parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. bringing

those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. >> particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also ensuring the connection to digital inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. >> people are on the move. they are no longer chained to their desk tops at home. people can accomplish a lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. given all the mobile community and mobile

information that's available. we thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. >> our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. in san francisco you don't have to be bottled up in an office. you can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. it's great for the local community here and it means a lot to me. >> in the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park and you can go to parks and recreation .org and having wifi in our parks makes it more accessible. if you want more information about how to enjoy

wifi in san francisco parks, go to th >> 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 talkhe 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 come 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 ck 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 st