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 in affordable verse did care we know that community planning can create density i can support but not this one-size-fits-all

so this program is advertised as rezoning about a third of san francisco that is way too much this program is touted as being able to produce a few hundred affordable units a year 20 years we can surely do better than that. >> there's been some disingenuousness in showing pictures how those units will be looking sensitive to the neighborhoods those graph boxes on market street had end up on 24th street than the charming david backer payers the zoning administrator issued a bulletin that seems to suggest that the affordable units can be smaller, clear uper leaking and the lower part of the building we need the communities combasz based planning not this one thank you.

>> good evening commissioners i'm here representing spur thank you for the opportunity to comment on the affordable housing bonus program spur supports this program we believe this is an important tool taking into consideration tool in the toolbox and building in the increasing the goals without drawing the resources away from programs and have this for the population whose needs are not and the we're hopefully, this will facilitator the dollar utilized sites they've not been realized and we applaud the planning commission to design a smart program around the possible intended circumstances we larger support the amendments

and feedback from the public have identified issues worthy of adjustment we have to areas of concerns one we believe more demolition of existing residential unit and cost analysis and a direct prohibition didn't allow for that analysis or discussion we also support the original proposal that the appeals body be the board of appeals rather than this board of supervisors and we're strongly opposed to the idea that separate fees will be not considered as finding with the bonuses program navigated wear disappeared not alleged projects included overall, however, this is a worthwhile tool to put in place we recommend you recommend approval to this board thank

you. >> good evening, members i'm kaeshth republican you know let's gets back to real the, in fact, the population has there's by over one homiciundred thousa that will not change walk and quack like a abduct quack quack that's a duck we got sweet spot mess all the years of projects being detailed and detailed and dragged on our infinity until nothing gets built and the housing stock is not there's we now have the mess we have with a massive shortage of housing i urge passage of this passage and moving forward building more housing and that's the only way

forward anything else is detailed tactics thank you. >> okay (calling names). >> whoever is ready there. >> good evening commissioners katherine howard i'm concerned about a few things with the affordable housing bonus plan first is loss of cleanpoweropen our city is more crowded open space is necessary for both new

and existing residents sells the description of the assistance of the availability for the business is like someone saying i'll run over you with a truck don't worry about that we'll have the best medical team i don't think you'll take up that offer at the beginning of the hearing it was saying quote that is legislation we put forward as a solutions to the housing probl problem well the problem is that the planning department has put it forward to us instead of coming up with a plan many participation from all the people will be impacted i suggest that be please pass that legislation to the board with no recommendation and ask the board form a task force that includes the neighborhoods and helps to

preserve neighborhood character and please workout the details so a new plan can move forward quickly with a new study. >> good evening commissioners i'm 14 in addition the director the community housing organizations we are here to recommend that this measure be forward with no recommendations from this commission it has been said this is another tool in the toolbox well the tool we have like a chainsaw nobody brought a tape measures what is cutie have in front of me is the map that has been presented by staff showing the different i guess blue or dark blue soft sites this shows is - i sent earlier

as you look at various areas in the proposal before you you'll see the areas slope boulevard get a 5 hundred and 77 percent bonus areas were showdown bayview boulevard with one and 70 percent bonus and terryville street gets a three hundred and 31 percent bonus under this proposal and what is the difference between that and a state bonus that is 35 percent seems rather large to me the question i think all of you should be considering in any of the proposals that are before you is wheat is the deal are you getting a good deal out of this proposal are you getting enough affordable housing and nicole the affordable housing we're discussing will the

majority be one bedrooms quotes to people that earner one thousand dollars is that a good genealogic deal. one and 7 percent in the irish cultural district i don't know by i think you should start over analyzing that thank you su, ve much. >> good evening commissioners peter cohen with the communities housing organizations another handful your b.c. being choked with information tonight several things in there starting with a paper we did about density you've heard the issues our take a way to do density right this is not the band-aids you've got to start fresh i'm a

i'll efficient an issue 2 the letter who's the affordable housing bonus program to serve who's this for who are the apples and oranges for you've heard the mayor's office of housing and community development 92 percent for households blow 50 first of ami everyone is a potential target for the program for reasons we can't you understand you've leaped from 60 up to one and 20 up to two and 40 every single qualifying households between 60 ami and one and 20 percent can't afford this is our cartoon the firefighters he and the teacher and igiving us an idea of the range of divefferent types of

folks not eligible for the housing and commissioner antonini there is a point you can't be eligible for housing if you make too little money that's a fact the other they know that is brought up one-size-fits-all you've heard whether you break it down by geography people will be priced out of affordable housing bonus program that ain't right we can start over and happy to answer more questions this is very, very important thank you. >> good evening commissioners my name is malcolm i watched the all of the testimony a month ago i've been talking to san franciscan about this program for 17 weeks what you are hearing in those two hearings is what i've been

hearing that there is a clear genera majority that is negative on this program i'm asking you for political leadership not bureaucracy and conditional use not asking you the the best way to administrator but forward general recommendations to the board of supervisors on what are the key question what should the priorities be and the limits be and once the board has considered those things to possible include ahbp in a solution i hope you'll take time to make general recommendations to the board and necessarily encompass the broader part of your responsibilities thank you.

>> i'm penn that he clark a rodent of the noah valley russian hill area from that blue map which i realized is sort of a floating target much of the northeast quadrant is a main target for this program and i think it includes a lot of sites where the developers are really given wah-wah-wah too much incentive for way, way too this product the larger sites where you can get real amounts of affordable housing should be the rents that are the priority not in upsetting a very dense settled neighborhoods where you

have a little mind field of volunteering minds none knows where suddenly a historic building will pop up in a block that be intercepted by narrow alleys the character of the neighborhood it is important the idea of promoting affordable housing in real quantities with will help to meet the need it should be prioritized thank you very much. >> good evening commissioner president fong and members i'm steve and he come to you today having retire a month ago as commission director the council governments inch done those and transportation and air quality

and analysis and you'll side issues your you're talking about we talk about and the housing issue is the toughest of all i'm here to ask for a specific minor modifications to the staff's recommendation as it applies to the urban design recommendations c and i bring this forward and he (inaudible) wish i can could make that larger. >> you can dial it.

>> ever 50 percent and allow the commotioaccomodation and it difficult to see this was the origin lot think that block and now, one ab and - with, sir you'll have to speak indemnity microphone. >> sir, unfortunately, your thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> i'd like to see if you can't consider.

>> thank you. >> sir your time is up. >> >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please hi there my name is susan broke i oppose the affordable housing bonus plan and i noticed somewhere along the line the title lost the word scents but it does paappear that is about density i've lived in san francisco for over 20 years and i love the city i did live in new york city for awhile and now there's a dense city we're heated that way one of the best things about san francisco is the neighborhoods

their have you unique and different their diverse and i heard tonight the idea this will take 20 years to implement and someone said what kind of city do we want to have and live in i want to throw out the idea in 20 years you've city abowill be a complete different city if this goes forward the way it is written it is something that will take on a life of itself own the the character of the fabricated will really, really change and no way to get it back we'll end that ruegional transi it so far as visibiliaffordabils pleased to hear middle-income by the way, i've been looking at the term of affordable this

wouldn't be affordable to me and most people we know but seems it is defines let's call it middle-income and i think we need to plan for the ground up and not the it top down as the n that the vera did care community put together so, please vote no on tha

this. >> (calling names). >> so sorry. >> commissioner president fong honorable commissioners director and zoning administrator good evening i'm ribbon you caner the co-chair the association as long as that an in a while he will like incorporate by reference the testimony that was held tonight by those that oppose this affordable housing bonus program we want to summarize and having sorry coughing attacks but some of the transmittal elements of our opposition one is one-size-fits-all didn't fit all a process to determine on a district by district basis

what is appropriate for that particular district based on the hectic sites and legacy businesses which have not yielded not been mentioned and the community planning process i know also hawas one meeting hel was interested at one of the sites i never heard from the city regarding this program and n none of the constituents were surveyed but more we feed community input and especially where we have office space improvement question need to look for thfor thatha thfor thalook for thafor thalol

approve that program sends it back for more evaluation thank you. >> my name is silvia johnson. we had no problem before when i built houses we accepted all of the requirements and i don't know what the problem is some of the people that don't think that a really are newer place is possible and that too much put under control and the idea of

not being in court is one of the main problems we've got here i will not you know some proufowe thing that is something that was marked by the organization we had no problem before i don't know why twhat the problem is i is kind of finish fishy and i think that this is not that bad to changing we had befoo changc

think that this is not that bad changing we had befonish fishy think that this is not that bad changing we had befoish fishy think that this is not that bad changing we had befosh fishy ak that this is not that bad changing we had befoh fishy an that this is not that bad changing we had befo fishy and that this is not that bad changing we had befofishy and i that this is not that bad changing we had beforefishy and that this is not that bad changing we had before. >> we had no problem before i've always you know you know when i got throuere and it was okay. i think it was something is going fishy . >> members ftd planings commission, my name is catherine courtny, i am chair of the russian hill social. in 2014130 individuals representing 107 organizations were invited to participate in the design of this program. 130 individuals, 107 organizations, not one neighborhood activist, not one

neighborhood organization was invietdd. 40 years ago we down zoned the inner sunset. it was the largest rezoning in this city's history. 55 blocks, 80 percent of the property owners signed on to that down zoning. that was community participation. that was neighborhood individuals being responsible and designing the type of city they wanted to live in. this was not an acceptable process. it did not involve the neighborhoods, we have thousands of years of experience of people sitting in this room and they were not invited to participate. i ask you to send this up to the board of supervisors with a negative recommendation. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, dennis antonori, one issue that's really completely

obscured by the staff presentation tonight has been the issue of the serious threat to our neighborhood businesses. it hasn't been discussed sufficiently tonight. in my neighborhood alone, the inner sunset, i counted within a 4 block area 30 neighborhood businesses in one story buildings. i think all of those businesses are at a threat, not just the areas that have been denoted as soft sites by the planning department. the planning department's solution to this issue of displacement solutions really are inadequate. the so-called early notification ignores one really important fact and that is the rights of tenants are governed by leases. the land lord condition be forced to lease a building to tenants so this early notification is of almost no use. the idea that a right of first refusal somehow helps the business fails to say how does that business survive for the huge period of time

that it's going to take for this project to be completed? what happens while this business is waiting to come back to this property? secondly, what is the property going to cost, what is the rent going to be, how do we know that tenant is going to have any ability to pay the rents for that building. we don't have commercial rent control. the idea of referring to the uniform relocation act is quite interesting because that was, that act was in direct response to the failures of the san francisco redevelopment agency in the western addition. congressman john burton introduced that act and had it passed but it was passed many decades ago but it is completely ineffective at protecting small businesses. as the president of the small business noted the limitations in that act would create a situation where no one would be able to survive even if they

benefited. i hope you pass this on to the board of supervisors without any recommendation at all. this thing needs to be completely reworked. >> next speaker. >> hi, san francisco is a beautiful amazing city. i think all of us in this room are passionate about this place, we wouldn't be here if we weren't. but the thing that's made san francisco fly, the thing that's made it extraordinary, is the fact it's made room for the people who want to move here, for the excentrics and misfits who didn't fit in somewhere else who came to san francisco and found a home. now, that has produced extraordinary results and a flourishing community, but it is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. so many people want to move here, the economy has thrived, the technology industry has flourished from the diverse backgrounds of people who moved

here, and if we don't make room for more humans, more people to live here, both affordable housing rate, middle income housing, then the san francisco we love will be washed away. so i urge you to pass this program but to seriously consider not making amendments that water down the number of units that are built. we need to build more beautiful housing, this is a very well designed program, not overbuild, it builds the right amount in the right places in the city, pass it and let's get on with solving the problem to strengthening the beautiful city that we love. >> next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is loy

leader man and i am a member of the inner sunset. it is clear staff has heard the many concerns voiced by members of the public. while staff's responses are encouraging and seem to reflect good intentions with legislation the deficient devil is always in the details. we need unambiguous language to maintain conditional use requirements, to prohibit the demolition of rent controlled units and other sound housing, to eliminate the income gap in the affordability ranges that continue to exclude a swaugt of the underserved population, and unambiguous language to make sure a (inaudible) provution for the merchants who will be displaced if this goes forward. but even if enforcable language were enacted the need for adequate room size would still be missing, as would sufficient levels of affordability and the uniform

upzoning of the entire city which fails to take into account neighborhood differences. we would still be at the effect of that upzoning. this proposal before you is still a demolition plan. demolition always causes displacement and we most certainly have a displacement crisis in san francisco which must not become policy under the guise of adding some affordable units. we need community planning and we need it fast. i urge you to vote this proposal out tonight with a do not adopt recommendation. thank you. >> hi, i'm (inaudible) and i wasn't going to speak tonight but sitting here it made me want to say that as a gay youth i looked forward to the time i moved to san francisco. we would finally have this accepting community where we

could live like we wanted. so i finished college a few years ago and i'm here but a lot of my friends aren't. they can't afford to live here and this is especially the case for gay women as on average gay women earn significantly less than gay men. i don't really want a small pilot program or to delay, i want my friends and lgbt community here now. we can't maintain san francisco's gay culture if the gay youth can't live here. please pass the affordable program. >> hi, i'm sonia trout. earlier a commenter said that one of the best things about our city is our neighborhoods and all i could think was, i wouldn't know. i don't live in any neighborhoods in san francisco, i can't, i'm being kept out of them because there

isn't enough housing for me to live there. 40 years ago we down zoned the inner sunset. that's the housing we would have been living in, that's the affordable midmarket housing, this 30-year-old, 40-year-old housing. that's what community planning gets you. they have not built affordable housing, do you see affordable housing in the avenues? we had two people tonight stating you can't build affordable housing in the avenues. people here are saying don't do it, it will destroy neighborhood community. i think it's worth it, there's nothing so ugly as no housing. you know what i want to do is give you an 81 date on 100 van ness. on my way over here, remember that thing, i met somebody that lives there. this is the first time that i met somebody that lives

somewhere that i testified in favor of, so i was really excited about it. he has a dog, he's really nice, he's really into bernie sanders. people are living there and there's going to be people living in the stuff that gets built if the affordable housing bonus program goes through. thanks. >> good evening, can i put something on the overhead? >> yes, of course. >> i just wanted to remind everyone how much property costs in this city nowadays. this was the biggest sale of the year here in san francisco. now, i'm not sure how appropriate it would be for me to name the person that actually profited from that sale, just as it's not probably appropriate for me to make any remarks about other people who have spoken here tonight, so i won't. there is a tremendous amount

of disingenuity in the criticism of this program. most of the reasons that people are opposing it are not al truistic. it is not the job of government to help people protect their own property val use or maximize them, just as it is not the job of this commission or any other arm of contract to help certain city contractors keep their piece of the budget pie. it is their jobs to try and make this city affordable again and livable. i ask you to please do the right thing. >> good evening,

commissioners, donald (inaudible) resident of the city and county of san francisco. and i just want to give my following remarks on this program that has been very effectively researched with the planning department staff for 18 months. they went out of their way to go to the neighborhoods of the districts affected by the 250 sites and had long discussions with the residents. whether -- regardless of political affiliation, the bottom line is the people that are opposing this program have no skin in the game. they are already home owners. their claim that my friends and myself who have

recently moved here the last 3 to 4 years are saying go back to where you came from. with this comprehensive program that even eric mar has spoken and said that we need, we need to push forward with this program because it is comprehensive and now because of all the feuding going on between the state bonus program and the affordable housing bonus program between the city which reflects values, by the way, the developers now are aware of what they can do. and with the state density program they had more leniency to build what they need to build compared to sf values' program that we have developed in the planning department. i urge you to support tonight and move

forward with this program because people are out on the streets curb surfing. >> thank you, sir. >> good evening, commissioners and thank you very much for staying so late to hear our comments. i live in district 5 and i work as a gardener and a landscaper. i would suggest that you consider the honey bee. each and every day honey bees perform myriad and miraculous tasks. they are essential to the prosperity and stability of their environment. now compare the people who currently live and work in san francisco to the honey bee. we are engaged with our local communities and neighborhoods, we sit on juries, pay taxes and we volunteer in schools, libraries, parks and

neighborhood organizations. i am a nert volunteer in my neighborhood, i participate in park and ocean clean ups, i help an elderly and frail neighbor when she needs it, i contribute to my community in ways that are not obvious. there are hundreds if not thousands of san franciscoans just like me. i am also a renter. we look after our neighborhoods in far more efficient ways than any city agency can. we are the glue of this city. you cannot put a dollar value on the contributions that we make. we must build more housing that is truly affordable for the people who already live here and who are the cross pollinators of our city. real estate speculation and free market values have caused an inflated bubble and an unprecedented housing crisis and this affordable density housing program is not the solution.

it is flawed andity build, baby, build approach is wrong-minded. the good news is that we do have a community based plan, the affordable biz community plan, a diverse group of over 500 neighborhoods met to hammer out a community plan from the bottom up and i would urge you to look at it. >> thank you, ma'am. is there any additional public comment? >> can you go to the screen? hi, my name is judith and i first appeared at this planning commission because there was a developer who wanted to build something next to my son's school and for some reason i've gotten drawn into this bizarre world that you guys inhabit and kudos for all the work you do.

so first of all i just wanted to talk about outreach because i've come here twice, i came here january 7th begging for a meeting in district 9 and i came here a couple of weeks ago asking again for a meet not guilty district 9 and there was a meeting in district 11 where 9 was invited, but it would have been really great if you had actually done outreach in district 9. district 9 has bernal heights and this is basically the area that's affected is along mission from caesar chavez to randell which is in bernal heights. i went to the meet not guilty bayview this week and gil kelly revealed the soft sites and i started looking at the soft sites and i actually think i'm becoming an advocate for parking lots now, which is really weird. the first parking lot i encountered, the very soft site, is the parking lot right next to the employment office, right?

people actually use that all day long to access edd at mission and chavez. okay, then i go to the next one, it's right next to planned parenthood. then i go to the next one, it's next to bank of america and this is the map from red lining from 1937, which is my neighborhood, which was basically banking is really important, they just closed the bank on courtland, the bank of america is just doing mortgages and having a working bank where you can do commercial dplts is really important. i just want to make sure the amenities which bernal heights is being denied after being red lined in 1937, storm water drainage, loading zones --. >> your time is up. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, president fong and commissioners, i am

kathy devonchenzie and i have a letter i am submitting for the record which concerns among other things the failure to do ceqa review including the protection of neighborhood character for the housing development and this should be rejected. i also sent an email asking you to (inaudible) from the changes in i58 and map 6 of the housing element which refer to these areas and rh1 and 2 areas are not supposed to be affected by the affordable housing proposals. the bonus program would incentivize the demolition of low rise neighborhood commercial structures and result in the displacement of small businesses that can now afford the rents in older structures. rent will be higher in the new structures

attracting chain stores and resulting in the loss of the unique density that differentiates our neighborhoods from the suburbs. the clause that (inaudible) grossly inadequate since market rates will be higher in all the new rentals and once displaced it's very hard to return. the idea that middle class flight can be curbed by building units in multi unit structures is at best a radical experiment that may well fail since individuals westerning $100,000 may prefer the suburbs and families of 4 making $100,000 may prefer the school advantages in the suburbs. since there are no size advantages the developer could make them very small and

(inaudible) commensurate value. >> your time is up. >> next speaker, please. i think you have already spoken, you are next. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is john vargas. the affordable housing density program as proposed is to provide sites for the development of some affordable housing and thereby try and help the housing crisis for affordable housing in san francisco. and using the existing housing stock to create this will really, what you are proposing in this legislation is that we can realize the existing housing stock to proceed to provide for

meeting that need for affordable housing. in cannibalizing the existing housing stock you really are destroying the most affordable housing that exists in san francisco, the rent home, the general plan and the housing element was saying that as an explicit piece of language. it said the existing housing stock is the most affordable housing stock, therefore should not be demolished, should not be modified in order to meet housing needs. so where do you meet housing needs? well, i suggest you may look and see in the city we have 1500 acres at hunter's point naval shipyard, we have 1500 acres and where was this concern about affordable housing when we own the property in those sites and

then they said what, that we meet the affordable housing needs in the city? do we say this is what we're going to do, you are going to build affordable housing, not inclusionary market rate housing or anything like that, it was going to be for affordable housing. >> thank you, sir. >> some of us that are asking to send it out without recommendation have been fighting to get the laws changed to build affordable housing and have been building it for a very, very very long time. decades. some were sincere about wanting housing. secondly, some of us have also

been burned by the planning department process through planning to do an area plan. i have been burned big time by eastern neighborhoods plan. others have been burned by the market octavia plan. we have a lot of comments from the community when you were doing the plan and like this one which didn't have that many really comments or anything. once you adopt the plan the plan exists in fantasy. it's on a shelf. no one looks at it, no one understands what it is, they just look at the rules. they look at the planning commission -- planning code. and i am distressed with my experience that the planning department staff, the guys and the girls who have come in, gone through planning school, been here a year, two years,

six months, are analyzing the project and are not asking the questions that should be asked. so the history is the planning commission has to be the entity that makes the decision, not the planning staff. the planning staff is the kids that graduate from planning school long after the plan is done so keep your role, send this out, there needs to be a lot more thought but the planning commission should send it to the board of supervisors and make (inaudible). thank you. >> hi, john schwerk, i wasn't going to speak today but my

young girl planning intern decided since she came this far she wanted to get on television. i'd like to make a couple quick points about something people said tonight that struck me. one, we don't want any more rich white people coming into san francisco which i thought was kind of interesting, considering that by far the greatest net worth people in the building tonight were the people speaking against the program. another person also said, well, one person has $23 million in the bank from the sale of his house, he spoke first tonight. another person had a house in the 70's for $40,000 and it's now worth 4 million, that's a hundred times return, he doesn't have to worry about where he's going to live or where his kids are going to live. i'd like you to please pass the affordable

housing bonus program. let's get it done with as few carve outs as possible. i know we have to make some political compromises but every time we alter it, less housing gets built. any further public comment? okay, public excellent is closed. commissioner comments, commissioner antonini >> we were recommending you take it by the 6 topic areas and if you choose not to do it that way, that was just a way of structuring the discussion. >> commissioners, staff submitted exhibit c which might establish a framework for your

discussion. >> difficult to find it in the file. >> it was in the staff report that was submitted to you. it's titled exhibit c, department recommendations summary. >> got it. . >> some folks are still looking for exhibit c in their case report. you can also make use of pages 27 and 28 of the case report. as a reminder for the commission, the first topic which we discussed was program eligibility. hal walked you through a series of the

program's current eligibility criteria, we started by discussing zoning control, zoning district control, and talked about historic requirements. the recommendation for the commission to consider is whether we would like to propose that the program not be eligible for any projects that demolish a residential unit. do you have any comments, questions? >> commissioner hellas. >> so just a couple questions. and maybe some comments that can help move this along at least in this section. i think these maps were helpful that you showed and i think, you know, just i guess i have a clarifying question. when you went from the 3700 parcels which are those that

don't include historic buildings as well as rental units and that includes residential that's under rent control and non-rent control, single family owned after 79, this is what you would recommend, that map that shows those units, i mean those parcels? and how did you get to the potential soft sites? >> sure, i think asking for the difference between 3,700 parcels that meet all the eligibility criteria and the 240 or so that are determined to be potential soft sites, and the real difference is the existing uses on those properties. so the 3,700, it could be any size structure but it does not have a residential use. the 240-some sites, the existing structure is 5 percent or less of the development

potential and that's a good estimator for us around where a site might be considered to be underutilized and it might make sense for development to occur on that site. the methodology we have -- it's analogous to a seal. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm not sure there were a lot of calls for further higher level conditional use on any of the projects. i know we can have many large projects authorizations that come before us from the eastern neighborhoods that have lots and lots of discussion and modification and i would be supportive of this as long as i am sure that any project that comes has to come before us and we can do any modification we want. some speakers were saying we can only change design. we can make them shorter or, you know, do

anything we want with them. >> before we approve them; is that correct? >> the va would answer whether you can make modification rather than urban design through the 328 process. >> could you repeat the question? >> i guess the big concern that was voiced by many members of the public tonight was if something complies with all the tenets of this legislation then our ability to modify the projects would be somewhat limited and if we feel that they were allowed two extra floors but we really don't think it's appropriate, we only want to give them one, i mean can we do that sort of thing oh an lpa >> this program, yeah. so the design is such that you would have the same ability you would with an lpa for each

neighborhood to grant exceptions, right, as you see fit and to, especially to allow you to move maps around to adjust context in the area. for example, if a subject property is on a block that doesn't have really any midblock open space to speak of, maybe it takes a little sense to take a little bit of height off to add some mass in the rear to keep the overall development envelope around the same thing. the language in section 328 states that the planning commission can modify the project. it does have to make sure the project meets the affordable housing design guidelines but that the modifications are intended to be minor because obviously if you chop a wlaut -- lot of it off it's not really an incentive to use the program because you are not going to be to get the density bonus associated to cover the higher

affordable housing. obviously the planning commission has the power to modify it or even deny it but there is language that because of this program it is understood to some degree these projects are going to be somewhat larger than the surrounding context. >> that's true, but on an individual project i would like to have the authority to modify, even though the bonus might be less, they might get wles affordable housing, they might get less, you know, because the height is too high or for one reason or another we feel this particular one has impacts that are negative enough. and i think that's what we've been talking about, they want to make sure we have discretion on each of these projects and i would support this if we have it, if we don't then i'm going to ask to move up to the level of cu for all the projects. >> i think the advantage here is it doesn't have to be necessary or desirable, the

level for the neighborhood, the cu criteria. the lpa is a little different, it's more matching the design constraints. >> commissioner richards. >> question for mr. welch if we may, please. in your opinion the difference between an lpa we just approved a project tonight for a hundred units based on an lpa >> deputy zoning administrator said it pretty clearly. you basically have design criteria that you cannot violate. the density bonus, so you can't do what you want to do. i mean you can twist and turn but your staff just told you, no, you don't have the same power that you have in a ceu and that's

the question, you know? the answer is pretty clear, you don't. >> thank you. thank you. so the question then, mr. teague, even if we start chopping things off and moving things around and it doesn't qualify for the bonus, what's the deal? >> i think i was pretd clear -- pretty clear that you can disapprove the project if you want. the planning commission has that authority and it's very clear in what's proposed, it's very clear in lpa's, you have that authority. the caveat i was making was the relevance of understanding the context of the program when you are reviewing a project. obviously it's somewhat different than if you are reviewing just a standard conditional use or lpa because obviously the context of the program is to have higher mass of the building to have higher

amounts of affordability. but in terms of the planning commission you obviously have the ability to approve it or disapprove it. >> the basis for the approval have to have basis eye. >> there are required findings that have to be made for section 328. if the project would have otherwise treated (inaudible) subsumed in the disapproval as well. >> the other question i have is for supervisor wiener's based on 100 percent affordable there's no hearing at all unless -- there's no hearing at all, no cu >> remove the cu requirement for 100 affordable. >> we have a program here that talks about 100 percent affordable, under lpa it's still going to be treated affordablely? >> yes. >> the next shoe to fall might

be we want to propose we don't have any meeting at all. >> commissioner moore. >> i believe these projects need to be looked at for being necessary and desirable in the larger con tebs, not a question of taste but overall fit and i regrelt we have to set ourselves up here by not being able to have a cu process partially because the density requirements will override the commission's ability on specific circumstances. i basically for that reason cannot support or send this on with any recommendation. i believe this needs to be reworked in a manner that meets the broad objective and is indeed work that the commission with work supportively with the planning department to deliver projects in the appropriate form and shape where they are necessary and where they are desirable. >> commissioner antonini. >> so do we have a motion yet?

>> commissioner hillis made a motion to move this along with staff's recommendation, if i recall correctly. >> second. >> second? it seems there are some concerns so i would go ahead and make a motion to require conditional use on all these projects. i realize we still have some constraints but it would be a higher bar and i think it might alay many of the fears that a lot of the public have mentioned, so that would be my motion. >> second. >> with the xepltion of 100 percent affordable, we might have to make that an lpa because they are not allowed any more, i don't think. is that correct? >> we'll have to resolve the conflict between the recent legislation. >> it's a motion anyway. >> deputy city attorney burnet, i'm going to jump in

for a moment and remind you that the housing affordability act reduces the city's ability to make (inaudible) public health and safety, i believe it is. so it's not just that the state density bonus program provides that the city is subject to certain requirements when housing projects produce density but also the commission would be limited by the housing accountability act and its ability a project submitted on this program or any project from removing density. >> commissioner. >> i seconded this for two reasons, one, we're going to have a hearing anyway so it's not like we're creating a new process, we're going to have a section 328, it's the same time, same bat station. i think the second thing is we

haven't -- we normally take projects and cut floors off them and things like that, i completely get what the city attorney is saying, we don't lop floors off, we try to make projects better. >> commissioner moore. >> i would prefer we forward this without recommendation pargtsly because of what the city attorney is saying. i think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, if a cu is not the way to approve a project that we normally use in a cu we should not be forwarding this as a measure that we support. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that was seconded to move this forward to the board of supervisors recommending that the planning commission retain conditional use requirement or review on all projects. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye.

commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner moore, no. commissioner wu., no. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner president fong, yes. that passes 4-2. there was a motion on topic 3, commissioner richards, you actually left the chambers, where the recommendation was moving to the board of supervisors recommending staff's recommendation d and that lot mergers would be prohibited until such time as the commission approves new guidelines and to refine the review related to light and air. the question i had for the maker of the motion, if i may, we would be seeing those guidelines here and we would be approving them? >> until such time as the commission approves new guidelines, yes. commissioner antonini, yes.

commissioner hillis, yes. commissioner wu commissioner richards, aye. commissioner president fong, aye. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners wu and moore voting no, which moves us to topic 5. >> there are 4 recommendations from staff. four are really about services and protections to existing small businesses to offer first right of refusal to establish a small business relocation fee and to provide a guarantee of 18 months notification for businesses that may occupy sites that are developed. the fourth one is around requiring the commission to reduce commercial use sizes

or require commercial uses in ahb projects if you deem it appropriate on a particular corridor. >> commissioner antonini. >> okay, a few questions about this. is the relocation fee, now this is, how is this set? does it mean that the project sponsor is going to pay for the cost of your business being relocated or is it going to pay some of the additional rent that the tenant will have to pay at its new site, how extensive is this fee? >> the proposal in the staff recommendation is that it be consistent in the relocation act and that was recommended by this commission. this that case it covers relocation costs up to a capped amount or relocation costs plus a $10,000

fee. i think that is something that when we went to the small business commission they were interested in working with us and that is an idea and also i should mention that folks at iwd are also interested in helping us rail get that number right so we would be interested on sort of considerations for that process. >> i'd like to see we go lailgts bit further because we are giving a bonus to the project sponsor that's significant and if a business, right of first refusal but the project sponsor should assist the renter in, you know, some sort of stablized rent. i know we don't have commercial rent control but i think tr should be some kind of agreement with the business if they want to relocate that there be a rent

that's consistent with what they were paying before when they come back. that might be --. >> commissioners, joaquim torres, office of economic development. we would be working together with the small business commission, also with our own office to figure out what the exact need to be and also think through some of the pieces to how it would relate to the project sponsor and what kind of agreements would be in place or considerations were being made in terms of how the small business would be supported during that time and through that individualized process. >> also some attention to what the rent might be when they return --. >> it would be a full conversation, if you are offering them a first right of refusal you want it to be first right of acceptance and that the condition would be right for them. we support small

businesses through the process. >> deputy city attorney marlena burn. state law is very explicit that the city cannot impose any kind of commercial rent control or requiring certain types of negotiations around rent in terms of businesses. >> in terms of requiring, correct? cannot require. >> you certainly can encourage as part of this legislation. the two parties worked together for a mutually acceptable result. i would be supportive of this, i think it may be as far as we can go given the state law. >> commissioner richards. >> i can support e and i would recommend that the rest of all this really be left up to the small business commission or because moist of it's millionaire domain i would look for this guidance. they seem

to have done a good job at a couple hearings i watched. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> i cannot support for those who do not recognize the dna of san francisco is small business and that particular ambience and how it stands in contrast to most new retail spaces actually standing empty for weeks and months on end, i think there is a clear indication that new retail spaces we are building are not at all accommodating those small businesses which we are talking about relocating and it's for that reason that i cannot support any of what is suggested here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner moore, this notion that we are allowed to reduce the commercial lot sizes when they come before us and i think punting or the small

business commission really let this one out, it's the appropriate thing to do. i completely agree with you, they are the dna and i think the small business commission is the one that actually went with it. >> i agree this particular suggestion for registration falls short toally a discussion about small businesses, i believe some of the ballot measures to better address how we get a better amount of fair housing. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to move this topic forward to the board of supervisors recommending staff recommendation e on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner willis, yes

(inaudible) convert some of the 18 percent middle income units which are currently meant to be serving 120 percent for rental and 140 percent for owner and the group wants to take a look at the feasibility and find room for households that are at 100 percent for rental and 120 percent for ownership. >> to point out the commission also previously, you remember, included in their motion looking at further value recapture on this issue. so i mean i think that was a similar

recommendation if there's, if you want to specifically get of these numbers that's something you can do or you can rely on that earlier notion and says look for a way to refine the ami requirements. >> commissioner hillis. >> staff recommendation, the comment that director made, there was also this possibility there was this neighborhood adjustment if during the process a neighborhood the average rental level was below a certain amount, can we do that proactively, like make these adjustments now by neighborhood and have, you know, in some neighborhoods, somebody showed a chart with rental rates and perhaps in the sunset it starts off lower then that's what's codified. >> we could definitely do

that. we could take neighborhood data, set the market rent, look at the appropriate ami to be 20 percent below market rent. i would recommend that we just have an adjustment measure where you could monitor that over time since the market changes. but, yes, that's possible. >> okay. >> that's a possible additional recommendation if people are willing to look at it, kind of change those percentages based on the rent variation in neighborhoods. >> commissioner antonini. >> i would make a motion to support the staff recommendation present to modify those percentages according to neighborhoods to make it most appropriate and

appropriate to address that space between the traditional lower income levels and the levels of the milds income, see if there's a way to kill some of that space. >> commissioner, i think what i heard was to codify it would be 20 percent of the average of each neighborhood. >> yeah, that makes sense, right? >> is that what i hear you say doible. >> staff could look into an index to make it neighborhood specific and our staff recommendation is around making the 120 percent ani . >> commissioner wu

>> i'd like to ask mr. welch one more time to comment on this adjustment, particularly because the information presented by staff, the levels are of great concern for me even with the suggestions just made by star. >> this is kind of fascinating to do it not at a city ami level but a neighborhood ami level, i think i've died and gone to heaven. if you guys want to do that i think it's a great idea. the question becomes, it seems to me, how do you do that? i'm delighted to hear you are prepared to do that. then why are we using ami, why am i using ami you

are going to do neighborhood level rents, why are we using san francisco ami why are we using a regional ami there's no federal money in this program, developers can't get any money, why don't we start with a san francisco ami and then make the san francisco neighborhood adjustments. it's beyond me to understand why it is that we're sticking with a jupbal ami in a program that requires, that doesn't have any federal money in it, that indeed is a new public policy that it has no public subsidy which has been elevated to a new master plan policy, i guess. then let's have the current of our neighborhood, let's do a city ami

>> commissioners, you remember how an unadjusted ami gives us greater simplicity, it streamlines our process. if we have dueling ami programs, it slows down the process and it's more costly. there's nothing magical about an ami chart versus a hud unadjusted ami chart. what's the average people make? on the hut chart, the point is go to the data, look at what the incomes are in the neighborhood, look at what the market rate is in the neighborhood and pick the

place. it's either could be to be fiflt percent and 45 percent, you don't need to have dualing charts. we can look at data on the market rate rents and pick an ami level according to the ami chart that's 20 percent below the rates. that's something very simple. it's neat and clean and there's no need to be doing charts. >> can you spent on commissioner's opinion? >> i don't think you want to start at this idea that this is about finding 20 percent below market rent. i would argue that the work from the bottom upb, not the top down. it was a major critique you have had, you are still ending up with a program that's going to end up

targeting what's called middle income, keep in mind the mayor's office of housing has defined milds income as a very, very wide -- all the way up to 120 and somebody what argue 140. i would suggest that you look at incomes by neighborhood, yes, you can really understand the demographic and the spending power, and then decide where to set the program so you are targeting the widest range of beneficiaries and not simply, it's always going to be up as a reference point. the other thing that gives me pause, i would agree with just plug it into a chart, i will say the history of the inclusionary program that we have now is originally it was 16100, you heard that from

staff earlier and they purposefully adjusted it down 10 percent to accommodate san francisco incomes. that's how we have 55 percent for rentals and 90 for ownership. if you simply start at 120 and 140, you are already assuming that's where you want to get to, so abandon the whole determining the ami first and find where you want to hit based on the research as staff is suggesting. the seed units neither of them went for 70, 80, as well as the higher stuff, but don't start with the ami and work backwards based on real data from folks' incomes. >> commissioners wu --. >> just one point of clarification. i do want to remind everyone that this is a

very, very, very small piece of the affordable housing effort in san francisco. 92 percent of our housing goes to households at 60 percent of ami and below. our middle income households, yes, from 60 percent all the way toup 140 percent, even 150 percent in some neighborhoods. get very little assistance. this is merely a way to address a middle income need. the reason we're not at 21 percent. we would have to finance affordable housing every single day. it wouldn't be a workable plan. it wouldn't be a workable plan, the low income housing option at 55 percent and 65 percent and 75 percent, it wouldn't really work. the number's at 100 percent and 120

percent, our construction costs were so high that that's where we think we can get the 18 percent and is still have it be a propl that people will takability of. if it's a feasibility analysis we should maximize the affordable housing option, it's not that we don't want to subsidize the 65 or 65 percent option, it's just very, very expensive. that's why the levels are set where they are, it's financial feasibility and serves a group of people that gets no assistance whatsoever from the city of san francisco. >> what programs do we have available for them? >> we have no programs for them. we have some middle housing money that we put into

the property bond specifically for that reason so we are now going to start serving people at 70 percent ami and 80 percent of ami up to 120 percent of ami, but it's a very, very small bit of funding tif to an overall total of 67 percent. >> who made that motion? was a motion made? >> i moved to support, i think. i do now -- the staff recommendation. >> okay, so commissioner antonini it's a motion for neighborhood specific rates and lower income income ami >> yeah. >> staff recommendation added neighborhood specific. >> yeah. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioner. shawl i call the question? >> yes, please. >> on that motion then to take

staff's recommendation about neighborhood affordability and lower level ami so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and richards voting against. . >> the last one. >> it's a general plan amendment, there are two items before you. commission comments that ends the discussion but maybe we can call the --. >> yes, i think that resolves -- oh. commission, city attorney, would it be cleaner to simply have the commissioners make a motion to pass forward the program with

no recommendation and the votes for each of these specific items as opposed to sort of nothing? >> yes. >> do you need a motion from one of us now? >> yes, please. >> so moved. >> no, you have to make it, i can't make it. >> i move to forward without recommendation on the program as a whole considering the suggestions that were made through those --. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner wu.. on that motion to forward, no recommendation, only consideration to the recommendations on the individual topics, commissioner antonini, aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and there is just the general plan. >> the plan includes two sentences at the bottom of several maps that say to

encourage greater levels of affordability on site, the city may adopt affordable housing policies that are several stories higher and building masses that are more than shown here and that is inserted through jot the general plan. the question to the commission is whether they would like to forward that to the board of supervisors. >> i would move to forward that just a general statement about this program. >> second. >> i have a motion to move that recommendation eye ?ue. >> what does that mean? >> there's a packet in your practicalet about the exact language. >> you have to take a vote to either approve or disapprove it. >> but it's only related to this program, correct, or if

this program fails at the board of supervisors, does our action today, does that stick? >> if the board elects to forward that information you send to them, that would stand regardless of what action you take on the plan ordinance. we -- by acting on this item you are forwarding a recommendation to the board to make this change to the general plan and the board of supervisors has an up or down vote on that amendment. >> wouldn't we rather make this general plan amendment only if the affordable housing program is approved? >> i would say so. >> attach them. >> the question is whether you can recommend a general plan amendment that's contingent on

the plan moving forward. i believe you can do that. >> deputy city attorney, that's fine. it would only go into effect if the corresponding motions are approved. >> commissioner antonini. >> i am supportive of this and i would make a motion to put this language in, it's pretty much boilerplate and it also speaks to this whole concept you are trying to prevent additional, to enable us to afford more private nobody else is going to be able to build, afford to build middle income housing in san francisco because you can't charge enough

to make it salable, to make it work. >> that's not the question before us. commission. >> it looks to me like you want to put tires on if you don't have a car. i believe there is nothing there. this would come back, the board of supervisors have classed it in a manner i expect they can, we can't support it at this time but at this moment i cannot send this on with nothing to support it. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to recommend the board of supervisors adopt the general plan amendment contingent on the program being approved. >> commissioner richards. >> that's fine, make your motion. i am comfortable with that motion if it is kupb continue jepblt with the board of supervisors approving that. >> on that motion (calling

roll) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners wu and moore voting against. commissioners, we will place this on general public comment for which i have no speaker cards. >> general public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. (meeting adjourned)..

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at

the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the

city and county of san francisc

parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very

unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. >> particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also ensuring the connection to digital inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. >> people are on the move. they

are no longer chained to their desk tops at home. people can accomplish a lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. given all the mobile community and mobile information that's available. we thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. >> our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. in san francisco you don't have to be bottled up in an office. you can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. it's great for the local community here and it means a lot to me. >> in the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park

and you can go to parks and recreation .org and having wifi in our parks makes it more accessible. if you want more information about how to enjoy wifi in san francisco parks, go to >> good afternoon today is to thursday, february 4, 2016, 1:30 the afternoon prairie march mime our clerk is alicia and today's meeting is broadcast by sfgovtv phil jackson and leo

m could you share our announcements and call the roll. >> electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. on roll call commissioner avalos commissioners, any questions or comments? commissioner crews commissioner mar mr. chair we have quorum madam clerk. >> approval the pins from the december 11th with the publicity safety and neighborhood committee and colleagues, any questions or comments any member of the public want to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. and if we have a motion to approve the minutes motion doesn't chair mar and

second is he commissioner campos we'll take that without objection. >> election of the chairperson and vice chair person for 2016. >> okay. well, let's role the today is i'm open to being continuing as chair and but willing to support other people as well i'll make a motion to nominate start with the chair position and kc vice chair i'll like to support xhukz to continue but i think we're open for a chair right now so. >> mr. chair i'd like to nominee commissioner avalos so once again serve as chair and my intention to then substantially

renominate commissioner crews. >> second. >> okay. thank you and i really appreciate my colleagues confidence and by chairing lafco do we want to do the vote. >> unanimously. >> and approve both seats at the same time so colleagues can we take that nomination and vote we'll take that without objection. it will be oh. public comment on the selection or election of chair and vice chair for lafco? >> okay seeing no member of the public and thank you for the reminder director fried and colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? and congratulate lafco for

moving forward. >> item 4 aggregation report and status on the cleanpowersf and timeline for program launch update on the california public utilities commission and extension of the memorandum of understanding with marin clean energy. >> okay barbara hale first if the public utilities commission. >> welcome. >> thank you, commissioner i wanted to report we remain on schedule for beginning inform serve our cleanpowersf customers april excuse me. may 1st we are happy to report we did as we had planned begin our notification process letting the customers know they can opt outburst auto enrolling the first week of february and new statistics to report i've been reporting what the something like that up on the website have looked like i want to report

what the enrollment is looking like an opt out i'll start with preenrolled customers and also auto enrolled the preare enrolled said 4 hundred and 4 and the auto customers total a little bit over 7 three hundred now, some of those individuals could have must not meters more accounts but the dexterous and out of that total only 8 folks have said they want to opt out of the program so very low opt out initially we'll have 200 and one services request to you want

up to super green and nice strong number and then so that's for our may 1st service we're continuing to take preenrollments for folks that wanted to be part of next phase that will start service in november you have so raise your hand to be receiving august in august and 58 folks are signed up for the next phase that's the prior to the august deadline that's all good news we're moving along and actively engaged in our green tariff program and net metering program and also very actively engaged on the regulatory front on the

pour cost and suggested workshop scheduled for march 9 we're cloufb with the other cca to have a workshop on the public utilities commission california public utilities commission there will be a public comment period and we're encouraging folks supporter of the tow step up to the mike and lends their voice with that, i'll take any comments. >> commissioner crews. >> ms. hale thank you for the new numbers i like the breakdown for the preenrolled of 4 hundred and 4 did that include people that signed up before the option of super green when no difference brown with between the folks. >> we sent e-mails to the

folks to tell to opt up to super green we did do moufgs of notification with them and included phil that information gap. >> i didn't get that e-mail. >> i was one of the people that signed up originally wrag super green and so off-line make sure you give me our current e-mail account we'll make sure that you do receive that okay. >> okay. great i have a question i counted get the notice the mail. >> okay. >> so i have a question about and this is sort the weeds i get but under the failure to pay under the terms and conditions is cleanpowersf may transfer our account to pg&e upon 14 days if you fail to pay our bill if our

service is transferred you'll be required to pay the fee above and subject to sclaeksz if is that an automatic 14 business days if someone has problem paying and not first time help them pay. >> yeah. so first of all, that is a may not saying that we will. >> will. >> but not that i'm aware of people that we retain the right to do that and we don't at this injunction have the ability to over a payment plan because the bills for cleanpowersf customers is a shared bill between us and he pg&e electric and pg&e gas there isn't yet win the pg&e simply territory a method for distributing the funds if customers among the 3 under a

payment plan approach so we know that marin and sonoma have been attempting to work with pg&e to establish around approach i understand there is difficulty but we're joining in that effort we will be able to over an approach like that having said that, at the office of public utilities commission the collaboration process what our internal process will be with engaging with customers procure to returning them to pg&e development. >> great and the last question i have the the last question i have has to do with with in terms of getting people signed up for the super green when is the deadline to sign up and

could that deadline be a push for making sure you're in you know wave one and two and 3. >> not a specific deadline for opting up and we want to be open to allowing customers the program to opt up to super green at any time the ability to participate the first phase for may 1st service and the next portion of the first phase for november service those deadlines are for may 1st we - that deadline passed for notify you have to tell us by august that you want to be part of program you, you can tells you i president in super green arrest green once our in you can say

okay. i'm in green by want to opt up to super green we were not designing the program to have a limiting factor on super green like a deadline for super green during the initial period our intention is to procure more contribute nerd to meet any super green demands we see we didn't think that was you know overall in our interests to limit the super green. >> i think what i'm getting at some sort of act now exactly that gives people a the fact of the matter and target and the very last question. >> commissioner i think for now, the act now is getting to the program by telling us you 7, 8, 9 in before