learned the small businesses are getting short nose before they need to relocate and i'll leave to a joaquin to explain that the other thing the program offices access to the priority processing for small businesses that need relocate and finally joaquin b will talk about the relocation services that the oewd offers for them before i hand it over or over i want to remind you it operationally is before the process of environmental impa environmental review before when notification and construction starts that's as drafted currently. >> so at this point in time

i'll invite joaquin to talk about the investment in the neighborhoods thank you. >> google commissioners, thank you very much for thank you for having me. i'm joaquin in the omens i'll present on the relocation programs that current exist and oun once we're developing with the small businesses and kiss across the city and the partnerships are the office of economic workforce development and the small business existence center i want to say that, of course, in our other was recognized the challenges that small businesses face ♪ dynamic connective environment we actually building that both with the existing tools and resources we have currently as the ones that are developing as we speak sufficient tools to address the needs of of our small business community and supporting our city's housing goals

>> so just for a moment i'll talk about the programs we have that are available to our small businesses those include the small business consulting we believe in sustainable and profitable visits with an one-on-one target businesses and having the item advances and inventory and bookkeeping to help the businesses. >> and in addition to that legal and negotiation assistance to make sure vethey have the expertise to help them in dealing with their lease most importantly their tools and piece that a business can have in relationship to a purchasing and department strategies for the help to awe lightwell the burden and access to capital in

loan and financing option that available as small businesses our ada cap inspections make sure the liabilities that small businesses face is reduced they're aware of what is feasibility in dealing with the accessibility issues our facade and program called sf shines the rate can be used to help to leverage a stronger lease or lease negotiations where the property owner and then the investment the neighborhoods corridor initiate in each of the we're able to assist small businesses across the city and connect them with resources and the repair and brok broker services is he talk about space sharing assistance and the banking and loan assistance and the one-on-one xhoulgs and banking approvals with personal

guidance how to have additional legal assistance and the technology they can best utility the services and then as or sajsz some of the new programs we're building on the experience we have working on the ground with the small businesses and partners and we have the retention program that is small business consulting and case management and real estate and relocation assistance and individual to help folks find out where the affordable spaces are and sharing the spaces and being in line with the communities with the businesses may relocate and professional planning the path of small businesses in addition legacy registry and business grants and small business acceleration and restauranteurs are a great way

to style to work with the small businesses the future so those are some of the items we have in place right now and continue to develop and then to talk about the additional recommendations that we've been working with the planning department i'll ask kirsten to come up and talk about those. >> thank you joaquin. >> so as joaquin said we've been working closely with the commission and oewd to strengthen the retention and relocation strategy for any of the existing businesses that could need to move as a result of the program and this is to offer any of the existing businesses first right of refusal to return to the new space so we're meningimagining g

up don't conversation within the property own project sponsor if in small business owners is returning to the space they can work with the pertaining roperty owner projec to meet their needs and accommodate their business we could see how they wanted to show a goodwill to the community in serving the business the second idea is one around relocation cost for those businesses this is also an idea generated through comments from the commission so similar to how the new formula relocation we're proposing that the project sponsors will pay a fee to cover some or all the relocation costs for the small businesses that need to be relocated and finally and call the roertainly from oe us he, he we think that minimum

notification to a business when they futile they need to relocate and actually not need to relocate should be 18 months especially a xraktsd business li like restaurants how long to go through the new space and figure out their capital planning we don't knthen this this will cos the project sponsor much because from the process to the environmental impact to planning is 18 months and finally we didn't talk about this too much but the small business commission had a number of interesting conversations about what happens to the neighboring building it is if my business stays here i want to make sure that the commercial corridor is maintained with the character of the existing small-scale is commercial businesses we looked at the neighborhood commercial controls and their residency

restrictive and an opportunity for a cu but we wanted to get the commission the authority to reduce the size of those spaces to make sure they maintain the commercial corridor character and to sorry reduce the sizes and require the commercial use in some cases project sponsors may not include the commercial on the ground floor and most of commercial corridors and rc commercial is not required we wanted to give the commission of the that you hapurview to do tht way to build that commercial corridor so and so those are our remedies any clarifying question otherwise move on to the final topic. >> does appear to be any

clarifying questions. >> i'll invite monique up again. >> i'll be discussing top 6 where we are swef the affordable housing bonus plan the topic of affordability so over the past few months the following questions requiring why not address the low income household stevedored by affordable housing bonus program and should there is elements the program before we address the questions he wanted to review the current proposal the hpc will be having the program it is unique not requiring public subsidy by incentive cvs a absolute number of affordable housing and spectacular similar no the inclusionary program and to serve low income households

board of directors the households to include the middle-income it didn't provide the housing for the lowest san franciscan this is only one of the city's many programs for the affordable housing most of city's programs serve the low income and i'd like to invite sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing and community development address some of the concerns we've heard. >> good evening commissioners and sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing and community development and i'm joined we kate hartley our deputy for housing thank you for the opportunity we're emphasis about the program it increases

the proximate of affordable housing i want to run through a few slides to address a top on defined terms and describe the portfolio the second point to highlight the needs in the affordable gap and i want to summarize what we see as a positive impact the projegrammi thi program on the production level. >> there so to start what is affordable housing and what are are we talking about the table on the screen details the salaries for single person heral holde households and families of 4 of a person 50 percent of area memoranda income is $36,000.51 for a family of four and by craft a person earning 84 is

moderate and a single person earning hundred a middle-income earner earning the 41 percent of medium inflicting income i'll try to keep those numbers in mind and i'll describe this is not very legible this table describes the income rages that the affordable housing serves it includes our existing program as well as our projected pipeline and in the fourth column the impacts that the affordable housing bonus program will have been the production i want to make one correction in the second row which reads very low and low to moderate income and lower income up to 60 percent ami so just to maybe highlight what some of the numbers mean this is

seeing under the city's existing affordable housing portfolio about 40 thousand units 92 persevere households that earner up to 60 percent e-mail the vast majority of portfolios serves low and very low households why this is because first, of course, the greatest need but also, because we take each local san francisco dollars and leverage that with state and local programs to turn it both additional dollars we have the of our to leverage up to 60 percent ami 92 perris of the existing portfolio not just one portfolio but all the programs in the city this also shows that about 8 percent of our portfolio is about 3 thousand 200 units

serve households earning between havi 60 and one and 20 percent ami what's the units by and large not pubically fund but privately colleagues, can we take that without objection? that are you pursued to save the section of the planning corouts ocii or the former redevelopment agriculture ever is come down conversion program of our existing portfolios about 40 thousand units 32 units that serve households between one we 20 to 50 percent ami that's effectively zero percentage >> we haare supportive of the proposed density program because we see in the fourth column more units and a wider band of households served

i'm certainly happy to go back and answer questions why does all that that matter i think there are i know there is criticism about the middle-income target for the sclks product through the density bonus program households earning up to one and 40 percent ami 1 at $43,000 for a family of four are not lucky enough to be in stable housing are effectively shut out of the san francisco market they face an affordability gap at one and 40 percent ami market-rate relents are about $3,500 phenomenon one bedroom and 2 hu00 and 5 thousa dollars for a three bedrooms by the by craft affordable restricted rent for one and 40

percent ami i mean owe, go through the numbers much less the blocks of red the difference between market-rate rents and mid-market households can favored an affordable one and 40 percent ami represent for one bedroom is 2 thousand plus two bedroom 2 thousand plus and three bedrooms 3 thousand 200 and $10 that program provides a might ha modifi modest b amount of housing for middle-income housing units without requiring any public subsidy i'll wait a second i want to address two of the questions before i move on mr. moore had

an brought up first why does the affordable housing bonus program addresses this low to modest households it does i'll switch from the presentation from the slides to the overhead and they'll probably not come up by way of example i want to highlight the goal of the 100 percent affordable housing bonus program on four upcoming affordable housing projects and let's see for each the upcoming projects the column i dictat indicated shows the density loud from the current building and the next column the total number of units that we would be able to build if we apply the state sdenlt program the existing program that is available and then the last column the total number of units to produce using

the local density program for 100 percent affordable housing the defensive d is 6th distrisi if we use the local program to get far grammeater units. >> the second question that ms. mohan brought our middle-income housing served by market-rate no, if households earning up to one and 40 thesaurus if in thth not in market-rate their priced out and i want to take a moment to say this diverts public resources from the affordable housing that serves the 40ur8dz the greatest needs or community to do that i'll highlight in go districts they're significant gentrification go pressures district 10 and district 9 we

anticipate investing close to $400 million in 5 years those dollars are more low income housing the density program bonus program will not take away any of those dollars or divert them towards middle-income program the sdenlt program will precede in parallel and add to the investment by providing might have housing it proceeds that housing we don't say remember we currently have 32 amusements if the city portfolio with households earning above the ami by way of the conclusion i want to reiterate we see two clear benefits the first is that it creates a means to produce you middle-income honors without

any resources and the charter 100 percent density bonus will allow us to increase our production immediately thank you. >> so as she present the historic preservation commission is gone tool to produce the affordable housing building on the cross-examination program that serve low and mourtd income for 90 percent ami ownership only projects that powdrovides affordable housing are available for the affordable housing bonus plan that incentivised the project that pays in lui fee for the units opponent onsite low and mourd are households in san francisco translate into many

occupations with a single hour keeper and teacher and police officer or firefighter was one child and a clerk with two children and house cleaner with two children. >> the ahbp produces an additional 2 units for households more than double the nine hundred colleagues, can we take that without objection? under the counter zoning on the same sites an embarrassment to san francisco to provide affordable housing for low and medium households those inclusionary housing programs requirement from 1992 to 2014 have resulted in nearly 2 thousand 0i7b89 affordable units the same numbers that program will produce >> ms. hoovd went over this in

2014 medium income households 40 percent of ami could afford the following prices 21 hundred for a one person hours and 1 and 89 rents are much higher before those rents the medium income will dedicate 40 percent of their income to the rents and again twice a middle-income households what forward their earner sixth higher than than the housing program but maefrt is out of the price for the middle-income earners a middle-income households has a single electrician or police a blanls dispatcher and hour keeper two public teachers and a police officer and firefighter with

additional rents. >> ahbp will produce an additional 3 units permanently quotes ahbp to design to compliment the program and housing units the city to insure the city and county of san francisco can remain an equitable and inclusive city if the parts decades households have benefited from rent control, however, changes to the state law have reduced the housing supply limited the subsidies can continue to serve the low and moderated households but as the ahbp and borderienabl serve low and moderate households some neighborhoods the bayview the ahbp can have an adjustment mohcd has described

they're within the city but the bayview receiving a high percentage of affordable housing the bayview has a higher household earning 31 thirty percent of eastern by 56 earner between 50 percent of ami and one and 50 percent of ami they'll, intensified the ahbp additionally, there are two positions to help insure that the residents can access the lower market-rate housing the first a recent adapted legislation the neighborhoods preference that legislation procure to 40 percent of all inclusionary housing to be available to existing neighborhood residents in provision enables the existing residents to seek housing the district the second is part of ahbp draft ordinance in order to insure those affordable housing

are bloufelow-market-rate all affordable units are blow a particular housing costs for example, figure a project the bayview was entitled the local ahbp before the 18 percent that are intended to the residents are marked the project sponsors are required to demonstrate middle-income target one 20 percent or one 40 percent are 20 percent blow the costs for the bayview 0 should the city finds they're available for the e-mail households while beneglecting the rate the project sponsor will be respectfully yours, requir required to reduce the cost to one and 20 percent ami and market those units for the qualifying hours this enables the program tobacco flexible to a market over time

to address comments about affordability the department recommends the following amendment within the constraint the feasibility the program permits the - the higher share the apples and oranges to be provided for householders making 100 percent of ami or one and towing percent for ami the affordable housing will be met through the program at the same time as kristen statistics the disdain to incentivize the pardon to provide 80 percent onsite as opposed to the state analyzed it 20 percent onsite in general lower the income leaves could we have impacts on the feasibility project and as the local program

is less and less feasible - and the scale maybe tipped towards the is a stated analyzed program or a project sponsor may choose not to produce any below-market-rate but identify the relationship continue the lower income tasht addresses owe feasibility that concludes my presentation. as a reminder two items before you today first, the proposed amendment to the planning code and a proposed amendment 2509 general plan and there are a number of staff for questions or comments including representati representatives from the city attorney's office and small business commission and mohcd thank you for your time. >> a capture of clarifying questions commissioner wu. >> i had a relayed clarifying question there is 3 programs in front of us the local program,

the state and 100 percent quotes to can those separate could we decide to approve the 100 percent affordable program but not the local program. >> i can answer that i believe you can make whatever recommendation to the board of supervisors on the package that is before you if you wanted to make comments on the particular programs. >> i'm trying to thinks the particular proms commissioner antonini and i get questions where the i'm available to answer any questions you may have are take place from i assume we've been talking about the amis are if the city and county of san francisco. >> educating hartley mayor's office of housing and community development the amis referred are published by hud they're

called tech the unadjusted area medium income for the fair market rent in san francisco that's a larger area that is a 3 county area san mateo, marin and san francisco the reason we eye the hudson under the adjusted ami because it is the standard by which affordable housing finance works hud use these nuns when we develop longer housing the ever investors can assess those and as states housing the community development uses overseeing numbers it is the industry standard more affordable housing development there's the ami simply

represen represents a certain income income level san francisco has a slith slightly lower number think outside the box san mateo if you want to reach household at say let's say for a 100 percent of area mediums one person is 71 thousand if san francisco that number might be 65 thousand for a 100 percent area medium income a matter of drafting the value if it is the area medium area income level you want to reach it is important we use it unadjusted ami we can he'll and efficiently develop affordable housing with in conjunction with all the other many multitude

financing the rearena as far as housing prices that remains higher in san francisco. >> yes. we're higher. >> that's part of valuation. >> commissioner hillis wyatt's where do the medium existing medium rents come from. >> are you talking about the market. >> we pulled them in tfrom th data companies i think we used dismissal low and look at it rent jungle there is variations but those are pretty recognizth

adequate. >> that's it didn't incorporate the rent control rent not in san francisco but what is on the market right now that maybe a unit from rent control to vacancies. >> so the issue maybe in some neighborhoods it is closer to affordable rent it is lower do we have neighborhoods that breakdown the market-rate. >> that would be helpful if we have it available do we get close to the affordable monthly relent in any neighborhood like the sunshiet how low compared t the one and 40 percent ami. >> well, for one bedroone bed the average is 25 sorry for one

bedroom market-rate is 35 hundreds dollars a 40 percent ami 40ur8d can favored $2,500 if so even in lower priced neighborhoods that a stretch but there is variation yes. >> what's the low ends up do we know what low end is 27 or 25 or 31 hundred. >> i can get that data for you, we find that generally speaking those middle-income households up to one and 50 percent ami have trauouble competing the math place but generally speaking middle-income households are priced out of market rate housing and wheel get that that's why the market analysis requirement is really important so you have to

demonstrate that the ami level your proposing to reach is and that price might remain 20 percent blaefrt. >> i want to clarify for the record the two 40 is only an overflow room rental up to one 20 you i think the issue still stands but to clarify. >> commissioner vice president richards can you help out on the 20 percent below-market-rate or register register rent-controlled unit basically what we found the the existing inclusionary housing if the market dropped bloody whatever the sale was meant to be whatever income that was hard to sell that units that's the beginning of the thinking what if you build a unit not as

opposed to be equality limited at a households of one and 40 percent ami it is hard to get people to more often and more compelling the market is delivering at one 40 we want it 20 percent blow the market in the neighborhood let's say a project is online in visitacion valley their meant to be selling one and 40 middle-income units and we do they do a market study we find that the market is at the one 40 or thirty they'll be required to dial down the price and the cultivating howard by 20 percent the units will effectively be a one 20 or one 10 he forgot homeowners

opportunities. >> a focus you have to legal on the market. >> this is our way to see in the program that spans over 20 years and a large variety of neighborhoods our market-rate we want to create a program that is robust. >> the next question is in terms of the federal taxation dollars for the nonadjusted bayview medium ami how will this project relate to that if you want to use if tax considerate for appropriate to use where inform tax credits are involved. >> kate hartley easy of administration of the programs it is important we used the adjusted chart for all affordable housing we'll we need

to reach people homeless people to people other 50 up to 60 a measure of a certain inco this level reach people that earner $50,000 a year on the unsnuffed adjusted chart on san francisco it is a deficit number it is possible to reach lower income people if i change the inclusion level and only want to have more san francisco rents it is san francisco incomes excuse me. but you it is a feasibility study and so in my opinion users how steady am i is it better it is lower or covers for people or san francisco specific number

better for forgot the administration in terms of the reach the effectiveness of the program which number it better. >> again, i think i know in our 100 percent affordable projects we've reached a huge range not huge range but the wide range from zero to 60 and so where we see on which unadjust chart is sort of immaterial to the fact we're able to serve low income people 92 percent of the housing we produce the non-restricted tax credit units again, i think that you can use this chart the question is 55 percent of e-mail or one and 40ers ami where we want to

be or should those numbers be lower i think that it is really a question of faebeasibility anals in the market-rate development e development you have to pay tax credits sorry pay property taxes your basically covering the operating experience expenses so let's serve people at 50 percent hud unadjusted ami or 40 percent but start to you know need cross subsidy for just to cover operating experiennse so the chr is not really the, you know, something we need to- that's prophetic. >> okay >> so would you have something to add. >> sophie hayward from the

mayor's office of economic workforce development mayor's office of housing and community development i want to add in the inclusionary housing program overflow room units are priced at 90 percent ami and that was in using this chart that was to sort of take into account 10 percent doorstop from 100 percent ami if this makes sense so rental units use the same chart rental units are price at 55 and overflow room are priced at 90 percent e-mail aami and te lower medium income 100 percent ami. >> so if you use the u.n. adjusted number what number would you think 70 or 82 what is

that all $71,350 for a single person and what about lower. >> 10 percent lower. >> if you use the san francisco number it could reach more people. >> that's correct. >> because of lower income. >> that's correct there are people that know more of the history of the clkdlgs but one e low they were using two different dharts for the san francisco inclusion preamble hud unscombrauftd for the rest of the portfolio that is confusing in order to reach the same households the decision was made to drop the ownership price for 100 percent ami of the 10 percent difference. >> what is done for the rental. >> from 40 to percent.

>> moovd one question when we talk about the bottom line for rental let's say it is 55 percent you've seen in the past years you've not made over that amount so you can be making very, very low amounts you'll qualify only have an area that number's is absent higher might includes for people on the cr t cutocusp but won't dismiss anyone making less and for the purpose of the clvgs the 55 are the price points not the eligibility points the units are priced at a rent that is affordable to the househol households earning 45 percent or priced to scale to sell to a

households earning 90 percent the for sale in the go inclus n inclusionary program you can have a buffer it go up to earn up to withholdi100 percent ami side with your assets are counted in the eligibility process in the screening process. >> i understand two different things pricing or rented or ownership for purposes of the what the renter or the ownership prices but also the level of income you know the level of you can be blow those numbers to confli confidentiali quality. >> you can't say make maximum. >> but minimums for rebatntal

housing. >> no there is minimums. >> kate haitily you need to be able to afford the rent is yes, if 55 percent of the maximum is the price point on rental we do get households who earn 50 percent and sometimes less than that but at a some .2 bernie madoff if you're t is burdensom hud standard it is set at percent 33 percent sorrow the rents sorry the rents at that level is 45 percent that rents would be 33 percent of the households grow income some people pay 33 percent or 45 percent it becomes a burden once

your offer 40 percent of your income. >> as i understand in tax credit in rental i can be a person that applies more affordable housing but if i cannot feasibly make the rents i'll be rejected. >> that's right i'll say it is very, very typical for in our tax credit development for households to earn less in income than where the price is set. >> yeah. >> okay. >> i believe that concludes staffs presentation thank you opening it up for public comm t comment. >> there is- the organized opposition should get the first

10 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners doug i represent the san franciscans for communities planning as you may know i serve odd the commission many, many years ago and a little bit of remembering they adapted adopted the first amendments i'm here to discuss topic 4 only 3 speakers cannot coffer all 6 topless when is a concern and taugenunciate e a disceconcern to you i was astonishastound the planning staff recommended the approval to hear and decide on those projects that in a process i will consider one of the biggest sub zoning in san francisco in the placing last having years maybe

35 hundred units but a huge up zoning for the city and the city planning commission has to be at the core under the original legislation and even i think under the amendment that is proposed by staff tonight it is unprecedented emotidelegation o powers to the staff are the board of appeals or the board of supervisors and that will set a huge, huge bad precedence for other types of legislation which wants to remove the authoritatiy of that commission to make decisions if you look to the staff presentation ms. mohan's you can have the design authority a andfieand filled with the mix but what

about the density and the size and owes ami of the units and if you don't like it turn down the project i didn't hear that in her presentation and if you been what they've said this not one-size-fits-all your good evening to have buildings of different size and mixed and in different neighborhoods exactly the kind of project that deserves the conditional use authorization which is what was the planning code and for this kind of project and to have this wish i didn't wash i didn't do this but not other things undermines our authority if a very, very important topic the city so i urge you don't aggregate to your your responsibilities and legislate our authority over these projects that is working the same program they don't

require it why does the city trying to limit our authority forgot about section 328 and precede with and look at its projects separately so that is one reason start over again and get that legislation right thank you very much. >> lauren from san franciscans for communities planning we are attended to the affordable housing bonus plan and we urge the commissioners to do not adopt a position as advocates of the community planning we don't oppose development we are very much in favor the building more affordable housing

but a massive new government plan first and foremost has to protect what we have the diversity of the people and local businesses and character and culture what we achieve that preservation and build for the future we think there are two crafting schools of planning thought one is a conventional approach it is built on well tensions design and global economic of profit taking this approach says the professionals know what is best for the residents and the approach is implied to everyone everywhere without expectations for differences this approach requires an numerous amount of fine

refunding u tuning and an approach that is one of innovation and all the messy creativity creative glory san francisco is comprised of many villages it is character and unique that approach starts with the blank elevate it fills it with the voices of the neighborhoods their wants their needs, their ideas of the kind of future that they're going to are to live with for the rest of their lives the apps affordable housing bonus program is an example of the first approach conventional top down really minimal communities input that is deny as add ones and after the fact that is repackaged citywide rezoning that is a too fast track plan for greater height and density and great less open space

a narrow range of units and most of them still unquotaffordable it is with a blue jeans not a tool a month ago what was presented in this chamber with the accountable divisadero in the corridor the divisadero plan was development imperial by neighborhoods residents and business people and encourages future building with density incentives requiring true affordability with families and up to the san francisco medium income levels it bans the demolition of rental units and recognizes and specific addresses the impacts in that neighborhoods of new this on transportation and infrastructure

the affordable verse did care was a convenience reached in more 3 months developers if you're life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we offend the accountable verse did care plan as illustration and inspiration and framework what could be accomplished when neighborhoods generate the basis of plan and then you work within that developers will find plenty the profit incentives and an numero enormous amount of progress to planners and san francisco officials we say if you choose the initiative approach and have the affordable housing bonus program and use the neighborhood voices as a benefit the basis of a new one you can accomplish the affordable goals and at the same time demonstrating the developers and planner and neighbors can accomplish so much

more 2rib8 contributing in partnership not opposition thank you. >> i see i have epilepsy two minutes i'm for san franciscans for community planning i'm summarize ahbp the solution it didn't involve recipient and neighborhood merchants it laid a displacement plan by macro changes and insists on the merchant displacement plan the staff failed to remove the most threatening demolition of local businesses i'm goinot going to this in there should be no mandatory demolition of retail preserving the viable businesses should be policy and planning has to make the rent-controlled

maybe remove paralycels from th ahbp eligibility but the department will up zone many parcels the neighbors business district clearly in our view an agenda to displace and since no evidence from the board will exempt all 72 hundred members that leaves many parcels on the corridors subject to demolition and displacement of the businesses and will establish a license and zoning law ferry the displacement of perhaps thirty thousand parcels i was going to comment on the 240 it looks like it down to 2015 and all the time that was a guess now basically, we should look at soft sites and start with the small business commission said start with vacant sites and see how that works and work collaboratively with merchant and with the

residents thank you. >> commission timing afford an opportunity for the disabled to come up and speak. >> hi a good evening, commissioners i'm george the communities coalition urges hang on please. >> urges the commission to pass the proposal to the board of supervisors today without recommendation brown for

4 reasons no actual language the demolition of most or any other housing the measure and it seems like the only time there will be any such language is when the matter is before the board of supervisors so we should get it to the dos as quickly as possible it is also .2 is it is clear that staff is avoiding the question of relocation that assistance for the merchants displaced by the program to the board of supervisors for solutions and again getting this to the full board as quickly as possible to resolve this key issue and third point the staff has not drafted any language resolving the key question of the retention or the conditional

use process and the role of the board of supervisors americans with disabilities act on the appeals getting the matter to the board of supervisors as soon as possible seems the only resolution and finally staff insists american people an one-size-fits-all approach to rezoning scores of residential shopping streets and the entire neighborhoods when it is clear that such an approach is neither supported by this commission or the general public comment again, this is important issue has not and will not be resolved by the planning staff thank you. >> any other speakers that are disabled that want to speak at this time?

>> okay. if not to public comment and again, the same plan we'll line up on that side of the room we'll call your name (calling names). >> oyou're on. >> hate ashbury council. >> we can't hear. >> i've been silenced oh, laura calvin hate ashbury council it is a regional number i'm giving

us the language the regional number that includes the two most weighty suburban county in the united states san mateo and membership your directior is proud of the fact he's proposing a housing program that requires no public money why are reusing a definition a ripening definition designed totally to attack government money for a program it is boost fully advertised as not costing the taxpayers a dime we need a san francisco affordability program for the local program we need san francisco affordability ami levels that is why no matter how much

lipstick and now refuge and nail polish we put offsite this pig that is still a pig thank you so follow-up on commissioner wu there are 4 programs it is state density bonus i'm confused in part well, you read the ordinances page 32 the file and the not to the file around page 189 something in there about language and add to clarify the rh1 and rh2 can accommodate i don't know someone explain is that a loophole rh1 and rh2 the main thrust is there's been a

lot of the luxurious housing that has an impact on the affordability regardless of the demand i think you have to keep cu can't get rid of and the local program should look at the soft sites and start and see what that side here's two other possible amendments thinking outside the boxing a twitter 5 to 10 year tax break for the project sponsors out of market and water bills are are very good indicator of occupancy a bill under $20 that unit is not occupied those are existing affordable units that can be incentivised and under that program it will have this property tax break and yes,

ma'am eminent domain to produce 100 percent on the mission market side is real tragedy there something like that 100 percent fiberglass eminent domain would lessen the tragedy and not compound it tuhank you very much. >> good evening osie i from the charm i combrtdz other folks if district 8 this is bad for people and bad for business aside from the obviously the business enclosures when a it is the fine print allows for the development of lots desirentire

and 15 feet and that is going to take away the mid block open space that contributed to the health of our city it is the corruption of the public developers for speedy approval gone will be conditional use and discretionary review requirements this program is to contemptuous of public involvements it even renders the planning commission mute and rifle gone the ability of the planning commission to use the conditional use to overrule a project the majority of district 8 people that know about this program oppose that and despite the supervisors support we're not the silent majority despite our elected officials the only people the district that support ahbp are the individuals connected to the development real estate and construction con

grammars they distributed those postcards in faerrmer's market thank you and give the upper be assuming residents to sign them and sends them under the guise of affordability thirty percent affordable housing with 3 timely story buildings who wouldn't be against that this is true advertising at its best we urge you to. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> good evening from district 8 i'm one of the few people in the room are remembered the development of the fillmore i m went to grammar school which it

neighborhood was destroyed in that process the people who were displaced from vacating telethons they could return to below-market-rate in reality that didn't happen those few that returned returned to public pocket housing from the african-americans the western edition this same rational is implied has to the planning commission says this project is different it is, in fact, the same the displaced tenants will be given priority to the new facilities and affordable affordable by whom a miss match by those were displaced and eligible as a result and once the plan is for holding the landlords how will anyone know

what percentage of a building is rented to the correct rental level and supervisor breed proposal is a isn't it a fair statement sfvshgs sfshgs the plan didn't address the compliance issues and, yes deth devil is in the details because the relocation of the residents is railway successful we ask you to limit the program to the 240 soft sites keep in mind some of the soft sites this be protected like gas stations and or at least some of them and open air businesses they can't be removed to the ground levels but are businesses. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> good evening commissioners

brewing from district 8 i have to view requirement this program be revised or restarted to have the participatory planning process that reflection different impacts with that program think different neighbo neighborhoods for different neighborhood that calls for different guidelines the blanket citywide approach that inappropriately effects we've heard page 9 the executive summary all the projegram area n xhovsht host buildings 60 feet or taller that is inner accurate or indicates that mr. jacobs rule can only be applied across the city a couple of examples a picture on elizabeth street

showing which is the program area showing an house not that would be demolished but a house a building would be now this high over 60 feet on a street in your opinion inadequate for a building of this size or on 24th street is this agency what we'll see.

>> good evening matt from district 8 a 35 year recipient in the city everyone the room a long time residents like myself all agree we have housing problems but that is a approach the proposal puts up zoning and significant benefit to be gains by focusing at roughly 200 sites identified if the memo it is a we intelligence but extreme proposal the public has been insuv informed and the proposal is not suv vetdz the very recently neighborhoods the accommodations that will be displaced for the proposal

highlights a small percentage of the many questions and certainty itself that remain it didn't adequately address public safety or infrastructure issues with the density more consider the unique characters of the neighbors the proposal is a drafted for public input and clouds the control for the city's development could open up the city to litigation and delay the housing stock a pilot program that is limited to the soft sites are identified in please help me welcome memo will will you lolgz to be learned yes, a housing problem but will you the developers to be here is not a solution. >> next speaker, please.>> go

a i'm anastasia from district 8 the complex legislation the plan before you was not developed by multi stakeholders the affordable housing bonus program is a deal between the city and the developers that gives wants developers multiple bonuses all but usurps this commission authority and ignores the concerns of business people the noah valley merchants we met with yesterday has legitimate concerns they plan to take up the matter with the members of their community and their own board ov overhead projector please okay. he googli googled that a

sherry rat is a meeting all members hope to resolve conflicts and kirsten knows it was used in the market octavia plan. >> i'm sfgovtv go to the overhead please. >> okay. so on immensely period of design and planning activity a technique for urban planning developers and residents i appeal to you to refleject th proposal we want a community practices proo that has not dwelling units demolishown the draft a plan it propose the development of soft sites urging the sheritt thank you.

>> hi thank you all far staying so late so i'm a renter api i've been here 25 years and one of the things that is not addressed is tenants displacement so while i appreciate the amendment to this this is a strsh state of the astep in the right direction but the possibility of using the ellis act for the status plus rent-controlled units is not a zoning designation will be administrative code by the zoning laws not a permanent characteristic of the building that can be permanently regulated so too is a

rent-controlled unit would be exempt and therefore tenants are not at risk of displacement under this proposal is similar to say that all building pajtd red or checked or played will be exempt from the program it is unimprobable in the current state one needs to pay attention to the displacement the case of many of the seniors that live the city. lgbt need to have the kind of security of hours that perhaps other demographics might not living in the city for a senior who is gay might not the closet thing to a family they might have so when you think about displacing gay seniors the city you need to consider things to happen thank you

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is retro i've lived in san francisco for over 20 years as a public finance lawyer with low income housing this targeted way too many lives we've heard people say that is a up zoning of the whole city in a one-size-fits-all manner he appreciate the department trying to carve out rh1 and rh2 it narrow the focus the amendment that have been presented but we've seen the gaming that comes when you have rent-controlled units and all that stuff the planning department identified 200 soft sites if i do why not reduce san francisco to the soft sites for the participatory

consulting process and many of my colleagues have said tonight so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'll call more names (calling names). >> thank you. >> good evening i'm melissa kennedy i'm reading this testimony one of my sister carolyn censured couldn't be here we're district 8 constituents and residents that oppose this plan in its current form to learn about ahbp carolyn attend a public meetings with nearly one other residents the tenure was skepticism and mistrust the planning presented their visions and the biggest

missing element no neighborhood group endorsing the program and explaining the benefits for noah valley, delores height in district all we saw a map of blue colored sites and projections of two to 40 projects today over 20 development projects are promoted in district 8 every month so the audience skepticism and the mistrust is well found the ignite flaw in ahbp is the plan that has on a community clongs is didn't center have to be this way the market octavia area plan and the upper market plan resulted from the neighborhoods and planning department's collaboration so why create a one-size-fits-all plan behind closed doors and hold sellecere

meeting he recommend you vote no and ask the communities 0 so hold inform sheritt meeting we need the scale and character of each neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening i do mean evening that will be a long one everyone is in favor of more affordable housing this is it accelerates unprecedented levels of displacement we're seeing today there is a couple of concerns raised in the public hearing he only have time to talk about two one is rent control the rent-controlled units with

unresolved questions their permanent or only until a further review in a year time and excluding the properties if an attempt to bypass that, please make sure that proposal permanently excludes rent-controlled units as well as properties under ellis acted and number two about the soft sites we're told 200 and 40 approximately have soft sites? no financial numbers to present on that yet they're talking about thirty thousand unions of lots i ask we reduce to the 200 and 40 soft sites sto see the impact and quote the property owners are motivated to build on the site not a soft site may also use

those units i'll ask i notice i routing see prosper are bought and remodeled you see at the back and then build it out maximizing and sell it for over $1,100 those are high profit properties builds for the zero one point percent that as remodels could bypass the restrictions on deprivation think this proposal will actually accelerate the displacement. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time i wish you good luck this evening. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening carral a native the novel affordable housing is affordable and to who will you take the risk risk ever maybe winning the

loiter to purchase one to one family that is a reflex from the website a very protection one percent owner has to earner 97 thousand and 50 percent of the ami a protecting person has to earn one and 98 thousand to own the job categories the fire and police dpaefrn earning 75 this course and they're one and 10 percent of the i'm if the low income residents don't win the lottery how will they purchase a home i guess that's what police officers police officers and firefighters are living out of san francisco please rise is

avenues for soft sites identified and request those soft sites be subject to a proper reviewy the effected neighborhoods in addressing the needs of effected communities thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> mason i'm sorry to see director departed i'm a nature noah valley recipient effects by the two hundred plus soft sites growths is not funding and goonld secured by the infrastructure adding housing thus increasing the future studies indicates the transportation as opposed to as opposed to deriving and three hundred though for trips the mayors electrifyitask force 203

funding gap the nexus study estimated $31 for residential square feet that was discounted 7575 percent to $7 plus by the transportation sustainability fee financial feasibility study the transportation stu sustainability has residential projects of 20 unions or less the/86 will collect $16 million or 4 hundred plus over the 40 years not funning the infrastructure congregate two generally obligation bonds to the property owners has the chronicle noted we thoed to hold the city accountable the current solution is i see to identify

the soft sites as a pilot program and future programs must include outs stakeholders such as if seattle thank you very much. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you i'm lilly wu in summary we support the planning department recommended limited criteria that projects that propose to demolish me residential unit should not be eligible. ahbp we believe that demolishing the residential units to build new ones is wasteful and disruptive we agree with the planning department analysis that ahbp should be soft sites and not have residential uses we recommend this exact language be adapted the final ahbp planning

codes so it intention is codified and innovate be forgotten or disregard in future years we believe that is an important protection against any possible abuse of the ahbp to disadvantaged or dislocate exist san francisco stakeholders such a tenants and homeowners and small businesses the name of affordable housing we're concerned with the local ahbp code section has more stricken gentd applicability terms this is an the states code and that the state code may be used to challenge the local code in the future please close me loopholes for differences and aligning the plans 0 that the practicaolice myself and enforceable thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please

no next speakers (calling names). >> good evening commissioners i'm dan i'm a resident of the district 8 who want to urge you in support of affordable housing bonus program i'm fill actually it is a real estate developer yeah, so i am a respecter in the area in district 8 in in law and noah valley i've been screed out of chance the homeowners ever unless i win the lottery so we need to build lots more housing this is an opportunity to get more housing and at a higher percentage of affordability so people like me may have a chance

of living in our neighborhood someday and i wanted to say someone brought up a picture of a new development on 24th street showing how to say 6 stories tall i want to say i walk by there everyday i think about that stupid development is that could have been that is should have been that taller one we're fr in a housing crisis we could have provided an appropriate density and more than 10 units provided affordable housing that noah valley has practical none of and this program can start putting more affordable housing in noah valley or on the other neighborhood i want you to support it thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm nick the mayor has gotten a great deal of mileage out of this word affordable i don't believe you're creating affordable housing this is thousands of san franciscan as much as myself that live in rent-controlled unit apartment not able to afford any of the housing proposed in this plan i noticed the staff had a great disability difficulty if users the word minimum so the focusigures thate present about this plan said the bottom income level it can't afford to move in would be

$36,000 they'll not use the word minimum i guess it's a loadallo term but thousands of san franciscan i couldn't for another to moist those units you're serving developers to make profits so i'm very concerned with the distortion the use of word affordable i'll urge towing you or you to send this plan to the board of supervisors with no recommendations he this that many speakers before this plan requires neighborhood participation and has not gotten it and would succeed only if it got neighborhood participation like the divisadero plan i appreciate our help.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners i'm andy a resident of district my own are tenants since guarantees thirty years one the invasive folks that came for a tech an illegal. >> next speaker. >> a licking guy i still live in san francisco i still live the richmond district i don't know how much longer my wife and i have been evicted twice we've butt bench out out of our home not by greed by families that bought the house and wanted to more often with their families they are ever right. i love to have families the rorjd district but my wife and i have to find another program it is meant to be be in tornadic mandatory

state program it is going to exist no matter what you do the project sponsors will come to you with projects and have to deal with that your staff has work hard and listened to the public and attractive alternative meant it redecree that energy that will come i'll hear people who would rather have them have a better outcome the ahbp is not perfect but we can talk about that forever that is maybe my fifth year i've watched them all and gone to three or four community meetings and if we limit this to the 20020 sites that's fine while send people mayor, we bring them forward the way we want them to be built i'm restored to work

with my neighborhoods more clemente no reason to wait let's get building thank you. >> i was looking at the paralyze we're not passing this affordable housing bonus program and i saw 4 works i want to share show you for 4 different neighborhoods third street in the bayview that is locked on the chief third

street light rail our newest light rail opening in 2007 and returning under krapt it is one .5 blocks from the light rail stop and conventionly only blocks from the library the most important relevant point it is currently zoning only allow 23 enemies e homes to be built if the state density bonus will be used with the 50 homes built on the site quickly that is that is van ness and hallow again close to rapid transit with van ness the bus rapid transit an ideal place for

walking to the corridors and right now this is an abandoned gas station i have two more i'll not show those as the city we have a choice and thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> okay. >> next speaker. >> i'll call a few names

(calling names). >> hi laura clark i wish that someone about say paying me to be be here that would make my life bitter i live in noah valley and a renter i'm getting gouged i'm a volunteer with grow sf i'm on the board we're all volunteer organization we're some of the people that have been passing out the postcards and having conversations with the residents about the potential inform increasing the city's density i want to pay attention to the doughnut hole we have low income people able to live the city struggling to get by and this is the displacement we're talking about this do not hole people have force-out of the city we need to

buildi build over the past few years adding a little bit for bulletproof vest none for middle this proposal gives us the abatement to add to the total number of lowest income by increasing the density and offers us the filing the doughnut hole in policy overwhelm to skip so-welch diminishielch diminishing the. >> so i really beg you to think about the future of this city what kind of a city do we want to be disneyland for the rich with few subsidized housing are diverse diverse place that

many people can afford to live and work the city thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> good evening item on behalf of the objectiaction coalition three hundred members an overarching reason there is a 2013 states court appeals about the state density law it indicates that san francisco's has illegally ignored the rules for decades that's coming to an end the planning department began to have a compliance with the state law but delivers for benefits particularly increased affordable housing that is targeted to the middle-income what is not being discussed before long this commission will see projects that have asked for

density benefits they're used straightforward in other city's around the bayview the state version didn't needs our approval the proprietors or the mayor's we are aware of 6 residential project that have applied or tend to apply for density bonuses we have a concern go many carve out to the ahbp only serve to make a less attractive option and again, the virtual of the ahbp as planning has said countless times it delivery deliveries more affordable housing it is not whether density bonuses are a good or bad idea the state rules are contrary and the projects are coming the only question to what they'll be occupied by the better deal offered by the ahbp

or stripped one under the state rules it is a great program you should move it forward thank you. >> hello commissioners. i'm corey smith a community organizer withmunity action coalition to date sf has collected nine hundred signatures and zip codes. >> you can go to the overhead that supports affordable housing bonus program this is a heat map as to where those folks come from and crossed referenced that with the file since the initial endeduction of this program the action housing collectialition blog posts to to the evens is of the san francisco what this program entails

further this number they've held 28 public hearings with the groups including ours and some have come out in opposition i want to point out that while community input is required it has occurred and a unanimous approval is not required we have the spirit of this evening asked a number of supporters instead of coming up here and speaking to instead of income into to ro and stand point in support of this program is for those in attendance please stand up and raise your hand thank you and lastly and this going back to andy comments earlier we've talked about this and we've talked about the housing crisis and talked about the ways to solve it and tacked

and talked and talked additional stop talking about solutions but building solutions that is what san francisco needs thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i'm march mcdonald a principal a san francisco market-rate residential market value firm to express our support for the affordable housing bonus plan building more affordable housing is paramount to keeping our city thriving and excessicompetitive there is american people effective and balanced way to increase the approximaproductio housing at all levels especially providing the appropriate incentives to help offset the costs or producing affordable housing and makes sense to help

to construct descender housing along the corridors we're working on market-rate development in san francisco including two promotions the marina and lombard both are constituted gas station sites the planning department asked to us to evaluate the affordable housing bonus program at both of those sites and after extensi extensively analyzing the program for several months our final reluctance are encouraging by politically the affordable housing bonus program we can almost double the number of honors on those sites and more than quadruple the affordable units on to those sites for example, on van ness it under the affordability we can build 5 bmr units and others 81 units

including 24 bmr onsite a significant meaningful increase this program is the right solution at the right time to speed limit member of the public measu much needed housing i'll encourage to you, you, you orto vote in favor thin favor thafa t that 24 project. >> (calling names). >> good evening commissioners richmond association and several comments i think one of the most important commissioners the city is the planning commission

you have a lot of power and a lot of wisdom and it is very important that you retain our power the affordable housing bonus program will treat you like a health partnersherson pu straitjacket for those reasons this program needs to be modified what this program does transfers you are power. >> wisdom to the affordable housing large project team who are they their the young planners i'm sure the recent grads and well intend by unfortunately lacking experience lacking the lifestyle and experience the the what the experience in the neighborhoods

senior planners that are not many the planning staff senior planners have different areas the city and they have financri that are san francisco experience unfortunately they're not there and those young planners need to be meridian in closing the planning commission without you the garage and center would have been demolished i've saved us we want you to now save the rest of the city and the real estate location, location, location and the affordable housing is there's location, location, location you can't say put those 6 story and 7 story houses east and west on the afs please reject this plan.

>> thank you. next speaker, please i'm ben stocking working i'm p corner the city is responsible for creating 1/3rd of the in any housing of the last housing counted i'm sad that the city is working towards solving it crisis as people leaving people homeless and bunking in bunk beds and other questionable housing and the opposition is responsible for creating american people connective situation that is going to solved one way or another through states action or initiatives at some level i urge you the commission to take this

seriously and to work towards solving this situation for san francisco thank you. >> davis i'm a concerned recipient not tenderloin i think this plan is just really a bad idea as it is currently written i think this should be wieddled down to the 200 and 15 soft sites we need a sheritt and communities plan san francisco needs to be he will affordable we need to target those who are left out of the zone like teachers and service workers and, of course, which is homeless and individual like myself to serve those people no

more market rate housing it shunt u shoupts westboube a cit refresh people i say again reduce the scope of the plan, don't displace anyone and involve the sheritt from district 8 said thank you. >> good evening commissioners my name is kathy i'm a noah valley recipient i've been there 23 years as a tenant noah valley which is gentrified a few times over the 25 years need to see accident trends slowed down i spoke with an business owner on 24th street who is closing her business the 9 thousand a month rent is a major factor we welcome the neighborhood but in regards its ahbp we'll to see a

broader social economic rage of people ownership and renting there the diversity we brag but also can't think of your neighborhood isolation the mayor's office of housing and community development has record in 201522 thousand residential units were constructed out of that number only 6 thousand units with were the affordable category this is unacceptable and a loop sides outcome for district 8 knows only three hundred and 77 apples and oranges were built while 8 hundred and 44 were removed from protected status matt haney rent control district 8 get a plus 12 grade and aside from diversity and with the ahbp should allow

those blow medium income not drive all the miles both work the 12 dash affordable arraigning should at minimum be restored for those with amis below 70 or $50,000 a year let's. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> how abo >> how abt >> >> how abo >> how a>

(calling names). >> good evening commissioners niles a david i'm a 43 recipient ever district one when i moved in i rent-controlled unit a garage for $35 a month and started at the beginning, it happens to all young people i want to talk about the specification needed the program that basically brings integrity to it an example of a site on block 1460 lot zero and zero 4120 unit building no off-street parking one rental commercial unit there for many projects and it is a very worthwhile project should have been done in 2008, to 2011 before the bonuses

program it is basically nope and st. peter place and st. peter's boarded housing and the high density housing can be built in residential neighborhoods there have approximately 4 rh1 and rh2 lots combined to create this project this per some of the maps under the office. >> i'm concerned because i live on a block 1440 the richmond's and we have two rh3, 6 units one preschool that will be subject or could be subject to if affordable housing bonus program allows lot meeting on the north setting in the respondiichmond basically i think you should restrict yourselves to the soft

site thank you. >> good evening my name is paul weber i'm on the executive committee for for the san francisco neighborhoods i want to speak on the specifics of the tops affordability that was topic 6 why one ami is better than another ami we didn't hear the proposal of the city is in violation of the praushgz what was passed by the voters in 2014 we raised those questions but never an answer is percentage of

middle-income housing is too high it needs to be restorverse prop k rivers almost too to one affordable housing to middle-income housing i away was not aware wie were planning to toss it out and i urge you to see the kim ballots that was approved two to four for inclusionary housing it basically accomplishes exactly what you want to accomplish only in compliance with prop k so what i think you can end up doing end up with the same percentages like i can't understand the policy difference but you don't need a local program with the inclusionary

housing ballot measure plus the dusting off the local reverberation the state program we urge to pass it out tonight with no recommendation to the board of supervisors thank you. >> i have a letter here thank you. >> good evening my name is stan i'm the president of the telegraph hill developers so this is the most finally after more two bosses meetings and hours and hours of discussion finally this is it we're here it is decision day staff is brought to you tonight at the litigati11th hour 10 top we appreciate staffs efforts they've had a tough job and

still down the comments we've heard thank you for your time we're in debt but the recommendations they're making still don't fix things the fundamental problems still remain ahbp still is a de facto rezoning applied unnecessarily to thousands of parcels not only the 2015 that staff predicts will use it it starbucks a low income definition that prices many of the people in needing affordable housing out of market and fails to sure the fairness it still offers inadequate displacement of small businesses and undermines occurred zoning protections and overriding height and one-size-fits-all program that fails to account adequately for circumstances it relies on design misguidance

that guidance 19 pages long with 11 discussing the guidelinesism and having a and in definitions in any event more info continuance it is time to vote up or down and this legislation is not ready for prim time reject and send it back get it right thank you. >> i'm a resident the sunset i'm here to urge the commission to move forward with the negative recommendation if in is not possible then move forward with a neutral recommendation and today's article there is an article titled sf affordable housing plan in trouble the

reporter states i quote while mraernlz see that as a modesty proposition that is a professional created american people an uproar on the west side of town the homeowners saw it setting the stage for greedy do you only developers for the emphasis on acquaint with homes boxy apartment complexed quota reminder supervisor tang that the sole co-author the mayors the reporter constrictions himself and quotes a no non-developer they have managed to enrage all folks in the city this is by far the most accurate the west side is a well-informed coalition that buildings those programs are ill conservativeed

and fast fatrack is ill-advised please move forward with a neutrality or negative recommendation thank you. >> my name is testing wellborn about d 5 action using one ami standard for the city of didn't reflect the income diversities among the neighborhood didn't reflect the ethic groups that is one document that gives us an idea how rents vary across the city if you set one standard a whole bunch of san franciscans left out of the opportunities i've participated in the market octavia planning i participated