that we are building a really solid network of technical support and interagency communication. to make sure were all prepared for this. i think we are here for your input on is, what else can we do? what other issues can be addressed in the entitlement process to really help smaller businesses that are impacted by the program survive and thrive? before i go on, janice can come up and

talk about services relevant to this issue. >> good afternoon, commissioned him deana from the office of economic workforce develop. the project manager. today i'm here to present other small business retention and relocation to mrs. and program. in the next few slides i'm going to go over our programs and services goal hopefully help mitigate some of the impacts that will help us meet the goals for building affordable housing in the city. first, i want to know is that citywide small business as well as residents are undergoing a large amount of pressure in terms of dislocation,

expiration of leases, etc. we been trying to be proactive in dealing with and creating new programs to service this that address the needs of the existing businesses. we've had greater programs that help start up i feel like in the last three years we've tried to hand hold a lot of businesses that have been in existence for many many years, not only of the commercial real estate market change but also market. the consumer market has changed a lot of our services we created and we continue to implement and expand upon our to cater to those. for example, we've small business consulting, which we've had for a long time. but really, we focused on more intense hours with individual businesses. reaching out to them one-on-one, creating business strengthening programs where we have brought planning for the long-term and can hold

up to meeting their goals. the legal and lease they go sheesh and assistance. that something while there was a partner outside of us that we referred folks do we actually have been funding programs to take over referrals and expand services and that program to our businesses. we have city department assistance. permitting,. our staff helps specifically with those that are special cases. sometimes displacement. sometimes it is because of lease expiration. sometimes we've had to deal with fires recently. we actually helped into the system permitting dpw to get them up and running as fast as possible. we also offer an extensive small business loan which we've always had. 88 inspection. we developed a new program the past maybe 2-3 years where we want to be proactive about businesses been impacted and so we provide that

citywide. we started piloting it in different regions in the city expanded its citywide who provide free inspections to small businesses. sf shines the side program for those businesses working intensely to meet their goals to be sustainable and profitable for the future, we also extend the sf sunshine from. we have our investment. corridor initiative which is the mayor's jobs plan. we have 25 corridor were we focus on customize services. with in-depth relationships with neighborhoods, merchant associations, small businesses, and we've been working on customize set of services. you're very familiar with the properties on the ground and top prioritize the neighborhood with those corridor priority should be. in expansion of that we have realized that there are other needs that we have not been able to be as strong in support of. such as, from this

is what we've heard we were trying to assist in relocation the broker services are very important and they been trying to go out there where before they were used to contacting the property owner being able to make a deal. now there's brokers in the middle involves that's much more sophisticated. so they've come to us to help them and guide them through the process and understand and be competitive with the market. space sharing assistance or something we like to explore further. we have-this is a way to help affordability. if there's a possibility we have some businesses that do well for practice in a closer dinner and we think this is a way potentially we can help on the affordability and but also activate our corridor day and night for more hours, longer during the day. as part of that, we also sorry, this is for peter. relocation

assistance. specifically some of those programs are also available for small business. i apologize for that good although to the next. pdr, we also offer those services. for banking and for pdr there's an extra challenge in those types of spaces in our city. so we know we have to allocate that type of special attention and trying to identify those large space. so that we can maintain those jobs as one of our priorities. banking and loan assistance again one-on-one. helping with consultations. technology training. this is coaching to get them selves up to speed in terms of how they can lower cost managing inventory and to accounting and things like that. for the small business retention relocation program, this is something we currently have a proposal out and have received applications could these are all new services that, again, we've realize that our business is

needed more than what we were currently providing and as we seen the need we try to staff up and increase our services our partners in these areas. artie mentioned a little bit about the we focused on the small business consulting and case management. a real estate readiness assessment, a lot of times businesses up in one place 20 years, 10 years, again the market is very different now. so it's time to reassess if they're planning a move on lease expiring and the landlord has refused to renew it, and we need to help them assist them reevaluating their space because things are more expensive now. if they're moving into a new space we want to make sure that it's really difficult change but were thinking of proactively. we want to take him through that. i mention already but the broker services. if they're interested in acquiring real

estate we also help them prepare the bone packaging, etc. identify a site. work on their, why from start to be. that something they're ready and interested in. i mention already the space sharing and why that's a pretty exciting thing we hope to expand and explore. session plan. some of our businesses, they been there for many generations. we are retiring. but important thing for the neighborhood and so we also help in that. or what they could do better. how could benefit the family but the neighborhood at the same time. if they wish to do so. we also now have two proposition that are j we have business grants available once the source has been identified for legacy businesses in the city. that will be another source for businesses to help them stay at their current location. for

access to funding so they can continue in the city of san francisco. the restaurant acceleration program. that something to assist you restaurants we've heard a lot of feedback that it's very difficult to establish a new restaurant in san francisco. so we hope this program helps with that. some of our recommendations after reviewing planning and having discussions and giving our feedback from what we are hearing from our businesses, are, one, we want to ensure we make our services that we have, though our directly help the businesses from what we heard is to make them available in a timely manner. now that we have them refunded them and we have staff and partners, we want to make sure that were able to do it at a time where they could actually make the most use of them. so, we are requesting-kiersten already remembered mentioned summaries-we are requesting

notification to the office of economic and workforce development so we know my projects will be coming online and we can prepare and expand as needed. we are also recommending provide the option to write it first return for small businesses if they so choose to. to return to the site once it's completed. we've also discussed were recommending review the ceu requirement that are eligible for the expedited permitting process. for conditional use. if they're locating in the same district it if it artie been to the cu process, they've invented, and got their conditional use authorization, then we are saying why do they have to go through it again if they're located within the same district. that's one of the recommendations. along the same business to reestablish, even if it's currently categorized

as a nonconforming use. therefore, it allows it to come back to that neighborhood to continue to be part of that area as the space is there and available and they won't be penalized for that. then, the other things we want to continue to explore our expedited permitting. so that we can help them get back on their feet as soon as possible. also, for business notification were asking for 18 months. we are recommending for a minimum of 18. so the business knows, at the very minimum, they have this amount of time. we know it's going to take a long time but we would not want in the middle of this to have that risk to be afraid that i might be kicked out in three months or six months for other reasons. we want to ensure that part of the process they very minimum of 18 months to allow us to provide the services and find a space within the city. at this time, i don't know if

kiersten you have a few more points, will welcome your feedback on some of these ideas and discussion items. kiersten will wrap up. >> actually, i had one more slide. we been having a lot of conversation for the past year about how we can really address the interfaces. your commissions charge on this program. as diana said, first rate of return is something that am i planning commission we explore. we also had some questions about a few businesses and whether there is a further benefit or special track for legacy businesses. then, the notification itself and then

regina and i are interested in piloting some sort of first-time commercial ownership program. not sure that something we would legislate certainly this program itself might be a good way, avenue to pilot something like that. so, where we are in the process this legislation was introduced in september. by the mayor himself. then was referred to our planning commission. we've had several informational hearings. we are going back at the end of this month, february 26 amendments are commission has reviewed and made final, to go back to the board of supervisors, where they would start hearing on the land use committee and the full board. we are looking to take with your comments and integrate them into our program. if you can see the screen i'm a we've artie done at you amendment since september on this program. most of them really to other issues around-yes, i know

i'm sorry but the scale of this, but we require there be, you lots you could merge particularly project we have enhanced our evaluation program , and we said these units can be micro units. i love more on the house inside. there's a lot of room for this them to grow and benefit from the conversation we have to. so, sheila and i are here and were excited to hear your thoughts. thank you. >> thank you for your thorough presentation. the think any monsieur here to debate or even dispute the need for affordable housing. i think our primary concern, as the small business commission, the effect on small business. i like to start a conversation with quantifying the real problem is. it's very easy to just broadbrush this and say oh my god this is an armageddon for small business did elliptical back to one slider that you showed, and that is one that details, of

the 240 there are certain number you've artie characterized as being destinations are vacant lots. but back to that one. my recollection that's about 150 of the two $.40. of the 200 $.40. some them don't affect existing businesses at all. so we have a slight. >> yes, i have a slide out. if sfgov tv and turning off >> there we go. if we look at the slide, i can hardly see it. >> i know. >> we don't exactly- >> 98 our parking lots or parking garage. 27 are gas stations. 26 our banks or some other formula retail like a walgreens. >> okay. so, given that small businesses are our preview there for me gas stations that are small businesses, there could also be parking operators,

which we have some expense on the commission which could be small business owners. so this does not exclude small business owners but there are no kind of is we would characterize small business merchants or pvr's small business. so this is about , what, 150+ >> that's correct >> willie of the 240, there's 90 we don't know about yet. i think it would be interesting to know very specifically and 90 sites that are potentially affecting small businesses of the kind we often represent here. the other thing i think is that i presume this requires the owner of the property wants to sell to developer who's going to do this? >> that's correct >> then there's a survey i love those $.90. i me so how

many are going to sell the property? some aren't. some are landlords like your tenants and are not in this other site because they want the hardware store to be there in perpetuity. they're not going to where they don't have an appetite for developments. so we know there are properties that sit in trusts the people who don't want to develop the property could they like it just the way it is. so we can get those. then we get down to the very specific number of sites go and survey them and determine what businesses are at risk. also determined with a likely timeline is for anyone of those sites whether it's 2-3 years. it generally speaking, think the 18 month requirement is a reasonable one that going to be within the window of someone that might expect to accomplish such a project and, in fact, under your proposal you are more likely going to get to-three-year notification. so, i think that's probably within the leased negotiation limits of most tenants. i would

advocate before anybody gets too agitated about this, and they really understand of those 90 sites which one generally have businesses that would be at risk. that would be the place to start the conversation. i'm sure we'll have other comments here but our concern here is really the displacement of existing businesses with a hardship to that entails. some of the remedies are nice but frankly, won't be of any use to a small business. if the business say has to be suspended for a two-year takes to construct a site, you lose all your employees. if your restaurant employees go work to market her out of business. you are de facto forced to restart. he

might come back in two years and reconceptualize hara my people but you really basically starting a new business. relocating has an whole host of issues. you are going to incur broker fees. going to have to do gis with either minimal or major. the site you might only be in for 2-3 years if you only join a temporary relocation if you're lucky enough to do a permanent location is across the street, maybe you find a situation where you get a nice swap that's happened before. we know people that have done that, but that's a rarity as well. again we come back to know it's going to debate the need for affordable housing, and it's going to be if the site is a candidate and it appears it's going to happen then we have to deal with it. so, i think looking at the toolkit we have, you've

identified many the tools we have at her disposal and love discussion. maybe some of my fellow commissioners have some other ideas. thank you very much. the presentation was great. i can see who is on the list here. commissioner adams >> i first want to thank both of you for this very good and informative presentation. i wish a lot more people hope they see this on tv. you really changed how i see this. you put out the facts. i've been reading on social media, and everybody in the city is going to be displaced. how horrible this it. in fact, it's not. as a small business commissioner, knowing that rent control housing is not to be effective means a lot to me because what this is going to do is put small business workers, small

business retailers and whatnot, they're all moving out of this again i look at my staff who only make 3000, 35,000 a year and that that to move out to pittsburgh and the point. this is actually going to hopefully, in time, but let some of those people because they don't want to move they want to stay here in the city. i thank you for that. oh ewb, you know your services before it's up to you guys been doing an awesome job investing in a rhodes came about. your change a lot of neighborhoods. for the better. whenever i go like the excelsior district or ruled out or union street, you're starting to hear the city helped the socket where they never got held before. i like the fact that planning actually is working with oh ewb and when we discuss recommendations, if we can put that in there that when that 18 month comes can

you refer them to oh ewb and get them into city programs rehab to help them out. by commissioner said, there's only about 90 spots involved in this, but i think it's very very important for the superior we've had 30 years of some bad housing legislation. we need to do something, especially middle-class housing. not 10 years from now, not 20 is good we need to do something about middle-class housing now. i think this addresses a big part of that. so, i think you and i thank you diana for your presentation your involvement. in working with planning on this issue. so, thank you >> in fact, identify these 90-100+ sites would be an early notification in and of itself. just to know you're a candidate for that is important information. commissioner dooley

>> i have a couple questions. so, your friend out to this to 40. is that a form number and you're going to be changing legislation away from the 30,000 sites? >> i think i mentioned the early part of this that this program's first and most fundamental intent was to respond to the state law. so, the state law is available to all of these properties. we are trying to offer a better alternative. what we have legislated is you absolutely cannot demolish rent control units, but we do all of our programs by zoning district. so, we won't be saying these 240 sites are in the only ones in the program but we will be saying here's what districts are eligible and here is what could make your parcel eligible or not. msn?

>> yes i know. you're still saying that 30,000 sites will be part of this legislation? >> writes. it's like saying the first thing is you have to be in the state of california. the second thing is to be over the age of third-period were saying every thing in california can do this but only if you're over third-period so there's two thresholds. it was still first be by zoning district. >> my other question is, when we talk about the right of first return for commercial space, is there in a rented set or will that be at the determination of the developer? >> it will be fair market rents. >> thank you. >> so, the 240 sites, was a specific lead the fight is that correct? you know the addresses of those sites? >> not off the top of my head. >> summit has the address. >> that's correct. the

databases set of numbers the way we did this we looked at all of the 30,000 sites and we pull out anything that both with existing height limit because there is no financial incentive. we put out historical resources began demolish them. we pulled out anything with the rent control units and then we said how many sites are actually attracted to developments. that's the 240 sites. this is the same methodology we used in their neighborhoods, mike and octavia. in all of our area plans were we are trying to project development. >> is that list available to the available to the public today? >> yes. i think i e-mailed it to a couple people. it's not listed on my website but it's available >> i think it should be posted somewhere so people can see it. that's a good place to see a starts. again, lack of information will be the thing that is the most disruptive here. so, making that information readily available, so people can know, is a big

part of the communication junk. so i am hopeful to know that is readily available or can be readily made available. i want to see if i'm on the list. i'm on 22nd st. so i may not be. okay. commissioner riley >> we have received some letters from small businesses and their concern is displaced in a small business and it may not be able to stay in the same district because of inflated rent. and also also somewhat concerned this program might change the characteristics of their district. so, how do you address that? >> i think the main conversation even trying to have is a trade-off around the

90 businesses or so that are potentially affected by this versus the housing and long-term supply of workers for all the small businesses. in my response to that character piece, we've developed a good design guidelines that i think were looking for input for all of you should we reduce further to it or increase the sizes, or what do you want us to do that we can from a regulatory perspective make sure the same kinds of businesses have the opportunity to be in those corridor, and i don't think it's just the businesses interested in that. i think the residents are. i've lived in san francisco tour guide my favorite hardware store. we all do. i think we want to do everything we can to sort of keep that context specific. so if there's ideas that you have the on the design guidelines and the sizes of spaces, we are curious and ready to hear that. >> commissioner adams

>> i like to see smaller spaces in a lot of new developments we can talk about that after public comment but from what i've seen in development from upper market the smaller spaces seem to get rented out first and the businesses seem to thrive and it seems like you're seeing a lot more of a larger spaces are vacant. we can talk about that when we talk about after public comment the other two. public comment >> if a business owner has a current lease, tenant lease be preempted by development project like this or would there lease have to come to its natural conclusion or to its renegotiation inversely? >> well, i think what i was going to say i would differ to commissioner tour-sarkissian was more experienced

>> in my opinion, there's a lease you have to wait until the lease is up. in order to do anything. in my opinion. >> so, interestingly enough, also of the 90-100 sites, these people are going to face a lease renegotiation at some point anyway. that tends to be an adjustment to market unless you have some extraordinarily benevolent landlord. so, that's on the horizon for everybody anyway. so this is sort of like , it's effectively a double whammy. we are going to raise your rate and entered. and by the way were thing about leasing the building. a different kind of racing. >> i have a question if i may, about the commercial space. in the commercial business

districts, there's no requirement today in this program to have the commercial space-it's a recommendation but not a requirement? >> yes. in many of our older zoning districts there's no requirement the ground floor has commercial. this is something our commission discussed as well. we are exploring and i think i love your opinion on this, the idea of we don't want to make a blanket requirement because there's some small lots were literally it's impossible but we want to make it almost required, except for certain corridor and regina had told me in some commercial corridor are very walkable the loss of one commercial space could impact the neighborhood businesses for traffic. so we look for

fine-grained advice from you all. >> any development is subject to approval by the planning commission, correct? >> all these projects. >> you could deny entitlement he cause the developers have failed to meet you were requests for commercial on the ground floor or the community's request. this is not preclude the community's ability to comment on a nude about is that correct >> tabasco. if you're familiar with our community engagement process this is not change. they still get an early notification is this a pre-application meeting with the neighbors and then they file with the planning commission. the planning department reviews and then there is a required notice sent to people within a certain distance and then there's the required public hearing. >> commissioners thomas

commissioner zouzounis >> out of all the comment of my fellow commissioners before me about the retail space but on the bottom and how were going to move forward they cannot a little more of a safeguard for small businesses that can only afford smaller square footage. i echo that. but my question is kind of just logistics of it. is the city going to get this land and sold to a developer were there just going to help facilitate that directly? >> the city wall is limited to creating additional zoning options for developers. it is still requiring, unlikely development where we use eminent domain and things, this is still going to require a private sale transaction between the landover and the developer and an entitlement of the project by the private act. >> so there's no fear of

eminent domain? >> no. i must wish i did not say it out loud. >> that was my question. >> you heard it here. >> further, do you think you could explain to me the waiver and modification we give an example what can a waiver developer would request? >> sure. you're clearly reading deep in the mature. by the state law says not only extra density but you get some waivers or modifications in the planning code in order to offset the costs and make that density sits on the side. that's why we hired david baker architects. that's really square resort of this get whatever they want. we asked them to do an analysis and show here's a good architect and knows our neighborhood context. what waivers would you encourage your client to ask for. so, it could be a variance in the parking ratios. right now, all the districts program

are required to provide one to one parking. they might be able to get reduction on that up to a certain point. another one is exposure. this is him and that's commonly granted to the variance process their zoning administrator. your meds have a certain amount of like access from a certain place in the building and we often let people buried that a tiny bit. rather than having to ask for the variance you can have that is one of your where you is. this legislation takes a very strong position around with those waivers can and can't be in the spelled out in the legislation. the state law itself, which is how people with access this city wellness now, just as the developer gets 1-3 and its on the city's purview to defend why whatever they request should not be granted. it's on us to approve them wrong, essentially. >> so they could request some kind of way to get around

affordable housing? >> no. the affordable housing must be in the building. someone chooses to pay the fee rather than building units are not eligible for this program. >> okay got it. another question what is the ratio? is labeled affordable housing bonus program. but you said earlier and you can correct me if wrong, was 11,000 market rate plans 3000 moderate and 2000 very low? >> you get a bonus for doing your affordable housing. so if we the 5000 affordable housing 30%. and if we did not have this program on those same sites developed, which of those of comments about whether there huizar but were not the old zoning, we would have about 900 affordable units and 6500 at market rate. so we are going from 900 affordable to 5000

affordable units to this program >> potentially? >> over two years, thank you >> just quantify what the opportunity is. >> does that ratio pi as a whole to the units to the entire program there's not a ratio that's given specifically to a development project? >> no. each project must perform to 30% >> and that 900 to 5000 is not a race. potential opportunity involve 240 sites were developed to the maximum allowed by this new zoning. this new program. >> thank you. >> any other questions? otherwise will go to public comment >> one more question. this one about the retention and relocation program. i just had a quick-so businesses are not eligible for the cd3 program can still

>> our services are available citywide. if something were going to the specific broker services as an extension of existing and were packing is that as we relocation and retention. even if you're not relocating or existing businesses, we want to ensure their sustainable time and there was talk about some of the leases will be for many of the businesses at risk because leases expire and we want to be proactive. with them and provide as much support as we can to ensure as much is possible they stay at the same location that they can't they stay in san francisco. >> one more point of clarification. of these 240 sites, they're merely eligible for this program. that is not to say they're not also at risk of development for market rate

housing, correct? that would have to go through the normal process for market rate housing. this is just identified sites that could benefit from this program alone? >> that's correct >> the building i'm in today could be sold if the mark developer wants to market rate housing in there to go to all the requirements with you and you may or may not allow them in its allowable in zoning. this would make these sites available for this affordable housing program. so, it's kind of i mean-there is a an assumption that might be made that i am safe unless this happens. you are to save under any circumstances because once your lease is up in your owner decides i'm i want to do something different or might want to suggest cell. i'm going to sell who wants to buy the property and the property is likely purchased by a developer that something else might happen and might not fall under this purview but maybe some other kind of development. >> that's correct >> so fewer to say i'm not in favor of this. you're not saving

the business owner who happens to be in one of these locations from potential threats from another angle could you're merely saying i don't want this threat to be introduced. i mean, that's not this early solving the problem for someone who might be attendance at one of these locations. i just want to make it clear, to say well i'm in favor of affordable housing but i'm not in favor of this program because i think i'm worried about a couple small businesses, while this is not going to buy being against this you not saving them necessarily. it could be some other developer that displaces them otherwise. i think really what were looking for is a fair way of dealing with the potential in trying to figure out how to assist small businesses under any circumstance and here specifically this circumstance.

in fact, all the services that you identified are available to any business that might be disrupted or dislocated by any kind of development effort. right? even if there was a commercial redevelopment. i mean, that could happen also. some of could say your lease is up. i'm in a chair this building down and make a new commercial because i'm allowed to and this is one story and in fact zone for three and him and go for three and some other use. so its allowable. okay. >> commissioners, i want make a couple points for the public to make sure we understand. the cd3 program is for conditional use. there's a certain set of criteria for small or community based businesses that have to go through the conditional use process, that falls within certain criteria are eligible for the expedited process. there's a certain conditional

use types that are not eligible for that. so, many basic retail businesses are permitted as of right. clothing stores, bookstores don't have to go to conditional use. then, the cd3 does not cover the change of use. just to ensure that is very clean. when we are talking about it, i think what deanna has proposed is those businesses that either would have been eligible for the program had been in existence, that would not be going to the conditional use if they're in the same district, but sounds like just so i'm clear those

businesses that are not eligible for the cd3 but do require conditional as you would still be required to do the conditional use. >> if a business simply came to the end of its lease and faced a rent increase, and decided to leave their space and relocate, would they have to go through conditional use process again or under what circumstances would i not have to? >> i would say, mostly, by the way the planning codes are there some nuances but with safer restaurants that are bona fide eating establishments that serve pure and one, some areas that's permitted. some area that's conditional use. on the whole, the likelihood, yes, they would have to go through the conditional use process. >> i'm channeling my zoning administrator but basically what i've heard him say every time we work on this topic is we regulate land use, not businesses. because were regina owns a store and moves it here

that's not our planning code thinks about it. it thinks that this is a restroom. this is a nail salon or something so the cd3 was designed to help that person that business owner that's moving have as fast a path as we can. >> i guess what i'm getting a i can imagine that there is actually a windfall for certain businesses that might be displaced by this because they would be-they're going to be granted some extra favors because they're subject to this new program and we are going to let you move and were not going to subject you to some requirements that you might be subjected to were you to just well i don't want to pay more rent someone a move and i found another place more amenable, and better choice. then you have to go through all the standard hurdles. hopefully that's not the case >> i think actually this is unlike were saying two different things here? with what we give ud is proposing

and what kiersten covered with her presentation? >> the recommendation is for those that already have access to cd3 p, there's a set that are excluded such as massage establishments entertainment things like that, within that corridor, as long as it's within the same zoning district if you have access to the expedited conditional use authorization, then what were saying is waiving the requirement to go through conditional use. if you're located within the same, again. if you're locating outside potentially you might have to go through change of use depending on the type of business. those standards will still be there >> but if i voluntarily want to move my business within the district knows eligible for the

cd3-i don't know the acronym-process what i have to go through it again? >> yes. currently, to the extent those folks are impacted by redevelopment. >> if i want to move voluntarily i would have to go through the accelerated review process again. if i were forced to move under this program i would actually not be required. the proposal is that would be waived. that i would get to move and not go through the cu process the accelerated c process because i get a waiver. i'm subject to this hardship of having to move >> yes. in the zoning district >> i understand. but i would have to go through it again. i don't know to what extent this a valuable windfall but it's a windfall to a business that faces relocation anyway and says well my rent was can ago i got to move anyway. now i kind

of get a nice little waiver because- >> they was off to go to conditional use. justin expedited process. they would have to altogether avoid the process. it still-a level of review >> likewise, i suspect i'm going to be viewed favorably for a number of other potential services, relocation services, because i'm now been forced out rather than voluntarily forced out. i mean, it's an interesting perspective to consider that a business owner might actually receive a windfall here if in fact there subject to a forced move, which, in fact, carries conditions they're going to see any rate which is primarily a rent increase. because in none of this is going to happen before release comes do anyway as you pointed out.

>> i believe so >> just to identify, i think many of the businesses taking advantage of the cd3 are qualified eating a salad spencer food related businesses that serve more than beer than one. but we have had that where cu in a neighborhood commercial district taken advantage of it. there's some interesting businesses that if they are relocating in the same area that this would benefit >> [inaudible] >> the commission can make recommendations of a one to around what's excluded, but again, going with the discussion of the minimum of 18 months, we had to give that program a lot of consideration were giving is we know is a challenge around not just to

single out a restaurant but that is complicated. it's the largest amount of time to get through the process. so, heavier investments. some of that stuff is sort of also thought about in terms of us packaged to support those entities that might be impacted. >> i'm not trying to get tedious here. i'm point trying to point out that the drill down to the grander level to understand who is adversely affected it. we are progressively narrowing it down and were also identified that are actually some windfall benefits to some of those actors as well. so, i think i recommend that a, the database potential sites be made public so people can see up there on the list so we can all in evaluating who is on the list, and then understand in each of

those cases what is the impact to the business. is there a favorable impact? or is it unfavorable? then we can on a case-by-case basis deal with the real problem rather than perceived problem. we have one more commissioner question. commissioner ortiz-cartegnea >> i appreciate on qualifying the numbers. it stops the fear mongering. as commissioner pres. dwight said to narrow down the to forget my question would be is there any data of how much you commercial space will be available due to this legislation, and furthermore, based on that data how much affordable commercial space will be available. my question would be, with the variances, if you're a single store building and a big developer isaac, with a variance you of a

bigger-maybe starbucks goes. yes, the lease would be up but in your current state could be a lot more affordable as opposed to new development or maybe you have a catch your audience for the market >> were just improve the building to the point where it now commands a step up in rent that would not be commanded by the older structure. small businesses face effectively the same affordability crisis that residents do. we are all facing changing city. small business owners are not the richest of the rich here in town. they're scrapping out a living like everyone else. i think were mindful of the affordability crisis for small business and holy development projects can affect affordability as well. commissioner adams >> my question would be what the potential new commercial? >> i don't know.

>> we did run some numbers. however, because districts mostly don't require commercial right now they're really speculative. it is a higher number than we think is realistic. we think that many sites turned over we would kind of be having too much commercial space. we probably would take a look at where we want to require its and refine that number. it's also a little bit hard to guess on the ground floor projects are required to not have parking on the street front, but we don't know how far back they would choose to go with commercial and will start parking. does that make sense because right now, you're quite what you're parking on the ground floor rapid in commercial we don't know the ratio. i would be happy to give you a spectrum of numbers via e-mail to give a sense but i think you're really diving into

the bigger question, jeff posed during my presentation, which is, how do we help make sure that the smaller businesses are competitive. what attributes like we talked about the size a little bit but are there other attributes to a space that we can regulate to make it more competitive for neighborhood local businesses that we all know and love. if you have great ideas on a? >> what are the attitudes you talk about? >> well for my zoning perspective i thought about size and look at the strategic economic side on form in the retail, look at sheila. 6400 >> [inaudible] >> 6500 is the average formula retail sized square footage size. in our thinking we would want to go for smaller spaces but where is that magical number and i show you i'm happy to put up again, a slide of the

sizes currently for each district. >> you have that in your binder as well. >> that's for the formula the joe. sophie want to say all these buildings needed to have all 2000, 4000 were the majority or how do we want to think about that. i mean that something that planning has been working really hard on and would welcome the business side of it. we are limited in our knowledge and tools. we do a lot on the formula retail study. so size was one of the big issues. >> that's also going to be a topic of public comment when any developed is proposed, how the development is going to affect the character of the neighborhood and not sizing i think is important not to think the neighborhood is going to weigh in on that as well. as you pointed out, you can mandate some of that you can make some suggestions and kind

of suggest that you have a higher probability of having a project approved if you need suggestions rather than trying to go against them. >> we can them. i would hate to go so far in a couple years we have a bunch of really tiny vacant spaces everywhere but we can that. you get to that right size if that something this commission wants to recommend. we definitely- >> commissioner riley >> yes, music look at the use size limits. summer 2000 some 2500 and some 3000. i know it depends on the size of the lot but how'd you come up with those numbers because is it a percentage? >> if they can show the overhead the slide i have prepares it shows what our planning code currently requires

as they use size. again, now you're tapping into my knowledge of the history of the planning code, but i believe most of the neighborhood commercial zoning districts were established in the 70s through a community buying process and each neighborhood picked sort of the controls they thought worked best for their neighborhood. i think, more than other parts of the planning code was a been amended over the years those different businesses come to. those are coming from our planning codes. they are definitely something this legislation could address and amend. >> but currently stated, there already law. defined by the law by the code. >> correct. >> i was just wondering if it depends on the size of the lot >> it depends whatever is written in into the zoning for that particular site >> each parcel has a zoning

district and that's what determines the size. >> this program can amend that >> currently not but we can certainly provide guidelines on the commercial spaces for guidance. >> when we open this up to public comment if we don't have any other comments right now. okay so with an open this up for public comment. do we have any members of the general public >> yes. we do have some speaker cards. if paul warmer. paul weber. dennis in sonora. [calling names] for >> the speaker card is recommended but not required suing me accurate in iraq. >> good evening commission. thank you the opportunity to speak on this. i am curious on a couple things. i think the

number of sites, the 90s sites may be optimistically low. i suspect there are more units in the and cds single-story or above a single story marshall mezzanine. so i think that number needs to be scrubbed before you buy into its only 90 at risk. i am concerned about what i view as an overly optimistic assumption on the ability to relocate existing merchants give them a chance to return. 18 months notice. if it takes 18 months to get a project permitted, what does it take to find a new space, negotiate a lease, and if necessary to remodeling to bring it into state. 18 months manages very very quickly. i think that's a gloriously

optimistic number. it sounds great and wonderful but i don't think it does the deal. mcsorley concerned about the resumption you can actually successfully relocate the business and bring it back to its original location under a right of first return. especially given financing terms from lenders that may set specific credit requirements on a tenant that comes into the commercial space. i haven't heard any that discussed. that makes me concerned about the impacts on small business in the city. i'm concerned because one of the bonus issues is a height bonus. it turns out that in some of the and cds, if you get a little bit of extra height you get a killer view and that really changes the economics of very small projects. that may provide

incentives for displacement in commercial districts that really have not been looked at. so i'll stop there. i'm sure other people of more things to say, but as it stands now, i don't think this is fully baked in terms of its impact in terms of small business and needs a lot of work before it gets moved forward. >> good point. thank you. next? just to remind you, public comment is limited to 3 min. we give you a gong and 30 seconds. when not trying to be rude but it's a matter protocol. >> i am a former mining commissioner and i'm the current president of the last six years have been the president of the friends of city can get on very supportive of the planning department. most of our efforts in funding the planning department are around public participation encouraging its and facilitating it. this particular program unfortunately was made without any public input. the only public input occurred after the program was formed. so there wasn't program was not subject

to enough criticism prior to settling on what it would provide for. i would like to speak also to this question about the 240 units. it's a completely bogus number. there's no such 240 units. 240 parcels. that something that's not mentioned one word in this legislation. in fact, there is 30,000 parcels as were the commissioners pointed out subject to this. i went to my commercial district. i live in the inner sunset. i look i found 30 businesses in one-story buildings in which, but serving businesses in one-story buildings that will be portable. this is not easy dealing with 90 out of the 240. this is deal with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of parcels. there . this is deal with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of parcels. there are 30,500 parcels in this program with the exception of some that have been excluded. so, i am

extremely concerned about this. i believe very much in my neighborhood commercial district gets it's my neighborhood. it's how my new word is defined. we all know each other. i know the people in the businesses. this be terribly disruptive and terribly difficult for people and businesses as you know already i'm sure under stress right now without this program. there's a tremendous difficulty in maintaining yourself in the city with the expenses we have here. this is just going to add to it. it's going to motivate more and more displacement. it's like a form of redevelopment, which we all know failed terribly. it reminds me of robert moses in new york who went through with these grand schemes and then ended up destroying numerous neighborhoods that after all

these 50-60 years ago people regret to this day. they still talk about how horrible it was. in any case, i'm very concerned about this. one of the commissioners mentioned somebody with a $30,000 year income. they would qualify for any of this new additional housing. they would be qualified. in fact, a two teacher household unless they been teaching for 20-30 years, could not afford these units. so, what is being stated as affordable units are not affordable to the people there who this is intended for. there's a lot of problems with this program. it needs a lot of very very careful examination and analysis that hasn't happened today. >> i'm not trying to be rude. your points are well taken. thank you. next up, please. again i'm not trying to be rude. i just have to maintain proper protocol is everybody's entitled to again i'm not trying to be rude. i just have

to maintain proper protocol is everybody's entitled to 3 min. >> commissioners my name is dennis-, native san franciscan reported to resident. i'm here as part of the internet neighborhood sunset association am a strong advocate and actually spent a number of years building affordable housing in our community. we did all voluntarily. sadly, though, during the two years this program was developed it didn't involve either merchant committee business or community input. it just simply didn't. now i'm in the last several months, two months, all sorts of criticism raised because they were involved in the process. in my entire life-i paid a fair amount of attention to politics in san francisco every time a community is involved the process are far better. we served on fine signs

community, we picked a developer with so much input project is ultimately universally approved and unanimously supported and been a true gem and our community. it turned the lives of 114 families around. this particular project, the way it's designed, the weights drafted is a demolition program. it requires in order to get the bonuses of two stories or three additional stories the additional envelope to build to form density, as they call it, they have to demolish to the ground. it doesn't make any difference what is there. there is no provision that allows you to reinforce the building like we did with a soft story program. when we retrofitted for seismic concerns. that enabled also to businesses including the office space to work and when i ran a union in san francisco and they did all this to work while we were in the building. i don't see why

that can be done as part of this program. it was no consideration of this. it spells out demolition requirement. what's the point of that. we can build luxury condos and we can do soft story we don't require demolition but for affordable housing which i believe in, we have to demolish. that's really an interesting point of view. i don't agree with it. let me point out a couple of things. i have a soft story list of actually counted 256. there's about 50 of those sites that only have a block and lot number no educator i couldn't find it on the planning department maps. i live in the inner sunset and grew up near cole street when i was a kid. i went over to one side of 929: street. it consists of pharma, finnegans wake and a restaurant. three well-established, rooted in the community businesses. if that building goes, that whole block is going to go. i talked to

each of the owners. they're not at all happy about this prospect. directly across the street is the garage for cole's garage. i only want to make this point because one of the things that's happening is because the prices are going up in the city landlords are raising rents. so across the street which is not a soft site but would clearly be a soft street as soon as 921-929 goes is a grudge. >> dennis, i'm sorry. the thing is when i hit the reset it didn't trigger it. >> can i finish? >> you have 30 seconds. >> thank you. ivory coast read the landlord came to the owner of the lodge 25 years of good week: karen is going from 10,000, two $40,000. he's gone is been desolate trying to find

a place in san francisco. he can't. the reality is that talk to a lot of business people, a lot of them, just this last two weeks. they cannot find other places. they know they can't. i think this program needs a great deal more input from you guys two years ago not two weeks before goes before a possible speedo. and the communicate thank you. >> thank you for coming up. next speaker, please. make sure we- >> yes, i'll make sure >> minus paul weber m on the executive committee but telegraph delegate to the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. tonight i'm here on behalf of phd and we are opposing the program. we are about is a quintessential neighborhood as one will find in the city. to think of what

this would do to small businesses, but wanting a break from that and clear up a couple things mentioned earlier. number one, this rent-controlled fixed the city talks about is very very limited. first of all it doesn't apply to those who want to use a state program. repeat. does not apply. what does by there has to be a replacement all right, but there replaced by affordable housing. by means tested housing. no rent-controlled tenant going back in there. secondly, even for the two programs that have been discussed it only applies if the rent-controlled property is still standing. there's nothing to prevent the developer from becoming an and demolishing a whole building and coming in

applying for the program. some of you have mentioned this is just one of the few programs, but i think one has to focus. the density increase-and this could be 35%-the height limits can go up by two and three stories. i can't believe-i'm sure you don't either that's not have a significant impact on the value of those properties. so, let's talk about now how is can affect small businesses. i'm very close to small businesses where i live. i go get sandwiches and milk and i eat in restaurants. those places will all be gone. they will all be gone. in our neighborhood we have very strict formula retail. so by definition these folks are not part of chains. moreover, not only will they be gone good they can't afford to wait 2-3 years and try to get back in at a market rate. you know as well as i do those marked percolate

to the astronomical. moreover, the we pressure somebody else where the lenders for those buildings have a mcdonald's go in. so, we urge you tonight to not approve this program sent back to the drawing boards and that the neighborhoods participate in it at this time. >> thank you very much. >> stephen cornell. first thing i want to bring up we talked about changing the see you go with the property or go with the business owner making it easier, it usually goes of the property. what can happen to the old cu. if you're in one property it has a cu for a sega restaurant in la want to go us to get to the old one keep its cu? somehow the landlord's goes out if they lose it were

now you have two additional uses for nick and neighborhood room you only have one before. it's opening the hornets nest that. i think all the stuff the devil is in the details. i'll tell you my story. i businesses over 100 years old. we had to go under retrofit for earthquake retrofitting. my landlord's came and said i have to move out for two months minimum. this would be a nightmare for retail store. i found a place across the street. i had to go through the cu process and i stake for individual businesses, wipe them out, and make one new place. it goes above the 2500 square-foot limits they had and the square footage in the cities not just street for. account everything. basement even though it's not open to the public. it counts as part

of your square footage. i the neighborhood association present with me. the merchants association present for me. the city was all a long look at this was a 4.5 month process work every thing going perfectly smooth. but one civil person against it. that's a lot of rent for small business to be paying double. to rents going to all the steps and a lot of anxiety in between. that's what can happen when all these things move. i think you have to take that into consideration. for moderate sized business, a hardware store, a small places not good. new buildings are built in multiple stories celica single-story building. they now the stairwell going up. kevin elevator going up. have air conditioning and everything else going up. so, what was a 3000 square-foot footprint in the single-story building, now is going to be something like three quarters of it am a 2200

square-foot. it makes a big difference. you don't have as much usable space and you usually don't have a basement that's going to be very important. thank you. >> my name is-i'm a resident of the sunset parkside district. i'm here to urge the commission to continue this item until the planning department has made a presentation to the council district merchants. i have talked with a board member of the caravelle parkside merchants association who supports this idea. what i have here on the overhead is one of the soft sides which was in the presentation today. this is in the sunset parks. it's on 20 as

it is currently a gas station. another soft site is a noriega at 30th, which was also in the presentation. this is actually a safeway store. so, it appears that apartment doesn't want us to pull up our tanks or also does not want us to eat. we say we encourage neighborhood serving businesses and even protect them with formidably kill legislation. on the other hand, were willing to displace them if they're in the way of building more housing. to me, this seems a bit schizophrenic. please give the neighborhood serving businesses a chance to weigh in on this before the commission makes a final recommendation. >> thank you. any other members of the public?, anna. >> my name is-president of the northeast business association. we have met. we've seen the legislation and we discussed it. after the discussion at the end of the day we decided to

oppose it. it's true and developer can come by building, tear it down and go to the audit process, but this is another way to do. it's another technique. not only that we were talking also about the process of the construction. but say they don't demolish the building. they start doing the contract. what would happen to the business itself? a lot of things are involved in that. the right of return, that means something else to me. it's great but let's go find another landlord that would let the business-i'm talking only about north beach. we have a ban on formidably to get every civil business in north beach the small business. mom-and-pop. we've are restaurant owners that come in with her kids and

wives. my family and i were semicolons café for you could be there for 60 years. moving for a year or two is impossible because you can't find another landlord would sign you a two-year contract. you can rent until you find your spot that. so, i would really encourage the commission to think about the small business. more than 90% of businesses in the united states did speaking about the moms and pops. >> thank you. any other comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, there've been some excellent comments made. i, for one, would like to know more about how we how 30,000

sites becomes 240 becomes 90. i'm not attempting to over simplify. i'm attempting to quantify. there's any way to do so. so, i'd like to know more about that so that i'm not accused of oversimplifying it. there is no question that interruption of business and whether it resulted in a suspension of business or relocation, whether temporary or permanent is problematic for any business. i own a small business by so. relocating my business would be tumultuous, to say the least. so, i don't think any of us would minimize the impact in both expense and basically your business awareness of your present location. especially if you been there a lot. we don't mean to trivialize any of the things. that being said, i think were also not here to be obstructionist. we have to figure out what is the

reasonable thing for this city is a city that needs more affordable housing and must do construction projects. it's not good to happen without that. so, were all good have to find a way to get to a place where we have a compromise even if we have to agree to disagree on certain points. i, for one, feel the need to know more. i don't know about my fellow commissioners. i do feel making any kind of decision to support or not support tonight is problematic because this is the first time that we've heard this in this amount of detail and it's the first time that we've heard any public comment on the matter. i would like to have another public comment session where people came with suggestions, not just criticisms

. not saying those criticisms are not justified, but i think it's always best to get to a place where not only do you that the obvious problems and criticisms, but you try to find solutions that you think in your camp are acceptable with the goal of trying to strike a compromise. so, anyway, i like to know more about that and i to hear from the public on that as much as i'd like to consider it as a commissioner. i don't know if my fellow commissioners have other comments in that regard. we will start with commissioner adams >> i would agree with you, for once. the one thing this commission did approve, and we worked with planning on that, was the soft story issue. we all sat here and agreed on that

>> i wasn't your >> i know commissioner dooley and commissioner riley was. there are some issues right now with soft story. know some very good landlords who are working with their businesses while they do their retrofit projects. some have actually, i know of some cases in the marina with the landlord has actually had businesses relocate , stop the lease and lease resumes once i moved in. they were made recently wanted to get this project done. they got that rare opportunity. yet some good developers i'm in good landlords that. one of the things in that process is, we do not hear from a lot of other people being affected. i would like to hear-i would like to hear from them. what is the timeframe on this legislation?

>> the legislation was introduced september 29 by the mayor. it's been at commission for several hearings. they're having another hearing on the 25th of this month. should they choose to act it would be sent to the land use committee or if they continued that, they have more time to deliberate note be sent to the land use committee. i believe that there'll be multiple hearings of the board of supervisors before the final legislation. if you want to make your recommendations both to the planning commission and the board, we can meet again this month or if you want to send one message to the commission and later to the board, >> i do have like commissioner dwight a list of the businesses and the one thing is the size of the space. right now in upper market under market octavia-i think this was a

student in market octavia which i do support, company use that word because in market octavia when looking at large spaces now they're sitting vacant. not letting formula retail going tois. i will cite a very good developer angus mccarthy and his development that no we and 16 the market st. which is just outside of market octavia. he got formula retail in the one large space which was allowed, what that did it about three small businesses to get below market rate into those other spaces in know your three minority owned businessesis and they are thriving. i think that's good. you also with keisha, whoa block down who wound up playing with her space. now you have a restaurant and a bar. which the neighborhood wanted. so, i

personally if i had any recommendations, go to smaller spaces. i would like to have more public comment from some of the other neighborhoods. we're hearing a lot from inner sunset and north beach. i'd like to hear from some of these other neighborhoods and their concern. some of them are valid. but like i said, we economist up with the soft story because i'm hearing some horror stories out there with a soft story right now. oe wds working with its people enough that the tote of ew's doing a great job with working with a lot of these people because i hear that. what you do is very good. i don't want to-i feel like we have a second chance this legislation in that because women have some small businesses lost. although, the flipside is its middle income housing and you've got to build

this stuff. we have a housing problem in this town. whatever it takes, i'm sorry they want to build high-rise higher buildings out in the sunset, but you know what, they're going to need higher buildings in the sunset to meet these goals of putting people in housing in the state of san francisco. so they don't need to move outside help the city. i want to make sure, this is a citywide problem and not by district. i do agree with you that it should've been more public comment i had of time. and more involvement because your project across that's close to my neighborhood. i looked other than lower twin peaks. i know people who live there. what you did between the two schools there is amazing and i looks beautiful that's part of the neighborhood. we should have more of that. but

we do need in san francisco to build more housing, higher up, and we do need to house some of the smaller businesses workers because what's getting scary, these restaurant owners they can keep staff anymore. small businesses can keep staff anymore. they're all leaving. we need to do something to address that to get some other type of housing in here so these people don't leave. that's what concerns me. i'm a small business owner but tonight i want to thank the speakers because i did open my mind up some. i appreciate that i thought there would be more public comment i had of time before i heard this, but-that's when the soft story thing popped into my mind because you have issues with that and i feel like let's make this one right. let's get some more public hearing on this and hear from some of these businesses.

those are my concerns >> if i could add to your request our team has been compiling all the public comment we've received from. one thing i could there for you for future commission hearing all the comments we received as it relates to your issues. given that 30 community building could >> i do not know that >> copy happy to bring that document to you. we have about 30 of them. >> great. >> commissioners, a couple things. just to clarify we have the september 22 meeting which is the money. it's an afternoon meeting >> do you mean february? >> i'm sorry. february. the monday before the planning commission meeting. >> okay. commissioner dooley >> on fairly similar with this project and like my fellow

commissioners that over some major problems with this. you just can't go forward as it's written. when we bring up a few points. first of all, the dependence of small businesses on their located i myself am a living example of that. when i business had to relocate by two blocks it hurt my business. we are now assuming that they're even going to be up to find something two blocks away. local businesses depend on their neighborhoods. they cannot be relocated and be thinking they will succeed. especially with the fact even if we put in a right to return it's going to be a market rate. believe me, those developers are not to be kind about that. they're going to be thinking we don't need that mom-and-pop business. we'll just get some high-end whatever and charge three times the rent that normally would have been before. the other thing that is disturbing to me iwh