hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. thursday, march 31, >> thursday, march 31, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. excluding myself

and and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. those persons that are standing the room you'll not be permitted to stay the chambers during the proceedings there is ash overflow room overflow room 416 on the same floor of city hall you'll be able to watch and see the hearings when your item is up you'll be able to come into the room i see one seat the front row and the audience as well unless you have a seat you can't stay in the room i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner wu thank you, commissioners commissioners, the first item on your agenda ask consideration for items proposed for continuance there were no items proposed for continuance i still

have no items proposed for continuance commissioners that places you under our consent calendar are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. excuse me - items one ab for the case and 2014 at 266 grandview mandatory discretionary reviews item 2 for case mission street conditional use authorization i have no other items i have no speaker cards okay any public comment on item

is items on the consent calendar? >> ms. concerning if i want to and i can't talk about it before. >> no. you, request to pull it off concept as a mandatory discretionary review that's my concern i don't know a mandatory discretionary review dr shawl be. >> commissioners at the end of the regular or given of the regular. >> beginning one ab shall be pulled off discontent is there any additional public comment on item 2 not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards. >> move to approve item 2. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve item 2 consent calendar commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and adoption of draft minutes for march 17, 2016. >> any public comment on draft minutes not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards. >> move to approve. >> second. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to drop out the minutes commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero at the mrs. you under item 4 commissioners questions or

comments. >> commissioner antonini thank you in this week san francisco busy time a list of the one hundred firms that received the most funding in venture capital it is non-pubically traded firms call unicorns and among that group over region majority firms in san francisco and i haven't look at it close enough to see if we have a majority of firms there so it is a good sign it means it will create jobs direct and indirect jobs commercial and residential construction so obviously people who are investing have confidence the market that is created by those firms in san francisco it is a good thing we have to address

the demands pursue created by those jobs and better to have a demand than not a demand and a lot easier to address a good thing then help month go that is negative i'm happy to see this kind of thing. >> commissioner vice president richards 5 quick things to commissioner antonini point i read the same article on business times on line talked about the unicorn companies has somebody that put in money to prior to a current round are taking companies are valued less than they were and barometer on the number of a lot of on line i believe 5 or 6 e.r. 7 with a total of 5 hundred employees they had to laid off this

funding was not sufficient at the counter rate so obviously nobody wants to see anybody hurt in an economic way but there are changes i said to note that and a couple of other things one this week's examiner on tuesday had the eviction city it is interesting the greater number of eviction a approaching what happened the years last bubble.org i said this before it is a supply and a demand issue a stabilization issue of housing and loss of additional housing for some public policy goals when taken too far with the short-term rentals and student housing secondly, san francisco and this is a good thing a record number

of tourists last year this was the examiner on thursday - wednesday we have 24.6 millions visitor and nearly 3 percent $9.3 billion was spent not city 12 support our local economy and the amount that breaks down is $25 million a day those tourists are spending a day it is fantastic the one thing it is a fantastic you know commerce and he industry statistic i want to make sure when from a public policy point of view we're building hotels and having reasonable rules on short-term rentals i hope we see and the fourth thing is on july secular this commission voted to move forward with initiation of a landmark tree the heights was a

contentious issue we did many we thought the tree was going to be cut adopt as there was a pair and the first one was cut down after much the urban forests looked at the tree and it is moving to the brofrdz i lost track of it until the green article in this last weeks paper and one last thing that hit me we have prop m issues coming before us soon we have square footage than allegation and the chronological about a building on steward r second street the building at 2 on second street and lincoln is an overbearing glass box that has all the charm and wealth rated packing crates

the newcomer is a cross between what happens without of town developers and architects have a vision of what san francisco should look like and further he said the knowledge on 22 second a mere - a black hole that sucks the grain from certainly angles and are close in a dark invade kind of way i've used the term dark invade are a void and lastly what makes 22 second street it is an alien and it acts as it didn't exist we'll go beyond the beauty contest and certainly when i read this article the way the building fits in that that

environment is interesting thank you. >> okay next item, please. >> commissioners that places us under department matters director's announcements. >> commissioners good afternoon director rahaim is not hey here we know he'll be back next week we have nothing to present but will respond to questions or comments you have. >> okay. thank you. >> seeing no questions on to item 6 review of past events from board of appeals no report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission didn't meet yesterday. >> and the board of supervisors didn't meet this week no report there. >> very good commissioners under general public comment for not to exceed a period of 15 minutes i do have two speaker

cards. >> georgia skirmishing. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here to talk about please the mission for patrols which you had on your calendars two weeks ago you had inform speakers hates a good thing i noticed i wrote a memo to the four women that were involved ms. mohan that overlap between the 317 revisions that are supposedlyly going on and what the 3 women ms. rogers and ms. flores are working on with interim controls i noticed it didn't mention the word altercation talks about the conversion and the occasions but not taeshgsz and the alterations are the issue as i've been

bothering you with wore a year and a half keeping the same number of units and the two or three units the resale and make a large luxury single-family i think the altercations needed to be excluded a a will that in 317 you reduce the size no more than 25 percent keep the smaller unit that can be absorbed i think the existing unit for the law shouldn't be contemplated for and they are trying to solve the housing problem but no increase in housing for housing i have a couple of examples i sent and mentioned to the 4 women that is in the the mission but close this is mission delores this is what is there it is built but there is what is

there before an alteration no adu and not market an adu and on fair oaks here's the brochure grocery stores and beautiful 4 unit i think they kept one the alley the other 2 are gone not mentioned the brochure they're gone not the mission but it is close enough so that's my point about the second units whether the 25 percent not reducing or the absorption thank you for your time. >> like to remind the members

of the public we've arranged for an overflow room 416 you're able to watch and listen to those procedures when our item comes up you're more than welcome to come back and submit your testimony. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners thank you for having me. today we need to take politics out of housing and put people in housing it is clear looking at the details this legislation only prop c is horticulture of facts and data along the politics in san francisco it the supervisor voted another supervisor are the authors of prop c they're just trying to project an imagine of the concerns by not walking the talk by not walking the talk the talk below-market-rate resourcing is a parking space they move into

the slot and have a meal and go to work, etc. during the life cycle the parking space didn't gain in value like a normal condo sure a leg up to overflow room in san francisco but the occupant doesn't gain the value of this and the below-market-rate depreciation no resale and no seat appreciation for the working-class number one inclusionary of a building should be an ordinance no planning code not as a charter amendment over time the economic. >> sir i'll interrupt you it seems as though your discussing item 7 on our agenda you started off generally but not dipped into the inclusionary housing so i'm going to. >> oh, i apologize. >> i will hold any comment

until then. >> you should yes. >> any other general public comment public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards one of the speakers indicated she believed there have was a 4 building a 2 unit building i suggest that you, you file a climate complaint with the zoning administrator and have to investigate thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to your regular calendar we pulled items one ab off of content we'll take up now the cases at 268 mandatory discretionary reviews good afternoon members of the public of the planning commission the the item before you is an application for a mandatory discretionary review of a briement for the demolition of an existing 2 story

single-family unit and the construction of a two level 2, 4 level dwelling unit on the right side between alvarado on the western borders of noah valley the rh two of 1, 2, 3 story buildings both properties are 30 stories with two dwelling units the residential design team found the scale and materials of the proposed structure to be enlightenmenty with the neighborhood character to date, no public comment and the opposition to the project the department received one e-mail from a neighbor requesting the construction after 8:00 a.m. and the neighbor and property owner has reached on agreement and a number of public but again, no comments expressing opposition

or support the staff recommend the construction of the two single-family dwelling for the following reasons the project is consistent with the general plan and the residential design guidelines and the planning code and results in one dwelling unit with no tenant displaced as a result of the project and no impact to the local street and the rh2 is the two dwelling units only one on the underutilized proper scoping it is more than 50 years old but the evaluation is a determination the existing building is not a landmark that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> project sponsor. >> jonas yes project sponsor.

>> architect for the project sponsor we spent several years working on this with the planning department we have a roster i don't know or i don't think that was included in your package we're talking with the planning department and are the ridge this is by our definition very unsound and code noifrment and not in good state of repair the planning department feels they needed a dr we have no opposition from the neighborhood we talked to the neighbors on i offered they have no problem the building is i think very

contextual we are reaching two one bedroom unit and has code compliant problems with mildew and bathrooms that are substandard and that's a 15 hundred square feet building this is liveable there's a mezzanine it is less than 7 foot high not liveable we're replacing that with a 15 square feet and second one bedroom unit with 8 hundred square feet 33 we think this is a great replacement for the existing building and the architecture is comparably with the neighborhood and setback it so it is code compliant rear yard and front yard the two neighbors we talked to they mentioned primary concern was please remove the

large tree the backyard it is blocking our view and other than that we feel this is an appropriate building and you should approve that in its present condition so if have any questions we'll answer those for you. >> we may thank you. >> opening it up for public comme comment. >> thank you for taking this off the commissioners, back to you. >> i - my concern a mandatory discretionary review i didn't think that should be on the consent calendar even though no neighborhood option my comment the second unit i looked at the plan and had a conversation with ms. tang the second one bedroom unit is the sort of basement if you look at the plans and the

bedroom has apparently has no windows the plans i have that's how i reader it is up against the we'll hear from the department now. >> originally the elevators didn't that stop but according to ms. chang it stops there so open from the garage and there was a landing and i just my concern is what my concern the general public comment that is so-called second units are absorbed into single-family homes and you think you're getting housing but you're not getting housing and granted this house i looked at the the google architecture and can understand the problem but still affordable housing that is being demolished and i don't know that the place will be relatively quotes from the property information map that

started at a single-family of approximately 41 hundred square feet at least that's what i read so again, i want to raise this issue of are you getting unit real units to rh2 the architect said it is the adjacent property for two unit i think that as policy issue that is concerning and i appreciate your time and the time for staff and the architect to allow this to com off the commissioners, back to you. >> thank you very much. >> how many minutes from my - first up here thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask them to 5ed the issue of the bedrooms and the windows. >> the bedroom is open 50 percent to the living space and the building code and planning

code that is a permissible bedroom the light and air in the windows and the front of the building and the lirj are more than adequate it is a code compliant bedroom you're seeing a lot of this so-called interior bedrooms in a lot of the unit the necessity creates additional bedrooms is there so this is not an uncommon situation at least in our experience. >> i present over commenting on that the fact that is a garden apartment should give it enough light, however, the bedroom the zoning administrator's we were copied on clearly says that cannot be done by the means our describing i don't believe this rises for us to take dr i believe this is

well done relative to the challenges to add a second unit we have something else coming up today that in meet the challenge but i believe we're spot on with the building i appreciate the gentrification and this is a balanced project as a whole so i'll move to approve without taking dr. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. part of issue a steep up slope so any bedrooms you get at a lower areas they'll going to be against the back interest and makes that more difficult - they did an extremely good job in creating two unit where there was one and maintaining a rear yard that is 42 percent that is using the averaging came back from 25 so they're doing a very good job on that part of it and

to these who say what is there is quotes but not live able to make it liveable anyone will put improvements and will not be an affordable unit once the improvements are done so probably arraignment or sell for more than the smaller unit of these two unit so nobody is going to own the property and keep it in a run down state to rent it at a low rents people that want to invest and improve it we should encourage i'm supportive and think that is well done and that's all i have to say. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'm supportive clearly the replacement is fair aspire than there now i have two questions the first one will those two unit be condo mapped that is

actually, i haven't discuses that with the project manager all rental unit so for the condo map they have dependent parking they have dependent assess to the backyard it is a second unit i just can't answer that. >> the second question here on page a-9 one looks like a cottage with the rear yard there is a structure there is that a structure this is - >> that's an ad on porch at the back of the building. >> okay. >> and it clearly an ad on. >> okay. great i'm supportive of project thank you. >> call the question, please. >> yes. commissioners on that motion then to not take dr and approve the project commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president

richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and commissioners that places us on item 7 oh, excuse me - at this time i wanted to remind the members of the public not seated if you can't find a seat you'll not be permitted to stay the chambers there's an overflow room 416 that you're welcome to watch and listen to those procedures when the time comes to submit your testimony you'll be permitted to come back into this chamber thank you. >> commissioners that places us on item 7 for case 2015 plus psa the inclusionary housing fee and requirements preparation for about 235eb8d for the inclusionary housing technical committee planning code amendment. >> good afternoon aaron starr, manager, legislative affairs supervisor kim one of the

co-sponsors is here. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> good afternoon, commissioners and commissioner president fong thank you, mr. mr. starr for letting me speak to present the ordinance before you today, i and supervisor peskin are co-authors for many of you are aware that supervisor peskin and i introduced a charter amendment in december the final version we introduced on january 12th of 72016 that established the following in recognition a charter amendment and housing trust fund compromised in 2012, we lowered inclusionary housing requirements from 15 to 12 percent but keeping offsite in lui fee and production other 80 percent what followed this reduction

was, of course, one of the largest construction booms this city has seen according to director rahaim perhaps in the 1906 san francisco earthquake something we couldn't have predicted in 2012 and 101 with this crisis and production of market-rate housing and luxury housing we continue to see the growing unequal of low and middle-income housing this charter amendment attempts to address that issue and also understanding we know that developers would build more affordable housing on the parcels so the charter amendment does two noirngz one with consisting of 10 dwelling units or more blue less than 25 dwelling units we keep the existing requirements on the date the charter amendment is implied and however for projects consisting of 25 guns the following applies one we're

raising the onsite affordability to 25 percent and asking the vendors to, back to 15 percent affordable housing the previous years and ask them to do 10 percent middle-income hours for affordable to remain at 15 percent average medium and middle-income of average and blow for homeowners we keep it another 80 percent and for middle-income one and 20 percent of average medium income and blow for ought we now ask the developers construct 33 percent of all units constructed on the principle project as affordable housing with 25 percent of the units being quotes took low income household and 13 percent for the informational to middle-income households while we have a low 80 a lot to do in terms of of building the

affordable housing we have a lot to do in terms of middle-income households area individuals many make very good was this in san francisco but frankly those was this with not keeping up with the increasing costs of housing and living in san francisco and actually in cities across the country this legislation that i'm speaking about today addresses projects that are 2, 3, 4 did pipeline with with submitted viral applications prior to the date of introduction of the final charter amendment on january 12th and how we should address the projects under the previous agenda now we all agree the planning department, the mayor's office and especially our market-rate housing developers know we can do more to build affordable housing on projects many of the developers wanted to contribute to the

housing crisis there is a general agreement even though those came in under 12 percent they mentioned endeavor towards building as much affordable as they can after extensive negotiations with many of the developer community and the mayor's office we have negotiated the following so we're creating a tier system that asks our developers to build a little bit more bans what they submitted in their completed fee application we propose to follow if you submitted yours prior to january 2014 it is about 14 percent and then after 13 and prior to january 12, 2016, the date we submit the last the inclusion rate will be 13 and a half for in lui fees prior to 201425 percent and prior to 2015, be 27 and a half and prior

to january 12, 2016, the rate goes up to thirty percent now there is a lot of different things that are also included the legislation we believe the project regardless of what they submitted they mentioned application can do more so we 24 ordinance does exclude a certain set of projects one a set of projects built in zoning that eastern neighborhoods plan back in 2007 recognized to do more affordable housing these are development that are built in the u n u we specifically all out those demolishing production distribution and repair those projects are located with the mission street neighborhood transit ate in the family zone and have to build the unit offsite we required high levels

of the affordable they can build more affordable housing they were building on cheaper land but want to make sure we're preserving as much pdr as possible we talk about building middle-income housing as possible but the other thing the land use and planning code we are encouraging as itch living what this jobs that produce within pdr as possible and often supporting the artist and art organization we we split the projects that build below one and 20 feet when our building with more units you can build more affordable housing and we certainly seen that with 3 projects the district i represent for seawall lot where the giants will be building offices and the 5 m project that was before the planning commission the late fall and fulsome that came before you at

the beginning of year now i believe we pass out a memo for k before all the commission those amendments one attempt to make the ordinance consistent with the definition and provisions the charter amendment the average medium incomes we listed and to identify the areas we're working with the city attorney and department staff to clarify our legislation finally he will make a note that we exclude and allow projects to build at affordable inclusionary rate i'm sorry affordable and inclusionary rate we negotiated either via d da or through a voter approved ballot measures those continue to build at the levels they mentioned negotiated with the city or by passing a measure with the voters

so commissioners, if there are any questions i'm available to answer them. >> thank you we're going to continue with the staff report and if we have any questions i'm sure we'll tell you. >> my director whereby available to answer any and all questions thank you, commissioners thank you for your time and consideration and as you build more housing we look forward to your feedback and support for that ordinance thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim in november of 2012 san francisco voters passed prop c

which put the inclusionary requirements into the city chart and locked the rate another 12 for onsite and 20 for on this year san franciscans will be asked to vote on that inclusionary housing housing the proposition will require the requirement to be taken out of the charter and into the charter and includes the c the amendment will supercede the chapter amendment and will only take effect if passed this june with technology to 24 years have the inclusionary rates, however, what 25 unions or more those projects using the onsite alternative 25

percent of construction will be dedicated as inclusionary housing with 15 percent to low income household and 10 percent available to very low, low or middle-income for qualifying them in the in lui fees projects with 25 or one and 20 feet in height will be required to pay thirty percent the principle project qualifying the projects with 25 units or more and over one thing and 20 feet in height thirty percent will be required to pay qualifying the project for the offsite alternative they'll be the same for the one and 25 and over utilizing the in lui fee 20 percent of the units will be available to low and low income hourmdz or household and 13

affordable for middle-income household. >> the 3r0e79 ordinance established what the planning department refers to as a grandfathering clause instead of grandfathering those projects that the inclusionary rate the grandfather provision increase the inclusionary what is submitted and completed in an environmental application those are not staff report and supervisor kim went over p them in addition the ordinance will include grandfathered bans they mentioned zoning or project we refer to those as the carve outs the district to demolish the pdr units and the projects located within the mission street and promotions located within the family zones projects meeting those criteria are not bicycle grandfathering

projects that are utilizing the in lui fee and prototyping the buildings with a health at one and 20 feet or greater are not grandfathered and have to pay the inclusionary that is 33 percent of the unit constructed they're also simply other provisions the first creates a new alternative that allows project sponsors to acquire on existing building not primary in residential use for the inclusionary requirements another provision the ordinance adds language that asks the sponsors to use the affordable housing bonus plan to use it's best effort for the obesity affordable units the amount of 25 percent of greater and has a requirement for the controller's office for the feasibility study every 3 years that report studies how to set the inclusionary housing at the maim feasible amount in order to

increase the housing for low and moderate and higher income and establishes a committee for input and identifies to the controller and the mayor's and the board of supervisors regarding the content of the economic feasibility study this is for approval with molestations the department supports the production of housing especially affordable housing the ordinance establishes a process to regularly feasible analysis to adopt to the changes and insure the bmr housing with market-rate housing in order to achieve that both the departments recommends the following modifications one to maintain the inclusionary requirements higher than the amounts the draft owners as grandfathering provision such as

those in the union district they have a higher rate and as grairthd clause lowers those requirements two remove the undefined terms the onerous provision and have incentives like the affordable housing bonus program as the best vector achieving higher affordability in light of the state law it has language that encourages the project sponsors to 25 percent inclusionary rate for the program while the department supports the inclusionary are requirements for projects using the program the planning code should establish standards and requirements and should not have this language encouragement language is better than policy documents and 3 allow the flexibility in ami to encourage a variety of affordability similar o to those on the onsite requirements the onsite requirements for 25 units or

more has a degree of flexibility and mandates 50 percent are dedicated to low income households and allows the remaining 10 percent to be provided to either a low, low or middle-income households this flexibility allows some projects to qualify for tax credits and other projects may serve middle-income household and number 4 insure the treatment of uniform - this recommendation removed the carved out for the demolition of pdr and located in the mission street and projects located within the selma zone and projects with the buildings studying one and 20 feet in height and 5 grandfathering the projects to complete the projects our recommendation will amend them with 36 months from

the time they have a building permit and a hard date of december 7, 2018, number 6 make a commitment to insure the city gets the most affordable housing as the real estate market by requiring the planning commission to have one hearing one one to two months after the feasibility study to consider and initiate an ordinance that updates the requirements based on the feasibility analysis and number 7 the studies are tied to requested concession it requires a 235eb8g9 study the project sponsor is not providing onsite units the amount of 25 percent our recommendation to length the analysis such as the concession for state law approvals for the

density are not in line with the feasibility, however, the concession utilization exposure requirements have a thresholds feasibility of a affordable housing bonus program is not factoring into the city's decision on whether or not to approve the density bonus under the program and number 8 make sure that the new opens for pipeline projects to satisfy the inclusionary requirement through the acquisition of existing buildings for the full time of the acquisition program right now the orientals is on this issue and number 89 we have various technical amendments for the staff report i'll not go over those right now we have 3 additional recommendation to evaluate whether or not the inclusionary percentage should be for the inclusionary requirements based on the increased development for the eastern neighborhoods zoning

and the proposed ordinance didn't look at this and the staff wants this to be tiered for the potential or potential and number 11 grandfathering for approval are planning department approval that is not received the first building permit these promotions are been reviewed by the city and most likely has they mentioned financing in place to increase they mentioned inclusionary rate - >> and finally number 12 reconcile the affordability for the proposed owners with those the planning code amending for the new affordable for that onsite and offsite inclusionary unit but didn't alternate the affordability levels and the draft owners from the draft ordinance is adopted the planning codes will have two

conflicting affordability rates and that concludes my presentation. of course, i'm here for questions. >> thank you. okay thank you very much okay. we're going to open up for public comment did you have questions for supervisor staff or want to wait. >> i can wait. >> okay sarah, mike, dan, claude, gabriel, matt, those are tough to read marilyn and sonya jay bradshaw edward and eric, robert actually man and spike. >> and if those - >> those persons called do line up on the screen side of the room it would be helpful please. >> good afternoon,

commissioners i'm sarah i'm senior policy for inspire glad to be here i e-mailed you all our formal position i'd like to highlight a few things in our letter the first is that there are much the legislation we do support but we support the conducting the feasibility analysis and support the technical advisory committee and much we're appreciative in terms of working with the supervisors on the grandfathering, however, we feel there are several changes that need to be made as much of you, you know the board passed a policy resolution with the term sheet for this piece of legislation that policy resolution said the grandfathering class would be constructed to consider feasibility and fairness for projects the pipeline to that's our concern we do support the

staff recommendation first particularly we don't agree with the carve out for the u m y mission ct c or zoning district we don't understand those areas are carved out that seems like going back to the eastern neighborhoods plan and that is the intention of the sponsors than that is something need to be looked at sort of more holistically, and, secondly, we do agree with the carve but of the protection over one and 20 feet there are numerous the pipeline that is midsized projects can't afford to pay the non-restricted grandfathering rates for the in lui and that should be looked at as well the third piece i want to direct your attention something the staff had mentioned and it is really important that the commission discuss this when is

or which is the way the language is with the projects that have received they're planning entitlements they're first discretionary approval but not pulled they're going building permit or site permittolysis languages the charter that exempted those but the language is not replicated in the legislation and if not replicated the legislation those projects that have received tare entitlements could be subject to more changes and that's very problematic thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm mike a 25 year recipient of north beach my concerns of the grandfathering and legislation when you failed to balance the priorities correctly when grandfathering to certain classes you ended up with lots of unforeseen problems

you may reminder the board of sups tried to regulate the carbons and carved out grandfathering for people with language issues even avenue that sundown don't care years and years for people to comply another example i think of the recent condominium literary buy out it was a sandwich we're in real trouble of doing the thank here as you may know i want to get into the record and remind the city has a need formally middle-income housing if up look at the moderate in case housing is where the big need is we still needed low income by greater for moderate we need inclusionary housing that's why

this is very important to that about the priorities when our grandfathering like go we need to ask ourselves if developers with willing to shoulder the 25 powers to get the units done and provide the inclusionary housing why are we grandfathering people i think we need to ask ourselves that we shouldn't be grandfather anyone if we are basing that on what we need and expect them to shoulder the burden of the percentage the grandfathering shouldn't be in 2, 3, 4 legislation thanks for listening and. >> good afternoon, commissioners commissioner president fong i'm dan with the prod district attorney group thank you for the

opportunity i support the policy goals that were set forth in the march first resolution and the important parts of that which i think are maximizing the economic feasibility percentage of inclusionary, and, secondly, most importantly this resolution was intended to create housing and affordable housing for lower and moderate income households i will urge the commissioners to extend the grandfathering to the package of the legislation for projects that have filed they mentioned economical applications prior to that date and also to exempt the projects as was mentioned that were previously approved as was so forth the charter the reason for this this is fair and it is not punitive to those projects and these sponsors that have

invested substantially the projects including some that are acquired they mentioned land it will support the policy resolution goal of actually creating housing and that's affordable housing and it will insure that our projects specifically have the visibility to go forward create low and middle-income housing and again is consistent with the policy resolution thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioner please does not support this amendment until a feasibility study results are available the related consequences are understood your agenda packet says number one adopt the affordable requirements of those inclusionary rules the second step to conduct a feasibility study to understand the impacts that is ass back awards why

would you adopt something first and study it second surely ludicrous it is irresponsible to base it on a motion we know we want affordable housing but want the best way and how to impacts and irresponsible to change the ruled and not allow all current projects to be looked at equally and lastly it is irresponsible to increase estimate the impact this amendment will have on crews losing jobs we have people that can't be developing projects the pipeline the ellis act is driving audited sf affordable homes you look at the mission an abandoned garage and driveway or i should say a gas station no one is using them this is where they're trying to build and the beast on bryant

shows 40 percent affordable housing proposed but 1922 not acceptable to many of the mission recipient and 25 percent requirements of this amendment will only stop housing it is going to lose jobs for the crews and for so many people that needs housing and jobs thank you very much for hearing me out. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is gabriel i'm speaking on behalf of the economic agency and calling you to support supervisor kim's amendment especially for in regards it the u m u zoning and the selma those have a high degree of darment displacement and a high rate of market-rate development i'll say community organizing around issues like proposition 9 we

only had 7 percent of our affordable housing as affordable the pipeline 7 percent inclusionary this is a very narrow twartsd common sense amendment to mo improve to help remedy a significant housing imbalance the mission and selma we ask you to adopt this when property owners bought those those were zoned as lower land with undesirable used for market-rate developers matt haney sros and traveling and industrial uses so this will not only help the remedy protecting pdr that is as said u m u with pdr zones this will help us start a baseline for projects like the beast on bryant we need more affordable housing this does not we're not

proposing to not remove grandfathering for everything but gnarling twarld things for those zones we need to pay attention to get more affordable housing so voting with the staff recommendation to rove those zones will be essentially voting against more affordable housing and this is a special day we get to speak and we have those zones together this is as you may know cesar chavez day which was the former moment the unification of two district that were adapted through the labor negotiations and had organized for a community rally this protects two population displaced from the city. so again you know evictions are still running penalty and effecting the zones and neighborhood if you, please i

recommend you adopt supervisor kim's recommendations and i recommend against staff's recommendation they didn't work with us but we were happy to work with supervisor kim's and making sure those zones were protected thank you >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm for the carpenters union of northern california and proud member of local 22 we're not here to be disruptive but you've done it very good those are folks that live and work in san francisco and some just work in san francisco we're a driver for the whole. >> bay area we support the graisht with no carve outs i have been approached by upward of thirty developers we've been working with going back years that made a commitment not only to follow the rules they need to

but working san franciscans that will be union jobs and candidates this will put they mentioned projects at risk and i wanted to during this trial when that means not just about wages and conditions but about job creation and every single one of those projects we recruit new apprenticeships for the community we were the folks that proposed the finance and built city built that's a fact and so it is one thing to change the rules moving forward we understand that certainly our members need affordable housing but someone mental illness middle-income jobs that's the candidates we want you to grater and we've been engaged with the neighborhood association to reach back ton projects in process will not only slow the construction but hurt a lot of the workers and in particular our membership because the other thing alters risk if people have

to back to the drawing board to make a commitment to the union and maybe on slough of workers not union this will effect the membership this is a good cross section of our workers please supporting grandfathering with no carve outs thank you for standing next item, please. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong members of the commission my name is claude i have a letter that i'd like to present to each of the commissioners first of all, lemon say i'm proud to follow the chapters as the chairman of the young we've worked with the carpenters to help to train the young people

in the hunters point i'm here as a representative of the thomas medical on waterfront residents as the user by the project the bayview hunters point our project was approved by this commission anonymously in 2011 and we were also approved anonymously by the board of supervisors with absolutely no opposition from the community we still remain the same support the neighborhood our problem it is the language in which we recommend a change in the language ways we have filed this project two environmental review application one to start the review in 2011 and a second one that was filed in 2014 that will soon be before this commission that will allow us to expand within the same building framework and design guidelines

for more family units than originally anticipated we think the intent was to expand our bmr obligation to 13 percent but because of our unique circumstance we're not certain and we ask for a clarifying thank you very much. >> hello my name is matt i want to make it clear i'm not a developer i'm here because i want to see the city run well and rules to be set clear people know how to follow and the best way to change our neighborhood not but what you do with your supervisor i think that is hard to go back and change the rules on people that went through a process you guys we hire you as our planning

commission to make the process you're the professionals the professionals that decide which what percent should be inclusionary bmr so this city can support this rate of inclusionary housing you shouldn't be pushed to kansas it for certain neighborhoods because certain i don't know how to happens it is unfortunately but make the rules clear you guys can set those rates i want to see the data pubically imposed to see the calculations and we can't have carve out in certain neighborhood it is lesbian the planning commission but when you set clear rules the city and have those rules played by everybody thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm a long time property

owner the mission i own laundry and parking lot on 25 and mission and working for the past 2 1/2 years to get a 75 unit building i've spent $400,000 the process i support very strongly the planning department's recommendations but that's not why i'm here i want to put a face for you and of a person notch you that is dealing with this problem of trying to get something developed i've been working on that a long time and consider it is a fundamental and fair that the rules are changed on me midstream and my inclusionary is more than double what it is now i understand this displacement in the mission i've run a

business the mission for 18 years it is a problem at the same time it is fundamentally unfair the projects a few blocks were genocide under a different standard thank you. i appreciate our hearing me. >> i'd like to remind the members of the public that are standing in front of the door line up on the screen side of the room otherwise theres an overflow room 416 where you can watch and listen to the proceedings okay. >> if you're not here for speak or if you've spoken you can't find a seat you'll have to use the overflow room thank you. >> and commissioners you may know me, i'm spike connie live in the mission since 1984 in response i was in a union for 25 years i'm glad to see our union brothers and sisters are here if you were standing where i was

you'd see local 6 sacramento i hope they're getting paid to be here the housing crisis is what precipitated those changes to double from completely unreasonable and problematic 12 percent inclusionary housing zoning district laws to a reasonable 25 percent the crisis that adapted 8 thousands chicano and latins out of mission it real place those things of work you'll see the housing crisis is not getting any better so we have a new law and the reason that the mission is being carved out with the nc t and b m u those are huge projects that are further displacing the mission we've been fighting them for years and

to cry crocodile tears they'll not make the million dollars doesn't make sense fiduciary he lives project is the one i know the best he bought the block for $27 million and saying that a third of it is worth $26 million he's tripped his values by having this land for all those years those are the seem people that started they bought the land when it was cheap it is not the government's jobs to insure the profits for the j.p. morgan chase with a 20 percent high yield return those are the people that can. to the mission to do theirs development i think you the people have to protect the people from where we are at today in fact, i'm here to talk about something that is omitted that needs to be added to the law the land dedication currently is 35 percent land

dedication which means land and no building and no housing and no funds dedicated to ever build it and we saw with the projects on mission street we're kate wade the 7 year for the land dedication site to ever get built i think you need to add the arithmetical formula because 35 percent is equal to 18 percent with the developer building and it will increase the developers - the same math needs to be reformed to the dedication that is silent in this proposal. >> hello commissioners with

count neighborhoods association van ness neighborhood alliance we support the legislation as amended under the exclusive summary with there's a lot more work to do on the density bonus issue we know that density bonus passed with no recommendation the sick is the graishths clause we prefer the production of affordable housing than a quarter golf and franklin and anular alleys and streets are at one and thirty feet a code compliant building the van ness area plan we work with the vendors for many years to build code compliant middle-income housing with affordable onsite and we work with really good

developers some of them got to 950 golf and now, one thousand van ness is stuck with from 17 percent to 33 percent for one and 36 buildings to take it down to one and 20 feet is losing 20 new units not a lot of win-win for developers that paid a lot of money in a high real estate is having a hearing in july and now seeing do you believe we don't want to a losses this project or others on van ness after the site the k o n for television and an abandoned industrial building that is becoming an attractive nuisance and urban blight we don't want this building to set here 4 to seven years without being built

with housing units so, please don't punish our good citizen neighbors there is no reason that one and thirty feet should not be the cut off instead of one and 20 feet and want more of a nuanced increase for anybody that is already the planning pipeline thank you very much. >> hello my name is teresa from the bills for housing program where our organization is located inside of market in support of the inclusionary housing ballot and for us historically we know 50 percent of the new development happens in that area

and experienced in the community where we would have the developer would have to - have to talk to the developer in other words, to have the inclusionary housing we know that the inclusionary housing system is not perfect system and recognizing there needs for amendments tell you but this is a good step and seeing a great demand looking for affordable housing and you can say this because of the displacement going on but at the same time someone was talking about earlier the feed process this process is already the pipeline and fair where we've seen in the previous history it is you know pay to play politics but soma the zone has been ignored for a very long time we're very happy it is going to

be not going to be grandfathered by development if something happens in that area it should serve the use i youth and family zone not office spaces so for us we really support this and we look forward in also working on future legislation thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners representing the latino democratic club native and mission from the bernal heights as you may know we've been fighting an issue of displacement, an issue of a large number of people leaving the mission unwillfully i'm speaking for the mission as someone that grew up there i'll say that we shouldn't allow the mission to be the political football at the negotiating tool to allow developers to get out

of those requirements we shouldn't be allowing grandfathered in development because the hot bed is the mission i feel like what we seeing the community that is what the happening big projects happening the mission and they get the pass because they big development is happening we stand as a club we wouldn't allow for the grafrt for the u m u that's our position and position brought by stick con is the land dedication should be relooked at that number and the conversation of labor agreements and union work i think i will stand with the unions but many of the projects that are proposed are not union projects you look at 22 and mission

there's work being down or done at the building that was burned we have to understand our positions because many of the projects are not union those are our positions we appreciate our time thank you. >> hi my name is marie part of the quatro i live in the mission i want to thank the xaurpts union none of them live in san francisco for wanting to build in our city, jobs to carpenter is like bones to a dog they go for it whether or not they think about it i'd like to also say something oh, that poor builder trying to develop his property only want a high-rise well, he lives in

sausalito and so let's live up to your own standards and the other thing i don't understand why people building big projects should be able to get a pass we're developing the mission 2020 coming out and a lot happening in the mission people are displaced left and right not fair the projects that are going to come in are all going to be for luxury projects that's just basic fact with some small units for supposedly affordable housing i just don't think that - that is it is fair it to give a pass think those projects when it is not what the mission wants i support supervisor jane kim's proposal and don't support our

recommendations i like you all to think about it a little bit more because it is the right thing to do thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is eric i'm the president of the quatro latino qualifier or cultural district we're in support of supervisor jane kim's the latino cultural district formed in 2014 under the guise of making sure we preserve and keep people in they mentioned homes the mission and this part of mission district we spent over one year one half about the businesses and nonprofit with aren't with anyone that lives the area to find out what is the needs of community and thing is affordable housing we talked about we're in a

housing crisis but actually in affordable housing officer-involved shooting c crisis this is what we need to focus on and increase so we want to make sure this legislation does pass and that we get more affordable housing for the mission thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is a bruce i'm with thomas and doberman residential f or thank you for your time and consideration for your work to support housing no, i came to urge the commission to for the grandfathering ordinance specifically i'd like to support the recommendation of the carve outs be removed into the grandfathering legislation and all projects be treated the same

my firm supports the 365 in the youth and family zone we negotiated for the land in 2014 submitted our viral application in 2014 and 2015 and are working to bring a project to the commission later this year it cavity out the youth and family zone as currently drafting and causes the inclusionary housing from 12 percent to 25 percent and more than one percent increase from the time we invested the site and consider a project like ours are one block southeast outside of the youth and family zone under the legislation will see an increase from 12 to 14 and a half percent and it is required onsite inclusionary housing simply doesn't make sense it is one thing to retroactively to graduate and another thing to single out secret more than

double required acts we're a strong supporter for more affordable housing and committed to onsite affordable units but as currently written it is not only unfair not working we believe our project will not go forward with an increase of 100 percent with the inclusionary housing and our capital investigator would recycle to follow up and speak thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jason with the group the cal group is a group lead by the residential i come to urge the commission to accept planning department staffs recommendation for the grandfathering ordinance specifically i like to support the carve out that eliminates grandfathering the city we

invest on the pension fund and the beneficiaries are retirees and students environmental impact will reduce returns for those students and retirees i hope you consider that as you craft our recommendation for the ordinance thank you for your time. >> okay. as the next speaker comes up i'll call a few more names (calling names) sorry? >> we are we still waiting for cards. >> so should i wait for card. >> no. you, go up. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner i'm peter with the cultural action network i'm here to speak in support of supervisor jane kim proposal and in opposition

for some the planning department staff changes i think that it is your responsibility to change the rules to be to be honest i'll tackle that we do it in business all the time we're in a crisis my mother watches us on the national news on the other coast it is our responsibility to change the rules to protect the vulnerable at the peak of a crisis that is the planning department and the planning commission working here and i think that 12k3wr5b9 the protection of vulnerable amongst us into everything is critical why we try to solve our larger problems if we built like can see we'll a dig our way out of the issue i don't see how we do it in the meantime we're in a climatic change somewhere we are seeing the most vulnerable amongst us and the lower islands

going under we need to make sure they are coming first, as we dig ourselves out felt large problem so i think that it is more than appropriate to have carve out of nc p t and other zones we're seeing the most vulnerable properties existed for profit i don't mean that in a truly judging sense of the word this is why the money is made it is creating the most displacement impacts and critical to turn that around right now i will ask you to place that above other ideas like a long time changes of the rules i'm a small business owner it was changed the rules and it is somewhat common for all of us there is a way to do this right now

that i don't think that impact is significant to projects that are well-thought-out i think if you canned sustain some of the changes maybe our math was not where it needed to be you're taking a game bell it effects the market conditions; right? if he move in this direction and the market will evaluate; right? let's let it adjust for the community members so thank you and please protect the carve out i'm in support of this i hope you are too. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners donald here recipient a san francisco for the past 3 years and

fundamentally to prevent gentrification and displacement we need to build more buildings and end of story wherever they are the city sure we can protect the neighborhood character that's fine but there's 25 percent of the city underdeveloped for people moving into the area for example, for the bay area cities to build more in neither cities i urge to move forward with the planning department recommendations on the grandfathering amendment i think that cherry picking is confusing for everybody is ridiculous and really not helping the problem it is making it more complicated and already an over regulated process to build a medium sized building whether the mission or the richmond district or district 3 so let's keep it more efficient

so we can get those people housed tomorrow not 5 years from now thank you. >> good evening. i'm mark a principal i support the planning department staff egg presentation calling your attention to a given in the current grafted legislation projects that have received entitlements but not pulled a site permit should be with the higher rates this is a significant issue there is currently time lag between the entitlements filing a site permit and receiving it 8 postage's that quality take one and 50 van ness our 4 hundred and 20 unit project it was entitled in 2014 we

submitted a package and certified we qualified for the expedited permitted processing and today 20 months later san francisco don't have the site permit needs to be approved by 3 other departments this process and time is beyond the control of the developer within the city yet from the language of the legislation is not changed to explicitly the economic viability can be affected that is unfair and also not the spirit of board policy resolution that serves as an item seat for the legislation i urge you to clearly recommend to the board of supervisors that entitled projects be exempt from higher inclusionary raised irrespective of whether or not a

site permit was issued thank you. >> good afternoon shawn rb a-1 item that maybe overlooked is the term sheet was approved at the board of supervisors 11 to zero supported the term sheet and much of the legislation today, we really appreciate i'd like to speak to the tone of this legislation what the legislative and executive branch and the are stakeholders participated at at urban precedent level so many times housing is a blood support that's one where the tone and respect was outstanding for the most part of the items the legislation can be traced back to the term sheet line for line you can point and connect the dots it make sense but the biggest area of the

concern what is called nicknamed the carve out the mission nc t and the soma youth zone we're not sure we're and why it is in there it is certainly not a part of term sheet the items significant there is no trail to follow it undermines the mission controls and contradiction the eastern neighborhoods the individuals follow the lead of planning commission and planning department and the board of supervisors during the emeralds rezoning they tell you where they wanted housing and how much pdr we need and not and where they wanted the pdr to go this so-called carve out contradicts the eastern neighborhoods rezoning and

undermines the mission controls and not part of term sheet adopted at the board of supervisors with an 11 to zero vote thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners mission recipient working for mission and office of economic workforce development and finally we come today, i that being asked to provide more affordable housing and i think this is a good thing because everyone has to put responsibility on part of solution and we are all happy we're increasing the inclusionary housing and i still there are many things to develop i think even the private developers have more inclusionary housing from the mission we have been

fighting because we have been displaced because a lot of pdr has been cross and the jobs for our people the blue collar jobs like the union people to be supporting and more affordable housing in the mission we don't want to grandfather the mission we support the special recommendations for the neighborhood corridor and the pdr and because we have seen how they have been crossing those places and providing jobs for our people and thank you, commissioners and continue the conversation i hope that voters in san francisco supporting the increasing inclusionary housing. >> thank you. >> call a few more names

(calling names). >> teresa imperial has spoken. >> if your name has been called please submit our comments. >> if no one else will step up lying vascular cuss i want to speak to a glitch the trailing legislation i don't think that essentially grandfather our commissions approval that needs to be corrected the trailing legislation the second point i want to talk to the grairthd the carve out for the pdrs it should be

discussed what was lufrmd into to trailing legislation it should be taken out the 33 percent in lui fee for projects over one and 20 feet that carve out is something that can be addressed and not part of this trailing legislation so we're in favor of producing affordable and market-rate in san francisco that's a way to address the housing crisis we have to get the numbers right if we get them wrong it causes a down turn in affordable housing because affordable housing is linked intairment to the market-rate housing if you start to choke down the market-rate housing your eventually cause the democrat nutrition of production that's all i have to

say thank you. >> i'm chair as you may know i very much oppose the charter amendment i can't someone was building 3 thousand units i can't produce at 33 percent affordability i verified those numbers more affordable housing providers and 3 market-rate developers and 4 contractor i can't do it maybe something else can this trailing legislation that was supposed to bring in an economic feasibility and grater the existing projects i would the planning department did a great job i'll strongly support they mentioned recommendations without this trailing legislation that really works you can have a danger of shutting down housing there are load of people that don't think

on work i urge you to correct the approval of grandfathered promotions with they mentioned entitlements to go back for example, our project anothers 350 van ness we closed one and $45 million loan and suddenly all you our entitlements are at risk that will make san francisco a very, very, very did the place to do business and crack capital for new business i'm concerned about our own project that is not the way to solve the affordable housing crisis and by the way, market-rate are down and supply actually works most people are giving them free that is working give it more time thanks very much. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, tim collin on behalf of the housing coalition any main point to strongly urge to support planning department staff excellent recommendations the basic reason is that you've heard again and again we've heard by the terms of what the charter amendment is supposed to do and the trailing legislation proposes to do which is to build more affordable housing there is such a real risk it looks like a real risk that achieves exactly the as opposed to opposite we'll produce less affordable housing that is a shame in particular, the points we want to make is you can't say do the geography graphic carve outs on the projects as mentioned one bloo block away one level and another block another one

and as shawn said earlier this was not part of the discussion that led to the term to the 11 to nothing board of supervisors some plan areas already contain hours impact fees and with the inclusionary burden because of in lui fees is counterproductive to what we're doing and the inclusion on buildings over one and 20 feet at a time when we're trying to get more height and density on to existing lands and in areas there is already the van ness sud let's build it higher and treat overseeing projects definitely there are consequences for taking actions like that and certainly projects that are commission approval have to be able to move forward we have going to improve the building climate so we can address the housing

affordability or not we understand that the legislation like this is intended to balance the competition but seems clear if our prospective that many on the other side i will say stopping housing projects is a desirable goal for in their view of what is good for san francisco killing projects market-rate helps the city and we can't understand that but it is a persistent view there it is on this side we're trying to say let the projects that are gone this far and try not to be more harm at a point we need more housing thank you. >> male good afternoon, commissioners peter with the carpenters, however, i'm speaking on behalf

of actually mike secretary and treasurer with the construction trade council has asked me to read this letter to commissioner president fong and commissioner when the basic trailing legislation to the inclusionary housing charter amendment was being worked out and then embodied the resolution proposed by the supervisor yee and then approved by the board of supervisors two of the principles were grandfathering of projects currently in the pipeline and the fall back and additional affordable units from the grandfathered projects i understood from the start of the discussions the intent of both sides to insure the grandfathered projects were not made infeasible by the new requirements we the building trade rate you are relationships historically and understanding with the developers of the

potentially grandfathered projects definitely from one another some will use only union labor but some this as they can get away with we've existed the discussion over housing to achieve other ends and in indeed true and those developers most decline to ignore the needs and hard gains of the workers are those at least inclined to serve the community in which they build we restrained ourselves the discussion, however, we felt it was important in this board and important to focus entirely on the question of housing to respect the principles and understanding at which bodies have arrived early on i'm disappointed then and from returning from ireland and the

centurion to hear that issues not all part of those understanding and unrelated to questions of housing were not part of trailing legislation we ask that you accept the staffs recommendations in support of legislation that has the drawbacks of the inclusionary housing independent in location or in height we also ask that all projects the entitlement process and especially not inclusively they mentioned pipeline projects and grandfathered in a way that self-treason they mentioned feasibility with respect michael thank you. >> i have the letters. >> leave them there. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john with the

partners a 20-year recipient of the soma i'm in support of the planning department staff recommends to uniformly apply the grandfathered position we have 3 projects consisting of 4 hundred units the pipeline and under the current legislation supervisor kim and supervisor peskin are proposed not receiving any gratifying we've been working on the entitlements for the 11th hour and we have been working on them for two years and expect to be back in august and october one project is carved out one and thirty feet down van ness you've heard morgan talk about from the neighborhood association and raise your right hand this is not the 5 m or the seawall that has the density bonuses for the affordability be

requirements we've worked with the neighborhood and respected they mentioned requests to stay one one and thirty feet on the van ness corridor we have pdr in soma district and the dog patch district g again with all due respect we again pay less for the sites because of pdr use the soma project is surl or currently a parking lot that gives me the employees one parking attendant not jobs adapted i urge you to request the board of supervisors to make changes to the trailing legislation so the grairthd are applied to all projects regardless of height or location thank you. >> fernando. >> good afternoon, commissioners jake i'm here for the 363 street

on october 2015 this commission approved our project within the special use district that has been identified under the grandfathering inclusions before you today the planning department has recommended modifying that as a condition of approval to insure a fair and uniform grandfathering provision are included they support and encourages the members of the commission to do same we ask you grater this project as the a.d. a application over 3 and a half years over the january 2016 deadline used to determine the eligibility for grandfathering other projects across the city we're concerned that carving out

the soma and youth sud from the grandfathering provision will negatively impacting our project and the neighborhood with the inclusion will result the delay or complete eliminations of the project from the pipeline due to the increased financial burden the soma youth and family sud was to occurring more affordable housing and protect and enhance the health and environment of youth and families the 6 street could use this help approving that amendment could cause our project probation officer remain unbuilt or force long delays any reduction the number of new affordable units will leave the community underserved this aspect of the draft legislation will cause great harm to the communities we've been working hard to bring to the city it is important to acknowledge there

maybe negative impacts many have been identified and addressed by the acts of this commission please help level the playing field by modifying the provisions to include the soma and special use district thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is fernando with the council of community housing associations or organization i'd like to address two specific provisions you've heard about and the other about the small sites acquisition provision in the this as well, this should be considered further first, i want to remind the folks under a california law we can pass no fees and impositions all the way until they mentioned invested or have a building

permit what will be on the ballot before voters in june is a ballot measure that doubles the inclusionary housing for any project not entitled the item before you is a very general recuse expansion of that not from entitle but back to grandfathering a large number of projects but not all of them i think that is what should be considered we're not talking about a carve out but grandfathering projects not in the n u m u from a ballot measure in june for voters as far as the comments about what is fair and principles i think you know what was passed a resolution by the board there will be a consideration around how grandfathering would be done what date and geography and as long as you put down a

particular date and geography whoever is on one side of the geography will say this is fair and others on the other side will say not fair within the legislation there is an opportunity for developers to provide affordable units through acquisition of existing buildings i know that is very important extremely important that that project that proposal, thoroughly in line with the current small sites program with the mayor's office of housing and community development they have underlying and strict provision how one can do that we've been studying this since 2009 two years of a program that works it is for this be in line with what we already have if we're talking about acquiring buildings offsite we're not providing overseeing units

onsite we must be clear we're using the offsite percentages not saying i'm going to provide 12 percent of my units or site and build more 12 percent that are onsite there is as equalization that is important and finally for any kind of acquisition it is critical there be no displacement of existing tenants the presents or in the previous few years thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors john what to carve out represents obviously is the real interim controls the mission needed but you refuse to approve when that matter was before you a a few weeks ago everybody the room and hall and

the building and the city knows that under the current interim controls the mission the cu this pdr to be adapted after ringing our hands and saying you wish you could do better you'll approve this is for gone conclusion people know that's the problem you have no criminality credibility in the mission we have come to you repeated for generations instead what we you will know is you're the development commission not the planning commission you're the development commission and approve every single one of overseeing projects you may post a few more square feet but it it will happen that is happening you know it when you see the carve out that actually is an

enzymes it will come you to and be adopted by the board this is clearly and temporary provision what the final percentage the mission and other neighborhoods is not known today we've all commented to this feasibility analysis that will be done sometime the summer this is really what's going on the planning commission can't say wait to developers no a crucial neighborhood to the city character and essence in the neighborhood many say what's going on when you see this you should realize it is a vote of no confidence and in this department, of course, that's what's going on i'm sure you realize this is just the beginning of a very, very very contentious year on development issues in san francisco and how this commission is failing to

deal with that adequately. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and others commissioners will from workshop one my company designs and entitles develops projects in san francisco we have two hundred units we've gotten approved the past year and another 200 units had been before you in upcoming year i think this policy is misguided i believe that the issue at hand not about destroying the character of san francisco neighborhoods i think the issue is really about whether we'll be a city that promotes new hours or whether we'll be a city it gets bogged down in politics that keeps new housing from happening

i believe this policy causes high renters and greater displacement from existing hours and i strongly disagree with the intent with that said, i want to talk about my projects whether this is fair or not but i do think that carve outs go against the intent of all the discussions around the legislation there will be graisht it should be evenhanded and last thing i strongly support of planning department staff work and thoughts i hope you'll support them as well thank you. >> hi sanjay sf renters federation the grashthd part of this

legislation is supposed to be based on fairness and feasibility and in this ken text fairness that is exactly what the controversy is tomato fairness means that nothing it grandfathered the current and future projects feasibility, however, is a meaningful term and there's no evidence before you no evidence that either the graisht regimes before you are based on feasibility at all feasibility is not determined but when you put in our application e.r. the zoning you're in feasibility is determined by the other policies income from the lot and so regime based on feasibility will have to go to and say that lot is making this amount of money and how much under 12 percent you don't have that the shorenstein project is a

great project they can favored more than 5 percent not at three percent at either of the options in front of you neither of the options are truly based on feasibility not fair to you or the planning department staff for you to make a decision on the grandfathering legislation in is short term it is based on feasibility you know it should have been crafted for you to make smosh or something up to send to them i'm reminded of the saying a fair to plan didn't constitute an emergency on my part i encourage you guys to feel that way the failure of the board of supervisors to give you enough time if constitute an emergency on your part it is perfectly responsibly unreasonable reasonable for you to return a message if you want

a grandfathering regime you can't make a decision or you don't recommend it yeah thanks thank you very much i really don't think thatither of these are feasible. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and ms. rogers has some opening. >> thank you, commissioners for indulging me i want to paint the picture for a second and let you you know that the department has communicated to the sponsors at the highest level we appreciate what is happening on effort to try to maximum mass the production of colleagues, can we take that without objection? and establishing some best practices to make sure that the feasibility study is done on a regular 3 year increments and the legislative branch can evaluate and make sure we're

maximizing affordable housing as noted that is a very fast moving piece of legislation the intent from the legislative sponsors and in cooperation is to try to get the ordinance before you and acted in a certain place so the voters know the outcome if they pass this chartered amendment that was introduced on tuesday of last week and the report before you is produced on thursday of last week so as such we've been scrambling like everyone to get things together there was missing information the report and have some additions calling your attention many people talk about which the carve outs and those areas where there is no possibility for any grandfathering they'll see the highest fees happen immediately doing some preliminary work looking at the pipeline of 3 of

the categories the zoning district that were discussed those 25 hundred units that would be immediately struck with the higher fees are the proposal before you that includes the zoning district we're looking at and trying to get how many buildings will also be the one and 20 feet and more units there i do believe we'll have the numbers by the time is goes to the board secondly, we want to acknowledge the department appreciates the phasing how long we've been in the pipeline it is certainly harder to evaluate to hire fees the process the proposal before you does acknowledge that and i wanted to follow up on one items that aaron mentioned owe recommendation 11 not the report on that one we would like to recommend that anyone that has a

planning entitlement they've been approved by the commission or been approved by the department those projects should, exempt from any higher fees they've been approved by the planning department and as people said the california state law no specific grandfathering investment or provision for them in this ordinance they'll an subject to the new fees of they're just you know they've been under review and approved by you more than a year ago if they don't have the building permit they may have to pay the higher fees i think that the minimum from supervisor kim described what she wants to do for the projects i believe we can ask april but looks like it will be lost them into the grairts provision that applies and what is different about what the staff is requesting we are asking for the

projects to just be solicited that the non-inclusionary housing that's my last major point i know that is a lot of conversation about pdr and the process of pdr we had preliminary numbers that our recorded that look at the pdr housing and looking at the agreements eir that anticipated a loss of up to 4 about the $9 million secret of pdr space and currently amongst the promotions the city has a approved since the adoption of lands and if you approve all the pevendz projects in the pipeline we'll see a loss of which pdr square feet that is anticipated by the eir i wanted to let you know a more detailed hearing

next week about the eastern neighborhoods plan and get a more nonprofit study i'm waiting for the commissions responses >> thank you very much. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i may have more questions but first an announcement then one particular question with the sponsor as well as staff my announcement i'm chair of the board of the san francisco housing development a nonprofit housing developer and time to mention that they're able to take advantage of the site acquisition program that is run by mohcd which this legislation touches on i want to make that known and the city attorney didn't prevent me from discussing this legislation today at all and we're totally fine there so i want to start off i think

other commissioners have a lot of questions i don't want to hog that time i want to talk about the analysis so much of the changes that may happen in the future sort of a 3 year period as well as what we're deciding bank think information we hope will get but us out of an economic crisis so april your representing supervisor kim's office how do - how will the supervisors westbound utilizing this report it seems like there is a lot of information that is going to be packed into this report but not clear what specific use that will have and will this be addressed here. >> april supervisor kim's

office are you asking about the future feasibility report that is and so forth in this ordinance to be due january 31st, 2016? >> so looking at the trend yes july 31st. >> sorry july and thereafter every 3 years to try to get the how the supervisors will use the report what's part of progress and getting a sense that will be informing decision and specifically to help the question we are setting percentages for the inclusionary program varying by different numbers of units and things like that but what will happen the feasibility analysis suggests a number that is either lower or higher you know will that be take into account. >> sure i appreciate the question because i know that a lot of the conversation largely

has been around the graisht provisions of this initiative ordinance but this ordinance came forth because of the agreement that was made at the board which the charter amendment was forwarded to the voters 11 to include the feasibility study and analysis to address the future increases to the inclusionary increases or decreases to the inclusionary program and part of the legislation is savings account for the time period in which the feasibility study will occur every 3 years as well as a formation of a technical advisory committee that will be split been the mayor's office and the board of supervisors to advise the controller on the feasibility study and set forth the scope of work

for an independent consultant will be hired by the controller's office and according to the legislation the feasibility study will the board will consider the feasibility study as it relates to increasing or changing the inclusionary housing percentages the future so the charter amendment actually does one really basic specific thing this is to take out the inclusionary housing cap that we currently have at 12 percent out of the charter and revert the setting back of the inclusionary requirements back to the board of supervisors as it was previous to 2012 and so in considering changes to the inclusionary requirement and affordable housing requirements moving forward we would consider

the analysis done by the feasibility study the first thing being january or july 31st, 2016. >> okay i think what would be helpful i understand this is you know part of a large discussion; right? you can't necessarily especially given the opportunities for different requirements and different zoning district areas and neighborhood i don't understand you have this is different than the feasibility study but that would be helpful for the public and the voters and for everyone really if they were a stronger connection to the feasibility assessment even something from the supervisors want if they are different than the feasibility study requirement for haven't or

something like that right now it is a very tenuous connection between the economic feasibility study and changes that the supervisors might make the future. >> i believe there is a section in the ordinance related to report to the board that is also included in our memo to the planning commission that states that the board shall review the feasibility analysis as well as recommended periodic updates to the city nexus that will in evaluating the negatively impact of the housing market and they'll review the feasibility analysis within 3 months and consider the legislative amendments to the inclusionary housing program i believe that is on - actually,

i turned it magically to the right page on this page 24 section b so that described further the boards review of the feasibility analysis in setting back forgot future inclusionary housing requirements. >> okay. >> okay. he feel like i've made my point i don't want to budget committee labor but i see other commissioners that want to turn to staff with one question and come back later so the current ordinance doesn't real have a very strong role for the planning department or the commission in even the production of or future analysis are discussion of the connective feasibility analysis so could you tell me you know your thoughts on that and if there are suggested changes to the

process who is the most helpful particularly for the planning department what is the best way to integrate the professional capacity into the process of creating a feasibility analysis right now it is not as well-represented as the ordinance is written. >> thank you, commissioner moore's planning department staff we are going to be cooperating with the controller's office and i do have reason to believe that they'll work well, we've provided and done feasibility studies like the affordable housing bonus program so we kind of been there it and providing him the work we've done so i'm not concerned with our ability to participate and advise the feasibility study did departments recommends did, however, ask this commission have an opportunity to produce

an ordinance after the feasibility report is produced so you can recommend the inclusionary rate i think will produce the motioning most inclusionary housing we've had that recommendation and supervisor kim has a new proposal for how the report will work for the board of supervisors and it looks like it removes the references that are there for the commission you might want to take into account on page 2. >> that's why i asked the question first of all, the planning commission having the recommendations for the board of supervisors had they mentioned that most review and the report was stuck out and the supervisors office i would definitely propose we find a way to integrate the professional planning department staff and the commission back that process as part avenue motion our staff recommendations has that and it works i'd like to make sure this is something we discuss today.

>> if i may commissioners, i have one small sort of recordkeeping over packet doesn't include a as i understand ordinance i have the signs ordinance right here it has - stacey's signature for recordkeeping. >> okay. >> any other comments i'll join commissioner johnson and her questioning about april thank you for explaining the process which i fully understand i think that commissioner johnson question we have this feasibility study this is great how can you use them and the benchmarks to making change what are the factors going to be if

it were a weather report and will we wear shorts or not there's not a clear line of what that is and when we receive the report the board of supervisors gets the report what they'll do that them i think that as further step if you - yes. >> i appreciate that and again, i think that is for the legislation is seeking to set forth the ability of the board to make the legislative changes to the inclusionary housing ordinance i concur with planning department staff regarding the professional expertise of the controller's office as well as the mayor's office of housing and the planning department staff will be part of the development of the feasibility analysis both for the one upcoming in july and ongoing i think that is key part of this

legislation is setting up a very taxi but an attempt to have a transparent process in identifying the appropriate inputs to the feasibility are and in recognition that the analysis also reflects not just the feasibility for a development project but looking at projects scale neighborhood and other different inputs and factors that related to how we take into account the feasibility ongoing of our inclusionary housing requirements and that's also set forth the details in the legislation we will, looking at a feasibility along a range of criteria. >> okay. and more details are coming about that i assume hsa

as it gets fallout along maybe this is a fruition because it is a calibrated piece and this afternoon we're getting changes we're in the right direction but as one speech said as part of legislation to say that a quote/unquote i'll think about that a little bit more we all need to think about this a little bit more emry rogers. >> thank you, commissioners some of us have been asking about the so-called term sheet e.r. the resolution that was approved by the board of supervisors last person who handing out a copy of supervisor yee's resolution 160166 we kind of laid the preliminary ideas of what is the ordinance before you if you want to compare between that resolution and the ordinance you now will have that. >> okay there is one follow-up

question i'll allow commissioner wu to ask please. so on the questions of the process with the feasibility study i want to be clear any changes if - at the moment the board of supervisors gets it and analyze any proposed changes need to be legislated the question maybe if there is a role to play before any legislation or comes out for review. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think that all of us agree we're looking for ways to produce more affordable housing but it has to be a doable situation because we have to look at this situation carefully because the more affordable housing percentage you're required to be inclusionary the higher the cost of the project and at levels of 25 to 30 or 35

percent oftentimes becomes very, very expensive and someone like eric son that built any projects that are quite large he can't do it at 25 percent we have to be careful as we do this and you know know that we do hear a lot about prop c but what is ignored prop c was as compromise there was other things like the 12 percent that lowered the inclusionary and the housing trust fund yes, i did. >> one and $7 million in housing revenue and created many unions i think things are working in some degree with or if we produce more affordable housing without subpoena preying housing

being built that's our job i welcome the fact as a commission where a project it appropriate we approve it we're here to do housing i think everybody said we need more housing we built a certain amount of housing in san francisco but not enough cities recycle seattle have a better effect on housing they've built more housing per capita has to do with with the bogged down process and it takes forever to get things done with we pass rules we change but one speaker made a very good point he talked about this legislation parted one is setting the grairts clause and certain percentages and also, of course, a ballot measure that the context in which we're working and parts

two and three establish a nexus and feasibility study due on july 31st that have this year and establishes a study group that analyzes the first is act first and study second that's how i lead any life you have to know what you're doing i'm not - i don't think the process is right but it is what it is so we have to do as well as what we're faced with so i think the first one we have to look at is many speakers have brought i think that staff a supporting that projects that are entitled by us or the board of supervisors or by the planning department staff before june 7th of 2016 would be deemed approved under the rules at which hair approved therefore they will have inclusionary prrlgz or percentages bans the

percentages that were in effect when approved and depending on where they are the city if other teetered areas there are affordability requirements will be dedicated by what is in place if so expo faxing to laws they're allowed in the starter until permit issues are fair it doesn't make sense and discourages people from building that is very important i think the percentages that are suggested go in terms of the grandfather for onsite are reasonable for projects that fit that profile because there are small increases i think most of them should be able to manager and the increases for the in lui or ought are high i want to see those lowered i'm not sure that is realistic but inform force

the projects to do onsite the proportionality of the onsite is much higher than relative than the onsite so that is important i think the carpenters certainly got it right we have to eliminate the carve outs doesn't make sense i don't know where why they're proposed we spent many years with eastern neighborhoods and what we did we established these m u m zones and demarcated those areas that were sweet spot to keep the pdrs where anyone else is loud and other areas pdr is encouraged with other housing and areas are encouraged go most of m u m u have left we're changing policy in mid-stream and what ann marie

brought the most important thing of the 5 million square feet of the square footage of pdr we anticipated would be converted to other uses in the eastern neighborhoods we'll only converted less than one $.5 million and with the less projects that will be only $3 million so we certainly have well within the kwiedz of eastern neighborhoods we are doing things as we intended them to be done and producing some new pdr spaces so i think to clamp down on the m u m u doesn't make sense and having the higher affordability levels for hire buildings doesn't make sense and the building community will sustain me the fact as you get past a certain height the building is more cost because of the building type and the higher

knows are more expensive per square feet than the lower ones that flies the face of reality and in terms of mission nc t we have carefully crafted mission controls that some speakers if that like we gave them consideration and providing provisions where projects especially the larger ones are encouraged to protect pdr and to add more affordability and to make sure that they displace no housing units these will be take into consideration and benefit a lot of the concerns that are in there so and the same with the soma youth and family zones higher tiers of affordability in place for those areas and somehow maybe jeopardize by the carve outs planned we definitely need to have no carve outs

and as poiptdz the carve outs were not part of term sheet and also on state law i may need more answers from staff i think state law takes precedence if a developer opts to do the higher density and return to the higher percentage of affordability the state law will take precedence over anything that might pass locally is that true ms. rogers >> that's correct. >> yeah. so i think that is - and then finally a couple of things i currently hope and would support getting those carve outs out of there and supporting staff positions with the addition of projects being approved that are all right on old things from the legislation says nothing about the u m u in

terms of pdrs replacement i mean in the mission controls we've talked about the pdrs replacement that is allowed and encouraged this is kind of silence on that also the numbers of affordability have been somewhat changed we've dropped down the ownership down a little bit on the low end to percent if 90 and dropped down some of the moderate percentages so doesn't matter but we need to know we're not exactly comparing apples to apples and apples and oranges but i'm in favor the staff position on the legislation and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> okay. he was next in line i'll call upon myself in 2014 i was in front of the the land use committee and as a private citizen he stated wow. here the

housing boom and i think we were stuck on the affordability rate with the development is crazy and people are making a lot of money why not index the amount to pay in terms of benefits and affordable housing and other things to the economic reality and prop c understood was a companions not a grand passenger bargain and in a different time and era he hope we don't come back to a 5 year crisis that hadn't seen something as severe in the prior 85 years from what i understand is a compromise is incredibly fast coming last tuesday it was passed the report was generated and i spent yesterday trying to understand this term sheet was in public comment now i'm looking at the

term sheet what did the board of supervisors intent what was the agreement i heard that is a damn good vote i read in the paper the mayor was on aboard hey we're in the city of cooperation and the mayor supports it i think he as i understand it he agreed with that yet a lot of confusion from and smoke the room i'm trying to see through and politics i'm starting to matthew maid the entitled projects percentage look like they're not grandfathered i think that perhaps what is said and not being said the intent of this the term sheet to repeat two hundreds units we lost if 12 to 14 between the enact time of

prop c let's take the 200 units we lost i'm having a hard time about the 200 unions from the grandfathered to 12 to 14, 14 and a half the table and yet it was not in there i want to see the project by project 200 units was it the intent of the board to include the 200 units it said that the grandfathering is not limited to certainly criteria perhaps not an intent not to exceed fwl from the pipeline i believe to two hundred units so staff i'm looking for at some point where the 200 units will be produced from if you have that legislation. >> i think the legislation is better for the legislative sponsors.

>> was the intent to try to reach some of the 420th century hundred units including from the ones entitled and we worked with. >> advocates and developers developers on the 200 count and you know the idea just the high-level to take into account at 12 percent the current inclusionary requirement and our increased affordability requirements and try to make up that difference we came up with 200 units there was a discussion about 200 units i'm reluctant to say the methodologies we're been trying to work with the planning department to kind of scrub the data of the planning pipeline that exists it is you are best kind of thinking in terms of how we capture those units and so - >> do you think that is

reasonable rereverse the engineering number based on the projects here's the ones that have the environmental application before this data and they add up to two hundred maybe we'll get more than 200 this seems reasonable reasonable to me. >> we tried to make assumes go based on the previous pipeline declaration of onsite versus offsite kind of a really i'll say - >> i'm sorry didn't mean to interrupt the concern if we leave the projects in there that he may not get to the 200 those projects may not happen so may not happen so before i decide on including the projects i'd like to see how we get to the 200 and i'll respond how it relates to our memo and how we relate to

the entitled projects our thinking was really related to the projects that are coming through the commission after we - our intent to put the charter amendments on the ballot our first attempt was december 15th that was the deadline for charter amendments so i think there was a series of projects that california forgot today that had entitlements approval prior to that date so i think working with the planning department staff and taking look at those projects that are effected by our higher inclusionary requirements you know, i think that those projects then would be subject as it stands currently; correct? to our grandfathered provision

percentages. >> so entitlement prior to december 12th from the entitlements that fall what about off the table. >> i believe it is - thaeshgs. >> morgues it didn't specific for entitlements all the projects the pipeline that haven't perfected or vetted they mentioned entitlements would be subject to the new monuments in the draft ordinance will be based upon they mentioned date of the e e submission so they'll have some level of graisht because they'll have been submitted earlier and but not exempt and have, in fact, higher requirements than what was approved. >> okay. so when we went from the 15 to the 12 percent in 2012 i thought the rational what they

filed the environment application this agennot. >> - very unusual to have an already approved project subjected to a new law the past may have been a few minor like requirements without be fiscal impacts we pulled those projects back after entitlements but not that i'm aware of of the fees that are imposed after something with an entitlement. >> in lines two and three on the term sheet a grandfathering accuse to consider the fairness

and feasibility where i'm at whether this entitled is included where do we get to two hundred units how does that add up they don't get us there i'll have to look and say is that fair and the feasibility, in fact, those projects may not happen the other the elephant in the room we've talked about the pdr space conversion to office the department is doing an audit of the pdr space to see what is converted we ask do for m u masturbation scheduled on the advanced calendar i'm trying to understand what changed in the environment in terms of the impact of the loss of pdr when the eir from the eastern neighborhoods shows we're slated

to losses more than we have some draufrt happened what we're trying to achieve including the u m u into the discussion with the displacement and certainly neighborhoods i'm open to that but i don't think the whole a geographic carve out of the u m u certainly i'll support i'm trying to understand that was brought by other commissioner the height is that one 20 or one 30 and the impact i'm open to anything that has a good sounds like public policy rational that maximize the affordable housing and we'll talk about more the details by the other one commissioner johnson brought in helping guide the study or the initiation of changes we sat

through the contention of the avenues where the commission role was taking away and we had folks stock exchange they mentioned feet it seems it runs counter i'd like to hear more from the commissioners and talk about some specifics i'm assuming. >> commissioner hillis. >> first, i of the to recognize and thank the commissioner gilman and supervisor peskin and the mayor's office for bringing this forward it is positive we've not heard a lot about the percentage going forward i know the 25 percent that is extremely cutting-edge in that we are proposing to increase the inclusionary from 12 to double 25 percent about the grandfathering celebrating the fact we're moving in a

significant direction providing more inclusionary housing and tackling the issues for the middle-income one to one and 20 percent level the approval we see those developments happening and the market perhaps cools hopefully it continues this and we'll see the projects coming forward at 25 percent we may be in a position in the future we're reducing that percentage or percentage because of feasibility when we do the feasibility study every 3 years we should tag it to be at the middle of the market if anyone can predictability we reduces it if 15 to 12 and now the market is kind of at its peak and increasing to 25 percent and hopefully keep it at 25 percent but at least gives the board and policymakers the ability to

change that percentage and hopefully change it bans an analysis of what is happening the market it is our typical task you take a you know one unit building where units are selling anothers 8 homicide thousand dollars and i think $80 million if you do the math at 10 percent change in market values we have a $8 million fluctuation sales price nostril uncommon pluses and minuses but leads to affordable housing or less the ability to do less inclusionary housing so it is an evolving science we'll have to adjust it going forward we've seen in new york and other places trying to get inclusionary housing has been difficult so we commends ourselves we spent too much time talking about the moratorium or

washington distracts on the issue of providing more inclusionary housing i want to make that comment i'm glad we're here discussing that on there is kind of different levels of grandfathering and carve outs i want to take them one at a point the grandfathering is kind of when you're entitled at planning approval it could be something that is appealed to the board that approval will not be commission approval when you're planning the entitlements which maybe at the board of supervisors; correct? you have a cu that is appealed and it is going to the board will that be the dated our appeals are exhausted. >> are you referring to the grandfathering clauses. >> yes. >> those are bans when the

environmental evaluation application. >> so when it is submitted is the first trigger; right? >> right. >> a project that was approved one came up aaron's project in hayes valley that has received planning commission approval i'm not sure it was was appealed but not received it's building permit. >> right. >> it will, subject to the grandfathering rules. >> yes. 12, 12 and a half or 13 and a half. >> they mentioned subject to the existing laws. >> correct. >> the projects have been before you they've already been evaluated by staff they've gotten they mentioned i know approvals from us so thankful set they mentioned financing and ready to go but haven't gotten they're building it is slightly

unfair to change that after that. >> when we reduced from the inclusion from 12, 15 to 12 that came back to actually get the lower percentage so if it was entitled at at 15 percent it came back to the planning commission to get entitled to down to the 12 that was the existing - and i believe all projects that have to come back to get the higher ones i could be wrong. >> i was wondering from the rule was rays to the 15 is that the entitlement. >> yeah. so i think you're right i agree with staff we should be consistent at this level. >> i phone in a assistance from staff housing staff kate

connor she said that inclusionary ordinance walking by was before you someone wanted a reduction to the inclusionary requirements that the boards passed they have to come back before the planning commission and you have to reprove ensue otherwise the approval shadow at the higher means. >> so i agree with the recommendation of staff on that on supervisor kim's memo ma'am, i don't think so the two on this i think that came up a little bit. >> i believe that's the issue we are discussing. >> that's the issue. >> so let me just be sure i have the number 2 it is related to the date of entitlements and

here you have to appeal to the braid. >> right. >> so the legislation currently makes reference to projects that have received a demonstration agreement or a voter approved project by january 2016 so that's where the current claefshgs how to deal with those particular small set of projects so but for projects that are that have received entitlements prior to the passage of the charter amendment basically they mentioned - what this provision says they'll be subject to the grandfathering provisions of the e e percentages so 2014 for example, projects approved before 2014 projects will be 15

i'm sorry - prior to one one 2014 the inclusionary will be 13 percent. >> say you receive our entitlements you're planning entitlements but not get a site permit. >> we've taken the speakers that came before the commission today so projects for example, that were approved in october prior to us putting forth this charter amendment you know that came in that 12 percent that have they mentioned site permit how we've drafted this .2 the memo they'll be subject depending on when they received the e e application less assume it was prior to january 1st, 2014, they'll, subject to the 14 percent point given they've been approved at the 12 percent i

think what i want to continue to work on through this process as we go to the land use committee is to think about and take into account projects that have received planning approval or come to the commission between the times we have drafted the charter amendment which the urban forester da is the 2016 and so those are the projects that are have even under stood our intents to raise the inclusionary housing requirements so i think that that's kind of - i think where we are in terms of our consideration of the nexus consideration of legislation i understand the staff position

is to and i think - spur letter to you all they mentioned position is to exempt all projects that have received entitlements prior to gin 7 and what i'm saying we're considering a different date i want to this reiterate our intent and talk about increasing the inclusionary requirements accompany the nc t and pdrs and the soma use and family zone and try to so forth kind of our policy thinking around it i think that we say attempted to put together this legislation in a short amount of time trying to balance all the issues as it relates to the pipeline of prongs that have submitted application i definitely appreciate planning department staff to help us get data and

try to have a really policy rational for some of these provisions that we put at least in this version of legislation and so you know, i think that just thinking back in terms of the planning process for eastern neighborhoods which custom natsdz in the final adoption in 2009 i think supervisor kim related the two main goals of the eastern neighborhoods was to identify areas where pdr can be preserved and grown and to increase the affordable housing and the eastern neighborhoods you know theirs different policy guidelines that both the region and the board have passed prior for example, our abag housing

goals and so forth is 47 affordable housing that is needed for san francisco we passed in 2014 prop k that so forth 50 percent of affordable housing and 12 percent or 17 for middle-income so you know, i appreciate you recognize we're attempting to do that some of that here with the interim requirements for middle-income increased percentages so this is our attempt to address that the interim while we pursue the feasibility study and analysis so for those areas you know how earlier to the eastern neighborhoods goals we're looking u m u the pdrs loss is that was the goal of eastern neighborhoods plan, we're looking at places where the

eastern neighborhoods process they're determined to be higher inclusionary affordable rate and in particular the soma youth and family zone it relates to the projects the interior those higher affordability percentages don't relate to the main articles the soma family and youth those are alleys that are vulnerable and destabilizing facing destabilization as a higher eviction rate and are pressure and similar in the u m u areas we see in the eastern neighborhoods 3 times higher eviction rates of all the areas in in the eastern neighborhoods they have 3 times the eviction

rates than others eastern neighborhoods and again an attempt to think through the mission there was increased affordability tiers actually not affordability tiers but increased affordability driving the fees to the nc t for the fag i will state those areas have they're up zoning the eastern neighborhoods we tried to really put forth a rational for the graisht provision and you know as it relates guarantee again to the pdrs the eir statistics and the data that we have relating to half of the pdr expected loss

but that is over a 25 year eastern neighborhoods planning period we have at about seven years and so you know, i certainly think that we want to work with the commission and perhaps this is not the place to do it but to think about that loss you know again, we're at seven years of a 25 year plan how we plan for that so thank you for providing me that opportunity to talk about our policy. >> question get that wear certainly here and see the development in the mission and the potrero hill but a lot of that that same rational can be used for the western edition we've seen displacement not in this economic cycle but in bayview hunters point we saw the tenderloin it is kind of

displacement didn't really confine itself to one geography, etc. area i grapple with this i don't think that the moratorium was a good idea and this pushes us into a moratorium the - you brought up the currently higher levels of inclusionary i know that the u m u the staff reports talks about the higher youth and family can you explain the higher rates. >> yeah. emry rogers planning department staff members of the public we had some copies over on the side i think in their all gone ebt we'll provide the handy danny chart and kwhaets before you as i mention we wrote the report in two days there were errors the recorded the mission

has a higher inclusionary requirements they funnel more into housing that is one clarification we have district with that little higher inclusionary the example u m u and the various requirements there are not just on the onsite, offsite or fee alternatives but there is land dedication middle-income housing alternatives and those are all variable rates that are described other districts that are higher inclusionary requirements are the transbay sud, soma youth and family sud and the western edition you'll have a parcel that has split part of it is different those are the higher requirements. >> that is a better way to go

on this is kind of what staff recommended this two in the m u m u the higher that exists perhaps the same level that is over the grandfathering rates that that jumped from grairthd prongs into a one or two percent higher in some neighborhoods doesn't seem to work but perhaps mirroring the increase that exists in the m u masturbation u the family have a higher level of inclusionary. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> i see the within and 20 feet is different from the policy level it seems ultimately where this should go i think the

rational correct me if i am wrong that maybe a building type that is higher levels of profitability that could take additional inclusionary that getting along the lines of feasibility but doing it in somewhat of a blunt way because i agree we see projects in rincon hill that take more dlrgs but higher than one and 20 feet versus a project on van ness and geary that is one and 20 feet so i think that one it sounds like it is heading in the right direction but where it is that blunt works for me and analyzing it more could work. >> the other issue the samuel sites proposal i thought was odd in the staff report it talks about you can acquire buildings that are not curiosities

environmentally residential use i thought it was about requiring the projects that have existing residential in them and preserving them as affordable the future that one confused me maybe - >> i let the sponsor speak to the intent i did idea that the feasibility or the nexus analysis said you have to create new housing so this allows you to create new housing the buildings are not call roll residential that's the idea the not residential use comes from. >> and the nexus says for market-rate and permanently affordable so rent-controlled unit is controlled to a portfolio who people leave is market-rate so i think if a building for instance, that is rent-controlled in the hands of

a nonprofit or a you know affordable housing developer or community land trust it provides in perpetuity so i still like that idea of being able to acquire small sites it works this is housing stock we have to protect and that's what we hear complaints about that people are being adapted if existing housing and one way to do that as a potential the small sites program if you can't acquire buildings that have recipient doesn't make sense. >> the small site acquisition program is not and the in this ordinance is exists we're asking the new option that they're providing on which you can buy a building and convert to a residential reconcile the existing acquisition program so

that program didn't your create it is good but only can dedicate a small amount to the acquisition. >> if i can add to that a little bit the consultation i think they're working with the legislative sponsors for further refinance it raises policy issues about the potential changes what is a private party to purchase a pdrs building with the intent of convert is it is a brand new program is there's a lot of that needs to be thought-out and the legislative facts and circumstances are aware of that they'll go on to speak about that and the january 12th date you thought was the last date that is the charter amendment was initially established weave gap eldest with this make sense there were

a couple of projects it being difficult from laurel heights projects and there was the better residents that have unique circumstances i mean the thomas waterfront recipient were coming back for additional unions and eir they'll be triggered for the full project entitlements to the new inclusionary rate or just the new there. >> i'm not familiar with that project. >> they have they mentioned environmental application prior to any of the dates they mentioned grandfathered in. >> they'll actually do only addendum. >> that will not change it, it is a good thing to clarify in the ordinance. >> okay. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i was in such a rush to get out the first couple of questions he

forgot to thank staff and the office you guys make a heroic effort 0 soon after the legislation was introduced i appreciate it so i wanted to follow up with some of the other questions he alluded to beforehand i focus on the feasibility study that was the least for me there were a couple of other items i wanted to ask questions about so the first one this is to the supervisors office and april i definitely appreciate i think we have the definition of the policy about the different neighborhood we have had those discussions on the commission when we saw various projects and various aspects in terms of the policy reasoning this is out of all our mouth at some point or

another i want to ask a question i know the timing is just not as amenable given the june 7th ballot but was any thought given to allowing the first feasibility study by july 31st inform some of the geographic carve outs we're seeing i don't know we argue with the policy reasoning i think what i would personally going with that well, how do you then implement that i believe that some of the percentages that we're seeing those carved out neighborhoods or zoning areas are subject to might be stand up better if he were connected to the feasibility study at least the july's 31st was any thought

given to potentially waiting on that and not calling out those but part of conversation after the first feasibility study. >> you know i think that i'm not sure how to answer this question what is important what is our consideration is that we are putting forth you know as a city and board a charter amendment to the voters that expressly so forth interim requirements of 25 and thirty percent i think in keeping to that is important and we are in this situation of trying to deal with and about how to address projects that are in the pipeline so you know, i

think that through the next couple of weeks we have a motion and a second we'll discuss the policy reasons i've described for including hire affordability requirements on the 3 specific areas we've described but i think just i want to leave this conversation just trying to keep the interim requirements of 25 and 33 percent i mean, i think that's our intent but this board has put forth to the voters. >> thank you. >> i'll keep on going with any questions i think the staff recommendation on the treatment of those 3 areas addresses that but i wanted to mention it in the hearing i believe you can make that policy argument as commissioner hillis mentioned for other neighborhoods maybe public school don't have as many projects the pipeline you can

make that argument without the feasibility report is seems a little bit like a thumb sore thumb i have a question on the direct to the staff first but, of course, if you want to comment on the policy direction the feasibility report makes a lot of sense i can't we can't supercede state law to have that report would manuals but i'm struggling to think about giving examples how certain concessions effect the inclusionary housing for example, if we give a rear yard i kind of see how that physically impacts the size so therefore give us this rear yard exception and that will likewise

allow to include more inclusionary housing but i struggle with the other concessions maybe an example what would be the usefulness of that report for the density bonus what types of connection between providing inclusionary housing and concessions we typically give might we see. >> commissioner, i think you identified a good thing and those are along the same vein we've talked about with the commission how the provision and requiring parking increases the cost of providing housing and if they don't have to build the underground parking more space for the housing and most of concessions the open space and you mentioned parking you for example, allowed them to more housing and the stale does

specifically talk about the feasibility study when our considering the state law benediction only in reference to the bonus because the density is permitted by state law. >> okay i think this is more information it better i'm looking forward to seeing how obviously all this though how that impacts the decision making if we see a project they're asking for a concession for increased parking ratios the way they provide that by going further underground or providing for staff it is interesting to see what they're not not necessarily making the project bigger in an area you can put a unit so i kind of am sort of thinking that through what does that sort of nexus get us how does that impact our

decisions and could the commission how much can we because the ability for the concession on for the housing i want to see a clear connection there. >> so you don't have to respond to that but hopefully, we'll see that one things or thing i'm not sure i with only have a couple of things to mention with the in lui option the fee is present in the planning code as the units is as a percentage of the units for the project so the in lui is n what we're looking at here we're trying to go for 10 to 24 units 20 percent of the units built providing an equivalent fee it stands around $300,000 per unit.

>> i heard 260. >> $300,000 well, we'll ball park that is around that area i think that is sort of another the elephant in the room as commissioner vice president richards pointed out you can set the percentage to whatever but the actual dollar per units is what it costs to produce that units somewhere else it is not going to get us very far maybe a question for april from the supervisors office any thought into the ordinance either by explicitly looking at a feasibility study or otherwise talking about that fee. >> i do building that the

mayor's office of housing set the fee but the answer is yes to your question i believe as a relates to the perimeters of the feasibility study there is some reference to taking look at different project types as it relates to feasibility and how we set the inclusionary percentages moving forward. >> okay ii think this is something that is sort of not as explicit but hopefully that is part of conversation we'll get caught talking about but not addressing the dollars per unit has not a changed in a number of years and itch lower than than the door costs of producing it today and fluktsd in the future over time

and then i believe that i - we got it today, i want to make sure we're seeing that that supervisor kim is proposing to amend the ordinance to take out the the delineation of project by height; right? i think we're making projects over one and 20 feet and 33 percent at that point, no difference by height and not currently the ordinance but proposed by supervisor kim; is that correct okay. >> correct there is a reference to thirty percent for projects that are below one and 20 feet 33 percent for offsite and in lui fee. >> more all projects three units and above.

>> i wanted to go back to our comment about the heights and it is listed here at least my interpretation the project scale includes the idea of thinking about a feasibility study and analysis study it take into consideration the height and project scale one of the things that was discussed i haven't we haven't integrated into the feasibility study and i don't think has been modeled prior to any prior feasibility study is what projects are getting in terms of rents or sales and kind of indexing that that are inclusionary percentages to you know how a project performs on the market. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. thank you a number of things first of all, there is talk about units that

may have been theoretically lost during the period of time that prop c was in place and some kind of recapture that is water under the bridge an assumption those additional affordable units would have been built at the higher percentage of affordability they wouldn't have happened there was the law at the time the projects came down and based they mentioned performa's and what they agents to what was in place at that time, they might not have been built would have lost more affordable units than gained by trying to recapture it is sort of i don't see that argument and making sense but maybe more affordable units the past is the past the other issue about projects that were approved after january telephone, 2016 or populated to be calorie violent to know there

is something coming up they're not the board of supervisors might require it i'll not go forward with my projects those promotions have made concessions to be approved and i know approved in that bel air forum and made those concessions based on the affordability number for them, they were approved again may not have been built if not allowed to be built the law is what it is not a future law doesn't make sense for those reasons i'm going to make a motion i see other commissioners but make a motion to approve this with the staff modifications that will eliminate all the carve outs

will apparently acknowledge the fact no more difference in projects one and 20 feet above or below and will also allow projects that are entitled before june 7, 2016, whatever form of entitlement they gain will have inclusionary rates that are in effect of the time of they mentioned entitlements that's my motion. >> second. >> essentially staffs recommendation correct. >> pretty much yes. >> i think the june 7th piece in the recommends. >> we didn't have this specification that is a new one. >> maybe adding that one. >> june 7th. >> and commissioner antonini just to clarify did our motion include if it does what supervisor kim said is number 2

which so those that were entitled. >> i'm sorry. >> does that include what supervisor kim included. >> staff that's number for staff was actually similar to supervisor kim's ours goes further. >> it would be staffs corrections that are given to us do i believe. >> it is absence confusing i apologize for putting this together but aaron said in number 11 i'll suggested a change that was a project should be exempt from higher fees if they have planning approval and then we didn't have a date so i believe the commissioner antonini is suggesting that projects should be exempt from my higher inclusionary fees if telling me they have planning approvals prior to january 7th

of this year. >> other things and this is contingent as any trailing legislation the votes of the voters on the 7 of june. >> commissioner wu. >> so i want to thank the supervisors so far putting this forward i think we sit here week after week and looking for ways to address the crisis in front of us we have been seeing case by case about inclusionary maybe not high enough and sit here and say we don't have the tools a number of cases about the loss of pdrs and clearly all the challenges of the mission has come forward to tell us about over the last year and really does needed the neighborhood i think this proves from 2012 until now how slow we adjust to

the city to put that back into the hands of the legislators maybe into the middle of the market but a way to continue to make evaluates and at a faster speed i'm not supportive of the motion we are far behind in understanding how to build more affordable housing especially the neighborhoods that have the highest needs defined by the rate of displacements or invented but i'm or defined by a number of evictions i think this is san francisco of the policy rush i heard the lady talk about with regards to the 3 geographic areas in particular i want to clarify the family

zone has higher requirements for zones but 90 only in the alleys not across the whole zone. >> oh, yeah. >> corey teague vaunt zoning administrator your; correct the district the only applies to property with no frontage but the property on fulsome or sixth of howard not subject to the higher rates of affordability but the interior lots on the alley they mentioned subject to the higher affordability as pegged. >> thank you. >> 10 in the same vein of discussion it is brought up the eir for eastern neighborhoods i want to you know make the statement that eirs are on this descriptions of the largest

description we're taking the pdrs loss it is a description of what you cannot cross the line not a goal for which pdrs i think that i wanted to make that clear lastly you know not all affordable housing is created equally we've been talking about doubling the requirement yes, it is numerousal doubling the 12 percent goes to 15 to low or very low and 10 percent with the additional middle-income the new policy goal not all the same the idea of exempting the entitled project into january 2016 and december 2015 this is fine but that is not the motion in

front us. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> that was one of the most important legislation to come our way i know the term should pass 11 zero not exactly what is floochts of us i hope it is a amaze decision i'm going to have to vote no, i need more data for a decision one in order for me to make the recommendation i want to understand how to get to the 200 from the projects are entitled to get to the 200 i want to see that if we have more we can getting into the weeds them let's do that and not killing projects and chop the grandfathering for other projects that don't have they mentioned entitlements yes, sir literally next week we have a presentation onramp u m u and pdrs literally next week i'll be

honest with i need to look at the pdr floor for the eastern neighborhoods there were several options given abc i want to look at that that is ancient history i rely on staff but i need to look at that myself i think holding my breath and deciding yes today is yes or no is too great a risk circumstances on the projects we've heard about the lowell heights that gets the funding this week and the percentages that are not ironed out and so for what is the worth i'll move to continue this for one week to make a better decision. >> do i hear a second to continue. >> okay. >> okay. any another

comments. >> no. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay just a couple of points i respect commissioner vice president richards into the weeds more information i kind of feel that one i feel like the 200 thirty or whatever is absent of a red herring we're talking about thousands of units this is a very small number and even if we wanted to say this was material i don't know that one week whether get us anything the feasibility report the ordinance is would give the information that you'll need to at least get way more to understand with the impact changes to the short of that report that helps us here i

can't be supportive of a continuance i think there is a balance of what we know i think we know the policy objectives with clear there is a lot of we can agree on the overall objective little providing clarification so we can move forward hopefully the city charter is where we want to go that's what we want instead of every single detail responded out i want to make that comment commissioner wu mentioned the planning commission would see any legislation related to land use in general the reasons he mentions making sure the staff recommendation or other things in place for the planning department to contribute to or opine on the feasibility study before it goes to the board once

we see the legislation should change it or call the board the phase is set we can only comment an what we see i'll give a quick example having the discussion is different before than after the legislative changes were made but we haven't had any discussion over this is part of inclusionary program that is something maybe can come up if we are having a discussion of feasibility before the go legislative changes but difficult afterward i'm supportive of the staff's recommendation to have a hearing prior to the board consideration of you know the economic feasibility study as well as our comments. >> if i may add a couple of thoughts i want to be clear

absolutely for the fundamental there's over time i agree we're not given enough information to make a sure decision but given what we have now i think that is important to take some sort of action it is unfair we go back and retroactively assess projects with a higher fee when they've spent times and money and investment in budget for a certain return or break even i think that is unfair they go backwards i think that is fair to go forward and we'll bump it up and let the people work towards that goal yeah anyway, i think that is a level of fairness or fairness i'd like to talk about the graisht date based on that

fairness it seems to me a fail line is on june 7th we'll all vote and get that direction that seems to be a natural law and projects are proposed or in the up to june 7th should be approved and come forward at a 12 percent maybe come to some agreement or bulging up to 15 percent but jump to 25 is unfair if an project comes in after june 9th or 10 higher that's how i feel. >> commissioner moore. >> we have tossed the issue ever affordability in doing the right thing around for too long i believe this body can can't do much more we have the abilities to really create the policy that is agreement to the various

issues i respect i thank the planning department and in the joint effort with the larger stakeholders i'm personally ready to let the legislative effort be what it is and support it the entire outlet there will be fine tuning and anyone that will continue to help iron out the last minute adjustments that needs to be made a lot of it operationally is rushed i personally will not support it at that moment because the planning department is suggesting we all have tried and tried including supporting with the department efforts on the affordable housing density bonus didn't work we've been waiting for this to come forward we have any projects we could have

discussed 5 m to 1066 mission to market street and nothing has worked i'm ready to let it go and put it into the hands of those who are here to be the legislators if we find a role to participate evidently to look at all projects with the same critical eye we look at it but i'm done so i can't say support the motion on the floor and move forward i believe is the best way of moving forward. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a couple of thoughts any questions one does the motion include those additional modifications 10 and 12 that would - >> it was your motion supervisor agriculture in my understanding e mooifrnz is was to adopt approval with staff

modifications including specifically june 7th as the date to exempt projects from the new percentages for those entitlements planning commission or department autopsy so there were additional modifications not the staff reports that were presented one was that one and also adjusted the u m u percentages that would be tiered bans the grandfathering i don't know - >> was that staffs recommendation. >> those are presented today in any presentation and included the handful the last 10, 11 and 12 were new ones and my understanding your motion included that. >> that was my understanding as well. >> that includes the soma zone and there's sclrgs percentage in the alleyways that will fall

under the u m u. >> the published report said keep is fair and consistent grairpt we saw the zones were exempted if graishtd and people are refer the carve outs. >> okay. >> for clarification as is maker i think i read that two it is calling out what is now in place in those various areas as the higher tiers of affordability which the graisht could not lower i mean for some reason it came out lower they remain in place. >> correct. >> okay. >> so that's a safeguard. >> there's a distinction between the grairts provision that was in the staff recorded and the new one that relies on

the new inclusionary percentage to reflect the tiering and the u m u. >> an issue we didn't talk about was that the date you need to file your education e operation to get into the grandfathering provision a couple of projects came up today 333, 3 california that usf site and the executive park site if i could ask mr. spears quickly your project struck me as complicated your requiring a state owned parcel. >> right we acquired a parcel we started negotiation in 2013-2014 we required that in march 2014 and at the request of the

supervisor and in conjunction with the planning department an extensive 9 months preapplication outreach process whereas we would have otherwise be able to file the application the site was acquired in march 2015 no turning around. >> unlike the city requirements you've kwoifrd the site not one contingent on approval, in fact, it close. >> that's correct and it is also an exist non-conforming commercial use that has undermining residential zoning so the ultimate for the site to continue the feasible commercial use as opposed to to building housing. >> i'll encourage to work on some of the complicated issues

and the proposal not necessarily to add to the city ordinance at this point but 92 nuances like that project the executive project could be looked in a finer way we encourage housing on that site instead of office. >> just to be clear is your concern covered in the motion or not. >> it's not i mean it is a recommendation to look at the project such a that one the executive project to an existing entitlement and whether the entire project get caught up it is a recommendation to look at those i don't i don't have any concrete motion. >> i can add that the executive park they've pulled they mentioned environmental at a certain date that was the date and came back and to have

another look i think it is the initial evaporations this others project didn't have an environmental date yet. >> you could ask for clarification whether or not the initial environmental date were revised clarifying the ordinance which date. >> mr. spear did you want to comment on that. >> to answer that question we have an environmental application on file that was filed as a result of our community outreach on march 29 of this year so after the current date of january telephone which is the proposed date of the charter amendment. >> okay. thank you i think my motion will include the supervisors will, of course, basis they mentioned decision on what we do but look at the

situation there maybe reason to look at some of the projects that we've all right filed they mentioned document before the protection may occur but after the january 2016 that would be evaluated and see if they qualify for the highest tier of the grairts my motion covers the urban forester environmental document. >> an amounted to your motion. >> yes. >> that was more of a suggestion as part of the emotion. >> so it eliminations coming for an expanded environmental and then it would ask the board

to take into consideration projects since brought up the former heights project to see if a at a later time would put them at the highest grandfathering tier this is the work for quite a while we choose this is the earlier itself documents but third time doing other things prior to that time it would very well be this could be considered as a project underway. >> we're looking at two administrations to the existing motioned to consider the earliest fee application and second to consider special circumstances with the environmental application and consider the documents where 9 project could have been the

works for special circumstances they done they mentioned application make sense. >> yeah. i'm making sure the second didn't reference any specific projects we happen to have a sponsor with the media. >> consider a special circumstance. >> second and commissioner moore. >> i want to make a comment not regarding the police commission i want to ask planning who's in the conversation of affordability to start users a nuance definition of affordability this is indeed a layered definition of market-rate and middle-income and put forward as 25 and thirty percent and the requirement doubled as a slight miss statement we've added a new level of complexities that has

been apparent the last 24 months and i think we need to be honest to ourselves in order to bring clarity how me newspaper in this city or across the country or internationally is fight about this we have the cutting-edge doing what we're doing, however, we are now at a point we have to include middle-income housing to prevent the worst that is greatly different twists on the discussion i want it to be strongly incorporated into the discussion we have. >> okay commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval for the proposed legislation with staffs modifications including establishing june 7, 2016, as the date to exempt the projects that have entitlements to look

at the urban forester itself application date for grandfathering and to consider special circumstances for grandfathering for example, to look at other filing dates commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner wu no commissioner vice president richards no commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner johnson voting against. >> thank you april from the supervisors offices for participating thank you. >> the >> proceedings. and when speaking before the

commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar for case item 8 at coming bender street a conditional use authorization good afternoon commissioner eir can planning department staff before you is a conditional use authorization to demolish the single-family home structure on a 4 seven hundred square feet 55 foot wide lots on cumber bender street one and one bedroom units the proposed building will be two unit 15 hundred two bedroom and one 55 hundred square feet three bedroom units we've received communication in support and opposition that were included in our packets the two

discretionary review authorization applications are included in your packet since the sedition 5 letters have been received 2450 some opposition from the neighborhood that is supported by the resident of 5 immediately adjacent lots along the property line the project was filed with the planning department as the dpigs demolition of a single-family dwelling the planning department encouraged the project sponsor to modify it for a two-story structure in order to replace it with comparable in size with the density the neighborhood that is one unit per 25 foot wide lot it was reviewed by the planning department residential design team the rtd showed the concerns with building and massing and the front setback the rdt

recommended changes for the portion of building and to reinforce a more neighborhood capable scale the project sponsor made the recommended changes by the rdt in conclusion it is necessary and desirable as it will ceding create two payment sized units maintenance the density of the surrounding neighborhood and is an in file development the project will demolish a structure greater than than 80 percent of the land a single-family in san francisco the it consistent with the residential design guidelines and the planning code and the general plan given the finding the staff recommends approval the discretionary review authorization i'm available for questions. >> thank you project sponsor please. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of

the commission i'm jim reuben reuben, junius & rose we've before working with the project sponsors a couple introductory remarks and then i'm going to turn it over to the architect in cases there are neighborhood opposition i think that is informative to consider the source the zoning district no set back requirement with the lots have been solid sold to anyone those lots would be been individually that outcome will result in opposition the adjacent neighbors instead of a deliberate thought to work with the neighborhood that is with the most impacted development as you can see from the green that is the support the site is obvious knowing you can't please all the people all the time we

pleased the adjacent neighbors the staff encouraged us to have a second units from the investigating construction that is grown if 6 hundred plus square feet to 15 hundred plus making that units larger than what is demolished on site in creating it unit we were constrained by the neighbors to respect them and do the good neighbor jests to make them comfortable and finally the 21 street and ord street that are similar hearings that were before you and listened to all argue comments in creating the second unit 12 units of support 60 signatures and one more graphic i'm doing pro-telegraph

hill i think you'll hear about the double lot everything highlighted think outside the box that graphic is a double lot lots of double lots in the area john. >> i've been working with the project sponsor they lived in noah valley approached me holy to build a new home for the aging parents and the priority for the home were clear to create a single-family the delores and take advantage of the fist the neighborhood that offers they partially searched for the property for the project one that will allow for the development of a scaled zone for greens and landscape to allow for the indoor and outdoor says

that the double lot on cumberland became available upon studying the site we identified a few characteristics the overhead please on the south side of cumberland their setback from the property line additionally most are described as two or three stories over garage with the utilization of the port to create a larger landscape and lastly the key lots are enjoyed the landscape in response with simple expects of allowing the urban conditions on the student we set but out to design a house that felt lying a 2 plus story home similar in scale and feel to the block we did that in a number of ways through the use of construction

we were able 0 visibly limit the lower level allowing the landscape to hide the mass and maintain a rich presence on cumberland street and having the setbacks over 20 feet and 28 feet from the front property line we voirnl limited the exposure of the third story from the cumberland street through the use of setbacks on the rear yard we can maintain the shared green space with the nehborhood effectively mid block open space the combine mass is a 2 story home and surrounded by landscaping the rear that is 41 hundred plus square feet we identified the key concerns the adjacent neighbors and incorporate them we met point eastern neighbors

and find out they mentioned concerns we moved to preserve the benefits they enjoy those neighbors support our project we met with the western neighbors and identified the sunlight was a major concern we have a setback that feveng mirrors the setback creating the openness and preserving a significant go view from this location those neighbors also support our project we met with all the earn key lot properties and identified the earn property line that is historically as green space and in response we say a 13 and a half setback thus protecting the shared green space those neighbors support our projects the neighbors behind us are significantly higher tape gratefully not effected by our project it combines argue conceptually

approach through any changes the design at the present time, is intact and achieves the sponsors grossly it clear cedar on top of the landscape and separated to maintain the block the upper floor is setback to reduce 1r50ib89 from cumberland street the dial and materiality is to have a human scale to the design through the use of refined wood overhangs amending we split the massing one approximately thirty foot we'd and 11 and a half foot wide dimensions will be the scale of the adjacent 25 and 33 foot lot as part of processes we've had more than 15 meetings 3 of the large groups and

attempting to answer questions as neighbors question we hired the technical engineer to talk about the hillside and answer questions it was reviewed and by the rdt municipal times and reducing the fwlagz as a result, the planning department staff finds us to be in compliance with the residential design guidelines and the special use district with the noted second unit we're asking for no variance and special interpretation of the code we ask i approve the project submitted i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. we may have questions opening it up for public comment first any public comment? okay

were there no cards. >> none submitted in any speaker cards. >> why not do it this way if you guys want to line up on that side of the room stack up, however, if you are i'm not going to call. >> (speaking spanish.) but put them into this basket if you want if you're ready. >> hamburger heather i live across the street my family and i for 12 years we have another petition that captivities of the broader residents that oppose it because of the precedent it will set the first issue with that proposal the demolition of the existing nine hundred plus

square feet home objecting retain the maintenance standards without jeopardizing affordability and maintain the existing units poor existing unions are more affordable than compatible new units and blend in with the existing neighborhood by virtue of they mentioned size we believe this policy is disregarded an important policy that the city we ask you to recognize and implement that the second problem the lot merger the map shows only two double interior lots on our block inform other mergers if i approve a lot merger it sets a precedence that the developers will design around this is the sponsors existing

and proposed elevation the recent changes do not change the overall height or massing i repeat it don't congressman the overall height or massing the existing home is 9 hundred square feet and average is 2 there is a motion that has been seconded thousands with typically square footage of under 3 thousand square feet it is 8 thousand square feet with garage the proposed building will be over 8 times the size of the existing homes and 3 times the size of the homeowner on the block 3 times this is a precedent that we do not want to go down this path and finally a conditional use can't be approved unless the commission or the board of supervisors on appeal finding the project is necessary and desirable for and comparable with the neighborhood under

planning code section 303 this project is neither necessary and desirable or comparable thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is 3 or 4 list a resident of noah valley i'm speaking regarding the scale of the proposed project on cumberland's the city residential design guidelines are organized with giles under 6 key principles the very first principle what was, in fact, one of the reason those guidelines were developed the 1980s to make sure the building scale is comparable with the soirnd neighborhood they look at lot

patterns and visual character to help determine the scale building size here's a graphic the block and the block across the street that look at the size of the exist buildings. >> flip the drawing. >> it excludes garages the average size is over 2 thousand square feet even with the recent changes it is in effect the building over 8 thousand square feet including all the square footage the house clearly the scale is not compatible with surrounding buildings that i think disputeable from a quantify comparison scale is the

first guiding the residential design guidelines bus san francisco planning code didn't apply to area two ratio sorry the rh3 that is the radio square to lot square footage the residential design guidelines are the means to regulate the scale it is doubly for this is enforced from the planning department staff continues to ignore the compatible sail the booerment will be forced to work with the board of supervisors for the rh district 9 zoning controls are 40 years old and many cities apply f ar here's boston code the far for detached is 3.3 and other homes

.5 a .5 far on the merged lots result the home of 2 thousand plus square feet here again are the existing and proposed streets facing elevations some minor changes to the proposed facade but nothing of consequence it didn't take many effort to know the proposed building is not comparable in scale. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello my name is john i'm speaking as the chair of the board of the delores heights improvement the neighborhood association for this area i'm here to reiterate over

written objection 0 respectfully ask you to deny this conditional use as a planning resolution created delores between 1980 describing our neighborhood as quote an outstanding and unique area that contribute to san francisco visual form and character you see this conforms daily by popper it of the delores and the stairs the neighborhood over 8 thousand square feet this will be an out of scale in the special use district the context 9 average single-family residences is one thousand plus square feet the largest out liar single-family residences is 4 thousand plus that was built in 19 hundred as those include the buildings on double lots the delores heats