>> the department of emergency managet and public safety and police and fire department work consistently with the [inaudible] military partner tooz respond to a emergency. [inaudible] go to sf 72.org. you will find basic guides to prepare yourself, family >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. state your name for the record. are i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore

and commissioner wu we expect commissioner president fong to be absent and commissioner johnson to arrive late commissioners, that places you under your it items proposed for continuance pacific avenue and 2013 va r on pacific avenue are proposed until july 14, 2016, item 2 pennsylvania avenue a large project authorization is proposed for tunnels until october 2016 and faster under the discretionary review calendar we received a request on item 21 under the project sponsor with the dr requester in agreement to continue item 21 until july 28th no other items

permitted for speaker cards opening up for items for continuance. >> hi, i'm c.j. with the law enforcement of before a necessarily mary tell an pacific avenue i would like to request if possible we receive a continuance to a donate 72 hours not quite so far out as the october date through are few issues to resolve in that matter and been in the cue for quite a while so request a shorter continuance. >> any additional speakers regarding the continuance seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> i'd like to ask the gentleman to find a date that might might for pennsylvania

october is a long ways off my understanding some design issues and a few other things. >> certainly commissioner antonini continue if it you wish to an earlier date august 4th is less impacted than august 11th. >> i'll propose continuance of items 1 ab to july 14th for proposed a motion for continuance of item 2 to august 4th, and then finally item let's see the final item 21 to july 28th. >> second. >> family commissioners staff will concur on the pennsylvania street to august 4th we asked for the continuance because work needs to be done with the community we believe it can be

resolved in a timely way and thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to then a motion made there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items 1 a july fourthly and 21 to july 28th. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero acting zoning administrator's zoning administrator, what say you? >> >> continue to the same date. >> thank you commissioners, that places you under your consent calendar on item 3 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 unless 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. we have one under content item 3 the upper market in violation of zoning map amendments. >> i have no speaker cards. >> >> any public comment on item 3. >> seeing none. >> move to approve. >> second there is a separate action commissioners to also schedule a public hearing on or before december 22nd shall we schedule it on september - september 22nd. >> september. >> very good on that motion to adopt a resolution to schedule a public hearing for item 3.

>> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero commissioners, that places you under your consideration of adaptations of draft minutes for 1ri78 i have no speaker cards. >> any speakers concerning the draft minutes for thursday, june 30, 2016, seeing none, move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for july. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places us on item 5 commissioners questions or comments and commissioner moore. >> i was delighted to read in

a potrero hill that the college of arts to build two hundred bed apartment complex he a dorm both within the arkansas area the first a trustee dominated the parcel on which the 200 bedroom complex will be built with retaining ownership of the land but having cca is a strong sign and i'm sure we'll follow to closely and set a glazing example for many others to fellow for those those of you not seen this we'll hand it around. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> thank you i had given to our secretary an

article that i had planned to speak on when we have our discussion last week about the missionary plan 2020 couldn't find that at that time, a member of the sent to me an article enrique and the title is how to make 70 housing more affordable and professor explores the negative effects of building housing and his article was more valid than first written as you may know the gentleman is the author of the new geography of jobs an interesting book about how the jobs of the 21st century have changed notable will i from a century ago or the last century in addition to a professor at uc berkley even if

economics is a resident of the mission street so he lives of which he speaks that's unusual often people that comment on things are not involved in the economic world are not in the myth of what their department of motor vehicles he's the author of a new study i'll try to get a co-author the effects of the lack of hours in san francisco to both employees and employers in terms of lost productivity which sound a very valid and appropriate type of thing to have as we continue our discussions of housing issues 90 in san francisco and the mission district so i'll try to find out if it has been released and where to have it for your consideration as we move forward. >> thank you seeing none, on the roll secretary we'll

continue. >> very good places us under department matters. >> good afternoon, commissioners one brief announcement we're as we're entering election season and ballot season in the fall a large numbers of ballot measures you'll hear about this in arnz report and take a moment to remind the staff about the tichtsz related to ballot measures sending you the memo from the city attorney's office what we can and cannot do to take a position on ballot measures a large number of the ballot measures for local and state and send that out as soon as possible. >> seeing nothing further, the board of appeals there was no historic preservation commission

yesterday. >> good afternoon aaron starr, manager, legislative affairs. monday land use committee the committee considered two resolution urging the amendments to the by e buy right housing bill by supervisor peskin and co-sponsored by commissioner kim and supervisor avalos and supervisor campos it was sports by supervisor wiener the supervisor peskin resolution asked a representative from sacramento oppose the bill until provisions are made on the prohibition of housing and two a baseline for as of right approval consisting of inclusionary and a premium increase 3 a requirement in the construction within one and 80 days of approval and for the approval of that major development continue to you allow for public review and the discretionary approval by local laws

supervisor wiener's resolution says the guarantee of zoning height and number of units by right and allow the jurisdictions to have good architecture and urban design to have inclusionary standards to preserve the historic conservation buildings and housing authority to limit the demolitions and environmental standards and supervisor wiener's resolution also ask see the state to increase the state support for public transportation investment and adopt the forms that have abuse of ellis act 23 people spoke in favor the supervisor peskin and the committee forwarded the resolution without any recommendation on tuesday the board of supervisors voted on two items recommended to the affordable housing bonus program to reject the plan amendment and supervisor tang and supervisor wiener spoke no support stating

the proposed language reflected accident type of language appropriate for the general plan and further supervisors expressed a desire with a much needed affordable housing as much as the h bp and supervisor wiener commended supervisor tang so for not often a wedding's supervisor playing a leadership role no move the needle and to move past conflict in solutions and supervisor peskin spoke in opposition stating the proposed language was two broad and granted too much authority to the planning department for the up zoning and while noting the board has an up and down vote supervisor peskin wanted to see a crafted verse of adjoin plan move forward supervisor mar also condemned on

this item thanking supervisor tang and expressing a desire for the implements felt 100 percent density bonus program and next the program was the 100 percent of the h pb it didn't pass the zoo noted the board can have a discussion but need to have general plan from the planning commission and supervisor tang proposed one amendment to the ordinance the removal of northeast waterfront and asked the board to continue this until july 11th they passed with unanimous support and on the calendar defined supervisor tang and supervisor peskin ordinances consistent with the general plan also an ordinance to allow 1066 market street for the proposal this passed it's second reading the preferences in the affordable housing program such

apartments the administrative code by supervisor cowen and supervisor breed and is others pass the first reading and the parcels on 25 and connecticut passed its first reading and the appeal of the constructive for 106 market street was tabled it was one introduction this week which was sponsored by supervisor kim it allowing the amazement game in the special use districts p that concludes my remarks. >> one question. >> sure. >> on the state as of right supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin versions concerning the historic preservation commission supervisor wiener called out the historic conservation resources are they didn't understand as categories under ceqa or landmarks how - >> the ordinance does address the local landmarks that's one thing we're asking our represents to look at.

>> all those buildings i showed in noah valley category a. >> unless they're on the california or national register not protected under - >> yeah. >> aaron's right the way the governor's bill we have to look at the state or national register the category as a ceqa designation which we used for the ceqa second will not apply under that but under the supervisor peskin versions the demolition of current housing in a round about way those spurs structures will be protected because their houses. >> i don't believe that is right. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns i think under supervisor peskin proposed legislation which will be before you on your calendar later no, no, no. >> this is regarding the

policy statement for the city oh, i'm sorry. >> i think the way both versions read if i'm not mistaken they're requesting that the legislation not allow the use of streamline program onsite right. >> supervisor peskin is. >> only supervisor peskin okay. so if it there's existing hours not allowed. >> so on the oosdz not all of the historic conservation buildings are residential so - >> right. >> correct. >> interesting. >> that will definitely effect the historic preservation. >> commissioners there was no board of appeals yesterday which will place us on this item 8 and market street

this is an informational presentation to comply with our conditions of approval. >> good afternoon jeff planning department staff for the variance for 12 market street it was approved on the employed figured out planning commission with conditions of approval the approved project for a 7 story mixed use with 62 units the conditions were adapted including for the sponsors to work with the community on the design for a rail component for the frontage to allow for - to provide formal report back on the design which is concurring today the applicant since the time of the hearing met with the community maine both triangle associations and the planning department staff on the project design and the major alterations

are a change in clouding to north panels the removal of two ground floor rental units an 14th street and replaced with a retail unit the retail unit from 16 hundred to 2009 plus due to the workers of the ground floor the additional fourth story and as a result of removal of two two bedroom ground floor residential unit it needs to convert an existing one bedroom to two bedroom to have the 40 percent for the planning code section the project sponsor is here and able to make a presentation at myself and the staff architect are available for any questions. >> opening up for public

comment any public comment on item 21 market seeing none, commissioner moore. >> glad to see the project worked throw in a matter it is a much more fun building particular was of the way is meets 14th street and the flatiron corner i think that does everything we've hoped for . >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i also think that the resolution for the retail on 14th street have been removed and no part with the flatiron but no so much glaring we can't produce a building without glaring it is too bad we think can't have glaze surfaces for part of the opening i'm not

prevail so it is what it is so i'm supportive of building and think that is a good project that's my only comments. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i want to echo i think the improvements are - i mean the redesign has going to go on through the days that would be a chip oil - thank you to the project sponsor and the staff for the neighborhood groups that worked on is that bears up the process it is a great project. >> at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three

minutes. i did have the one speaker card. >> georgia swedish. >> good afternoon can i have the overhead i think you'll have to do a close-up thank you this is a roof deck that you did approval as part of a project and the last few nights all lit up now it seems silly to bring this and take your time i think this is a new trend i cannot in the lights are solar on the last two or three nights with the glass railing reflects the lights but i think this is something that needs to be questioned by staff when someone proposes a roof deck it is nice if someone is up

there but if the light are on all the time it is solar it may seem trivial but many you live next to it it may not be terr y terrifyal thank you very much. >> i brought a book recommendation called interject leadership i talked about antibiotic incur and here's a description how to find joy and simple sisters we're excited to be here in the doom of democracy from the inside and get the opportunity to discuss the topics like open green space and

environmentalism and look forward to you're talking about this is truly good to be a citizen the italy play against germany and i took the bicycle on any way over here went to pacific and descend down california a differentiation the multi one way streets of hyde they shift to two-way streets on the north side of california versus the south of california and i think that we should look at this as an item we have on that same confluence the map starts to deepen and admonish people hit by vehicles and sdentsdz in this neighborhood with a lack of green space and counter to the environment i thought and we should be working

to slow down the downtown to the north and south so thanks for hosting yesterday, i hope you have a wonderful rest of your conversation thank you. >> no more general public comment i received a request from staff not take item 9 and to take item 10 out of order if it is commendable. >> it will be following item 10. >> okay. >> currently staff is having technical difficulties so commissioners item 10 - gpa the commerce are commerce and general plan an initiation. >> good afternoon, commissioners aaron starr, manager, legislative affairs. of the planning department staff

the the item before you will initiate an ordinance that for the commerce and element for guidelines for uses on eating and drinking establishment the proposed changes roach the condemnation on restaurant under the general plan and replace them, however, this concentration limits the eating and drinking concentration in the planning code will remain as part of 2013 restaurant ordinances for the restaurant control the concentration was added intended it was anticipated it would be followed with the general plan it was emphasized by staff at the time while several years late this accomplishes that goal the planning department support this it rereinforced the planning code and the main document for the land use the general plan should focus on statement and the planning code should have

the tools for implementing those goals and policies and removed the planning codes will recommend to initiate the general plan and schedule the adaptation for october 6th of this year that concludes my remarks. >> opening up for public comment on item 10. >> any general public comment seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think this makes a lot of sense in reading this numerical limits are really not appropriate in the general plan the general plan basically talked about u talks about in broad strokes talks about policies that we should follow in planning and housing issues various issues depending on the subjects of general plan so to move those were there are numerical restrictions to the planning code they are more appropriate makes a lot of sense

to me so i would be supportive and support the initiation. >> is that a motion. >> is that a motion. >> motion to initiate yeah. >> thank you, commissioners. >> vote eye comment i agree it is the right place to have the numerical items in the code and general plan it looks like a reference to the planning code so just for staff to make sure if someone is reading the adjoin plan where to go to the code i don't know if you want to name it you can do the language you want. >> sure that is placed in the conditional use criteria the only time it is used the concentration so we can certainly look at when it comes back for adoption. >> often people read the general plan they can't know if

they're doing something or not. >> that's why we're here today. >> thank you very good commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate this general plan amendment but also a second portion to schedule a public hearing on or before october 6th shall we schedule for october '68 and yes. >> very good commissioners on that motion to initiate or excuse me - adopt a resolution to schedule and public hearings on october 6th. >> campaign. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero and now are we ready and, yes, we're ready. >> back to item 9 affordable housing divisadero a planning code amendment.

>> good afternoon aaron starr planning department we delayed this supervisor breed introduced an ordinance on tuesday it amended the one today e-mailed to you, however, i am required to have a sign copy on my person and couldn't get the copy so, now we're good but before i give my remarks i'll let coner johnston introduce it. >> well. >> good afternoon coner johnston staff to board of supervisors supervisor president london breed and lemon apologize for the brief history of land use regulation i'll present there is a lot of back story here now that the june that election is decided and the citywide inclusionary requirements are set we can discuss 24 legislation than back in may there is a lot of back story i'll address as quickly as i

said, i'll make clear the question before you today supervisor breed introduced substitutes legislation on tuesday regretting the changes we discussed in may and the outcome of prop c election so the legislation fundamentally does 3 things sets the vera derequirement to the recent do you mind 25 and 33 percent standard it requires pipeline projects in the divisadero and martin luther king's to meet the 25 and 33 inclusionary standards if taking advantage of the density decontrol and third it requires projects of 10 units or more using the nct to meet those higher affordability standards instead of the 25 it is a slightly lower threshold the basic question today do we want all projects on december vera

that meet the city's affordable housing standards supervisor president london breed buildings we should be max missing those and according others prop c election results the voters agree pates the simmer question now at the risk of muddying i'll give the back story no 2012 prop c was passed that set the inclusionary requirement onsite and 25 offsite or fee in 2014 supervisor president london breed passed the legislation creating the main neighborhood commercial on fillmore and diverse - residential density will be controlled by rear yard

sunlights and exposure in terms of more housing units will be allowed in with outlet decontrols changes passed since 2007 with the residential orient and the rto and commercial transit and nct and 3 and 2 and a dozen neighborhood commercial district with the silver and mission street and golden gate park and valencia and upper market and fillmore ncts the planning commission and board of supervisors supported supervisor breed nct legislation unanimously late the 2012 was an obstacle the decontrolled in the ncts help to create more apples and oranges these are a percentage four affordable housing and cheaper market-rate without any

hype or bilk and in that negative impacts are good that's why you've seen so many but sxhoepd wants to increase the percentage of affordable units under 2012 prop c that was considered impossible after a lot of consultation with the planning department and the city attorney's office we found a way to increase affordable housing requirements under the strict controls of prop c and in december supervisor president london breed introduced legislation creating the highest inclusionary housing 0 four projects within the nct that exercise the density of the control using the outgoing 2347 nexus study she set the fee at the highest achieveable 25 percent and the onsite slightly blow that at 23 for the onsite development within the neighborhoods the board of supervisors then introduced what became 2016 prop c this is where things are more

muddy to undo prop c that passed and the new inclusionary rates are offsite construction and 25 for housing the nexus study was the basis for supervisor president london breed's original 23, 25 she's revised to reflect you knew higher prop c 25, 33 standards those will be the same and that part of valuation a set and going forward - the prop c prevailing u trailing legislation is teetered grandfathering for projects in the pipeline without supervisor president london breed legislation today current projects on diverse can - they

should meet the new citywide affordable housing requirements they sounts get to use a density control and benefit from the grandfathering that was written for promotions not getting the density decontrol the crux of that legislation and a simpler with the issues that went through in terms of updates since little may meeting the introduction of this reflect the changes including a one creates consistency with the inclusionary rates for units 25 no longer the 25 and 23 and 33 all 25, 33 and modifies the grandfathering for the nct piece of paper pipelines and 3 it applies the fees in the ncts to

the citywide fund another staff recommendation the new staffer report today mentioned a couple of other suggestions recommendation 3 is the old density requirement in the ordinance to help to clarify the potential we've done that and recommendation 4 suggests moving the language rather than creating a new section 428 with the drafting detailed we're perfectly okay with that recommendation 5 says self-the pending feasibility analysis indicates higher inclusionary rates those should apply in the ncts obviously supervisor breed wants the highest affordable housing rates and we have included the language to make sure that happens and commissioner antonini there might be a discretionary staff has one through 4 i'm referencing the longer list i think i was

reading our facial expressions the last remaining issue staffs represents that those ncts only require projects of 25 units and over to meet the typhoid, 33 standard staffs suggests that will have consistent with the citywide policy and supervisor president london breed prefers the units of 10 are more she thinks any project that use the nct whether 13 or 44 should meet the standard to maximize the affordable housing this is a policy question and merits to staffs argument about the citywide and not distancing smaller projects in the commission wanted to make many we'll be happy to look at this and i want to address a couple of points in may one commenter seemed for opposing the legislation but supervisor president london breed didn't do enough community outreach thousands a curious

claim i and my former colleague attended every meeting we were notified and supervisor president london breed announced this in december with neighborhood leaders with page jay jay and the leader and others leaders they were all standing next to her when they introduced that and supervisor president london breed talked about 2 tea the north of page meeting and did merchant walks and talks to any voters about the housing issues we included the legislation and her efforts to increase the affordable housing citywide in were we in the course letter with the link to the load land breed proposes for the fillmore and the first

for citywide affordable housing increases if 2012 prop c and she campaigned pub for 2013 packing that had the higher standards one other point if the meeting in may there was talk amongst the commissioners of a value in density decontrolled a worthwhile idea we're happy to be part of conversation but should say ot o and nct 3 and other ncts and probably should involve the feasibility analysis and no need for that conversation to delay many affordable housing legislations for da did care we have projects in the pipeline this is the best way to insure they'll provide more affordable housing this legislation guarantees that a project using the negative impact zoning will meet the 25, 33 standard rather than only 13

or 14 percent affordable housing saying no to this means choosing 13 or 14 percent instead of 25 percent thank you for your patience i hope i haven't use up all my 7, 8, 9 and thank you to monique mohan and others a bit of a moving the fact of the matter and right before a charter amendment that changed citywide with the election now decided and the new version i think the question is clear wear in a strong position to move forward do we want the density decontrol to meet the citywide affordable housing or should get a lower grandfather 10 to 24 projects that use this to meet the 20 to thirty or get a lower rate supervisor president london breed is more affordable housing and more affordability now she grew up in the western edition in a small housing not owning a

mansion but seen folks pushed out by gentrification this is very personal that's why she's dedicated their time only others board of supervisors to helping everyone in the community to find affordable secure place to live and fighting for her community and commissioners on her behalf i ask for your support thank you. >> any questions fellow commissioners. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i know you have public comment if this legislation were - is the divisadero and fillmore currently mr. the hospice of prop c if that were not to pass. >> correct. >> so covered anyway. >> the grandfathering is a different as - >> yeah. but this is was not passed it would be under -

>> i understand thanks. >> okay opening up for public comment no - >> mr. starr. >> i'll make this brief i'm sure you're getting tired of seeing me up here the commissioners heard this this year and voted to continue so the planning department could look at the potential nct the departments analysis no idea if found under the nct under the the maximums number of ushers units is one and 29 but mostly 200 plus an increase of one and 19 percent no doubt the oldest nct was restrictive and may not have

made this feasible for developing a site zoned for 50 units but too large to make it feasible therefore leaving the sites undevelopment san franciscans voted and passed the prop c and the board passed the trailing legislation to increase the inclusionary to within and 25 and 33 on the onsite development due to those two legislation changes to cloud promotions in the fillmore and dedid care - the departments recommends for the modifications and support this the recent zoning significantly increases the areas and the city has the policy as a policy has tried to

capture that potential this ordinance accomplishments accomplishes that goal for the inclusionary rate supported by the nexus study as i mentioned supervisor president london breed incorporated 3 of the departments recommended changes a draft error as connor mentioned the allows of represents is incomplete, however, on page 7 for the condition is complete on the recommendations list which establishment on about page 7 and recommendation for the affordable housing fees jade so for the diverse this is added to the ordinance on page 8 recommendations 3 clarified the residential potential and combrairts for diverse and an

increase it included and nomination 57 as pare the inclusionary ordinance indicates that corridors within this should have rates higher than the rest of the city with the diverse and the financial should be higher this is added to the ordinance not included was recommendation one on page 7 with the inclusionary housing fee with 24 units have 20 percent offsite inclusionary a rate this makes the diverse and - on page 5 instead of a section for the - adrc a subdivision for the rates in this district and more clerical change in the subdivision was

more appropriate to staff's recommendation approval with too modifications are one to create the consistency with the inclusionary housing so the project forces 10 to 24 have an inclusionary and offsite as the in lui options and creates a instead of creating a spate subdivision add a subdivision to 415 that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you mr. starr opening up for public comment i have a few speaker cards. >> my name is julia i live on the corner of hates and divisadero and over the past two years friends of the neighborhood getting voters and have to live in the same house

because they can't afford i've seen friends who housing is threatened to be bought out how private developers to raise the rents and friends buying affordable housing in the city but met with families in the neighborhood that struggled and moved around the city to find a basic home that was pushed out to sacramento and friends in town where the residentscy are not affording to live in the city and do short-term rentals that is the only housing they can find we're deeply effected by the housing crisis and a public parents and our neighborhood is one of the fewest place with the public schools is possible but many of the stories i've mentioned with the people that are pushed out of the neighborhoods are black,

filipinos and japanese so i want to urge the commissioners to respectfully look at the maximizing of the affordable housing with the development in our neighborhood and not allow developers to either build without building affordable or to build offsite thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners my name is rosy i'm here because i live on fell street and been nearing 53 did care in walking distances and prior to that lived in the fillmore it is important to me we respective the ordinance and increase the inclusionary housing to 25 percent he can't leave my regulated apartment not a good

long term project i don't think that is fair for a project to be grandfathering in the 1r0er9s want the highest rate i urge you to support in legislation. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm derrick i've lived off the corridor for 20 yes as the active member in the association i've attended newcomers meetings and complete with supervisor president london breed regarding the nct and the districts the community outreach has been commendable supervisor president london breed's office met with looirdz leader in the community to make sure we've had a strong voice and those who say otherwise may have another agenda and trying to mislead the commission last december i was

standing with supervisor breed and other leaders when they introduced the highest housing when i moved to the neighborhood as a young man a vibrant neighborhood and today, the neighborhood is very different some of the changes are good we have new grocery stores no longer a food desert and people on the streets day and night and their thrive some of the things that are bad the ethnic people are decreasing and the high increasing - yes, my home value has gone up dramatically i'm fortunate but honestly i'd like to have the exists neighborhood we have the power to counter the bad changes and find all new projects in the nct that take

advantage of density decontrol whether or not they're in the pipeline comply with the reluctance passed prop c on june '72/3rd's state inclusionary rates at 25 not 12, 13 want 5 not 100 percent they said 25 is the number i ask you respective the will of the voters for those take advantage to build the inclusionary that increases the economic balance to the neighborhood we muni must have neighbors of all income levels and not the homogenizes if those projects are built with the lower inclusionary rates they'll be a 2k3w5i9d community for the few and the lucky thank you. i hope you'll give serious consideration and pass this legislation. >> thank you is there any additional public comment on this item.

>> please. >> good afternoon, commissioners gus hernandez with affordable 53 ders for the association thank you for as you may know affordability is important on 53 ders i want to reemphasis commissioner antonini you kind of hit the nail on the head a baseline for 25 percent it used to be 12 percent; right? when supervisor president london breed proposed to do you believe that to divisadero we were very exciting now that everyone baseline is up to 25 percent what i don't see what - increase requirement is because the density that was given away

that was what all we're asking - originally an increase in affordability rate now no increase like you said if you didn't pass this two projects wouldn't get up to the 5 percent but in the future everyone else will qualify for the 25 percent you either require more affordability for projects that are taking advantage of the density give away from the nct or assume the nct with our original request we have lots of ideas how to increase that affordability so i know other members of our communities are here this is not about community outreach about it is about fairness fairness in this process and we were twoermd going to get an increase in affordability in exchange for an increase in density that's not

happened. >> thank you, mr. hernandez. >> next speaker, please. >> is this one minute that's interesting testing wellborn i think i'd like to support the temple unit standards rather than 25 units and no pipeline ramp up and support building onsite remember the citywide fund is producing a lot of hours in district 6 and 10 we would like to have housing in district 5 so building onsite should be required or local building within a half-mile or mile radius i'd like to point that community input is something the residents requested address meeting meeting with a few leaders in the community doesn't include the other 10 neighborhood groups there's a

lot of people not either included or informed i'd like to point out that being informed of legislation is not the same thing as input you know we would like to have a hand in drafting the legislation the trouble with the original ncd and new nct legislation didn't come from the neighborhood and so far as i can tell the major beneficiaries are the developers so look at the value that was confederacy with the nct we haven't captured it yet and just a quick back of the envelope he was looking at going from 16 to 60 unit at the site gives the developer probably something like a 75 percent increase in profit until we get

additional affordable units over the 25 percent district 5 needs more affordable housing district 5 needs to have an input really from a variety of groups and not just be informed of somebody's plans thank you. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is richard k i've been a resident of the haste divisadero area for 25 years i want to affirm what testing and others said we're seeking an increase in affordability that goes along with the density and this is especially important for the 4 housing unit 53 did care car

wash at project really the prop c 25 percent should be a minimum baseline for affordability thank you. >> thank you, mr. k. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim colen, san francisco housing action coalition. and trying to track this and keep up with it our envision the legislation was continued into last month due to insufficient analysis we see no new data provided that will say why this is absolutely necessary in the way it is right now or in particular why we're treating projects ♪ little area different than other areas and one of the things we'd like avoid having a patchwork that adds inches or feet to the planning code where rules in this area or rules in that that's not a good outcome for

the city we still don't understand how this is supposed to interact with the laborious on the prop c trailing legislation our understanding that somehow will be a unified period to bring it together this is not part of it and how does that work and then we wanted an analysis done we're waiting for the technical advisory committee a report coming would don't think this is crazy to ask for a feasibility analysis that explain what value has been confederacy and what the exemption as far as community benefits all the rest of it, it is good to get benefits out of development and we support that in particular affordable housing but it has to make economic sense we're

hearing ideas but 50 percent a realistic number or somehow that should be considered great at least exam it we're happy to follow the data we've not seen the data yet >> thank you, mr. kohlman. >> chief administrative officer vin hashing council i'm glad to society myself are part of data your controlling the data i notice that the remarks didn't have any problem with gravng patchwork in density just patchwork increased in affordability we think that there is a basic issue here i think all of you have debated quite exhausting in the citywide density bonus program that if up confer

additional value by granting additional density there should be additional bonuses requirements to find us affordable housing that was our proposal in the density bonus program citywide it should be your same policy applied to this particular part of world it is unfortunate that mr. connor and supervisor president london breed didn't read the charter on prop c because if they read there was an ability if you increase the density to increase affordability we tried to tell them that we didn't want to listen i think know that director rahaim understands that he was part of drafting process as was i in prop c so the notion they couldn't have adam additional affordability at the very beginning of this process is simply untrue we're happy they've endorsed it in the

ended up and we embraced the proposal which would have doubled the density affordability reminder over the inclusionary requirement in this part of world when it was introduced at 25 percent - your staff analysis report said would allow slightly more units well as we've seen from the 4 hundred 53 did care there was 365 unit on density it seems reasonable to capture something in the order of magnitude equal to what you're confederacy 50 is

not unremarkable when you have double the allowable density from every other part of city that requires 25 percent affordability you should double the requirement for affordability thank you. >> thank you additional speakers. >> hello, i'm justin i live in the upper market hate read you a letter number support of this written by gail a hayes valley i support more affordable housing in our neighborhoods keeping the character of new development through monitoring affordability of new units increasing the number of affordable units in the passage of prop c should be implemented as quickly as possible including those in the pipeline market octavia plan area has experienced a rush to application to 2k3wr5ir9d in before the bmr percentage will be changed with the increased could have of

housing rentals don't believe that actively support sfaish and maintaining the housing and the creation of street level commercial spaces i believe that is sponsor are to raise the number of units are many more residents and urge you to support increasing the bmr units on all victims with those grandfathered thank you. >> thank you, mr. cruz additional speakers. >> morning a go long time resident of divisadero in the western edition i'm here to urge the commissioners to there the percentage of the affordable housing created in the 53 did care it should be at least 50 percent affordable back in april of last year when the original ncd was proposed

for december did care the creator supervisor president london breed give the merchant and residents greater power to taylor taylor the neighborhood to shape the future of their neighborhoods substantially over 5 hundred neighbors and merchant developed the diverse community plan to do just that the neighborhood and neighbors and merchant have spoken and the city must acknowledge that rather than pose the standards from the rest of the city we feel if developers are allowed more density and height there must be adequate pay backs in terms of affordable housing it should be 50 percent and greater protections and support for neighborhood serving businesses and neighborhood character i think the corridor plans are

sincere attempts at kind of a redevelopment done right. i submit this kind of neighborhood upheaval can't be done without 50 percent affordability thank you very much. >> thank you is there any additional public comment on this item. >> sir. >> good afternoon. commissioners my name is david with genisis the developer of 4 hundred devera let's reflect when the board of supervisors position for unanimously passing the 53 did care nct last year i'm reading an expert from the supervisor breed 9, 16 in the course letter on creating the affordable housing later this year i introduced to have more housing and affordable housing in the 53 did care and excited

to report the legislation passed the board of supervisors unanimously and signed by the mayor this summer my legislation gives people the option to build more units whether in a new building without changing or the visible character of the neighborhood and the size controls remain we use the space for efficiently for example, a project with 20 units 21 hundred feet could build 3 times the affordable units and all the units and everything bathrooms less expensive so let's consider what this means for housing production and affordability with our projects first brother the changes with nct zoning the site out loud 41 units 8 below-market-rate housing at the 14 inclusionary second after the changed nct the site allowed one

and 52 units with the bmr units at the 14 and a half percent we heard that the study from the planning department staff said they, change by one and 19 percent and so i'll propose that going if the 8 to the 23 units units is an increase of below-market-rate housing more than the one hundred and 9 percent that disallows the grandfathering one and 52 unit but get 38 bmr units which will be 4 hundred and 75 percent increase i think your tracking well and looking at one side of the evaluation but look at the data the commissioner unanimously requested there be a study to look at the feasibility that changed that eliminates

grandfathering and treats this nct different from those in the city we're prepared to respect the fees for affordability and put in place the prop c and the trailing protective we ask you continue to study the legislation with controller's office through the feasibility study and you respect the grandfathering worked out in the citywide legislation and treat this nct the same as the other ncts thank you. >> thank you additional speakers? >> good afternoon c.j. with the law firm we represent the property owner for the divisadero and pick up on the gentleman's remarks first, we're a little bit confused at the timing of the commissioners consideration of this

legislation you know with the forth coming feasibility study out of the prop c process we don't feel this good public policy to move forward now much more and better data and just a few short weeks so why this is coming up is absent confusing to us and you know as you may know the trailing legislation requires the feasibility study and the board of supervisors directed the corporation of that feasibility study it recognized if the bmr requirement in prop c or in this case in supervisor president london breed's legislation are set too high than the whole approach what a backfire in the bmr requirements make the residential development infeasible then not only low we get fewer market-rate housing but fewer bmr units with the percentage of the market-rate housing that are constructed so it is crucial to the whole approach of prop c and the

increases in the bmr requirement we understand whether it is even feasible to move forward with the development so that is further evidence in my mind not the right time to move forward with that legislation. >> you know as i said because of the adoption of prop c there already will be an increase in the amount of affordable housing rirtdz increase in nct and for that reason we don't understand why it makes good plo sense as a matter of good government why we treat this small district different every other district in town this is a matter of consistency it is inappropriate in the event in 89 time to move forward but if 24 commission buildings a sounds like puck policy then we have

two requests first, as i've said you wait for any recommendations until additional data throat controllers feasibility study but the second is this is more important that if this legislation is adopted we strongly urge to incorporate the grandfathering provisions summer to the trailing legislation and the board of directors included the provisions it recognitions that a suddenly increase could render pipelines enfeasible and no affordable housing no addition to our housing stock and further affordable housing so 0 matter of fairness and good government we request that you inform this toe it the prop c and trailing legislation. >> i have a letter to submit. >> leave it right there. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners

my name is jim on behalf of the divisadero the first of rezoning from nct to ncd to increase less affordable units the new nct zone explicit allow one more square feet of space it serve allows the units to be smaller within the identical building envelope no give away to developers that suggests a higher inclusionary rate or disallowance of grandfathering secondly, the voters of san francisco just passed prop c and the supervisors trailing legislation we shouldn't be pga one of legislation like this measure under consideration today the nct zones should be treated like the reminder of the city subject to the trailing legislation and grandfathering and a wait the feasibility study that is how to produce more

affordable housing nothing has been done but planning department since the may 19th meeting to demonstrate this legislation is fair equitable or would be effective please move to recommend against adopting this planning code amendment thank you. >> thank you. any additional speakers on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> well, i want to thank supervisor breed for putting forth this legislation although i feel this is not necessary at this time because as mr. johnson said this area is under the aau pies of prop c the only changes that makes it the grandfathering and you know the whole affordable issue is a hard one to understand sometimes but people kind of feel if so you

turn the if a set and the water turns alleyway i'm we have a clogged pipe and sometimes it as dribble so that closing has to be blocked off in this case not only block it but stop it deservedly if it is not feasible to be built this is another instance of acting first and dissolution the analysis second the pronouncing calls for an feasibility study to see what is asked in prop c is feasible or not and because the nukes from 2007 which calls for the 33 percent offsite and 25 onsite are at the very top of what the nexus study showdown as possible that is an nukes from the years ago 11 years ago so 9 years rather so, anyway we have to wait to see what is deemed to be

feasible before taking any action and mr. johnson said the president might make the affordability higher in the nexus study supports it i'll assume it has to think restraining order be made lower in the prop c was not feasible and which may very well be the case the other things what value have you confederacy and higher development potential because you were allowing more units to be built in the same envelope that doesn't didn't add height any more square footage charge it does made smaller units rather than fewer larger units not necessarily mean benefits the benefit it is more likely to get built perhaps and maybe more likely to be bought are rented the prices for the market-rate

housing will be lower because you have more smaller units the descended supports it this area supports it and density decontrols have been done and i all over the city nothing unique in this particular area so i think that it is premature to do that has a side note certainly, if t it were approved i mean, i'll not vote 25 units should be taking event it is ineffective with prop c so i think this should be over not supported or moved forward until such time as we have the feasibility study finished it is like pga something that will likely have to be revised in the future i think the eliminating the grandfathering we fought

that with the trailing legislation there were areas of the city that said we're special we don't want the grandfathering and the planning commission and the board of supervisors said no the trailing legislation will include the grandfathering laws bylaw that was a deal made and part of deal on prop c and people supported prop c because of the grandfathering and you know if it is not applicable we'll backtrack and take it out piece by piece sdoons so i think that i'm against this i appreciate supervisor when you have people yell they want 50 percent affordable we ask for it it happens automatically you have to understand there are economic laws to be followed and people wouldn't do something not feasible. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you, again, for

the discussion i think that - where what look what we heard is true. >> factual - we're definitely over gas stations i live in the neighborhood north and good to see some of those more automobile oriented uses proposed as housing i understand that supervisor wants to increase the affordable levels to the highest point we can get to but i have the same concerns we had at the last meeting we're hearing under the developers as well as the people that are advocating for more affordable

housing and we're kind of mud eld - some say double and some given the availability to build smaller units in the same footprint it is not that difficult to make that analysis here we have two projects in the pipeline i think one that is proposed prior to the nct legislation and after i don't care i don't know if the 4 hundred as a prenct alternative or whether it was thought about prenct but gives us the ability to pretty much do that analysis that i think is just the next step that needs to be done so we can make that more

fine tuned that's - did the nct confer value and if it did can we increase the affordable housing by that amount so mr. johnson you brought that up what's our response to that because it is something we asked for last time and maybe not necessarily here in your thoughts. >> cox staff to the supervisor president breed i should mention when the continuous motion in may coming back we will be on the front end of the feasibility analysis some data we don't have but we're bulging up against the deadline that the commission has to make a decision the one response it t the scent is a option for development so if there are provisions that the city imposed on that option they can out not

to take it regardless of whether or not we have an exhaust analysis of what the decision but i'll reiterate in my remarks a variety of easier with the density decontrol where it should be studied that is - >> just to interrupt in those areas they've in areas there was a plan an overall plan the eastern neighborhoods or market octavia and with that rezoning sometimes, it commissioner wu and i brought up in the umu district an increase in the based on that analysis but other areas not inclusionary there was a fee some went to affordable housing and some went to transit or other things there was that value kind of analysis done that translated to that, you know, tied to the up zoning

so you know if this - i'd like to see that move forward that the nct that supervisor president london breed proposed and tend to metro get more affordable housing but on that advocacy side we see people saying it should be higher than excuse me - moving forward post prop c and post grandfathering and probably right some value to confer i think we had a discussion about that earlier we lost that when prop c passed it was like the umu areas where a higher inclusionary but that kind of dropped out if it remains in the grandfathered portion the 25 percent when is fully implemented it gets located that is something the trailing legislation and the feasibility study passed but it does did it on the grandfathered an increase in areas were there

was already an increase because the density increases so i think the direction is good but that fine tuning i'll suggest to be done clearly didn't have to but that's the next step i know you know - >> thank you commissioner we're in the goldie locks developers saying it is too high and the community saying it's too low and sxheepdz set it as the highest legally part i was asking the city attorney what is the highest number and that's the situation we're in i'll say we're not in a hurry to move interest the land use committee but look at the feasibility analysis and look at it more exhaust value capture analysis and help that florescence this as we move forward. >> yeah. i mean, i think that -

again, i think that staff here planning along with consultants can do that analysis and again you've got two projects that have been proposed under iterations and make that happen and tie this to proximate cause apply to the ncts. >> we'll be receptive. >> commissioner wu. >> i don't think the feasibility analysis gets gets you to the prebefore it was krofld to now, when the density is controlled by having bulk if staff is able to do that we should get that work done i agree it didn't have to come back here maybe that is forwarded with the request to be done i don't think the feasibility

analysis and i think this is a broader that covers other issues. >> if i could i think what. >> saying the feasibility analysis that compares before and after. >> sure i heard people referring to the larger analysis that's what i'm saying will not answer the questions here. >> where i'm at on this is help me put this in context why there is different than the nct and ncds the timing and the other ones did and commissioner bobby wilson and all the work on the plan come with additional affordable housing 14, 16 and 17 eastern neighborhoods as well as the additional fees this did bring any of those so that's the difference and this happened recently i think i get the logic and some of the members of the community

hey the original legislation began i support is admiral you want the control of 33 and 25 you doubled it now everyone say 25 it should be more i do come back to with commissioner antonini and commissioner bobby wilson and commissioner wu the to be before and after the contemporaneous on two prompt is like a spreadsheet exercise x numbers of units and square footage and selling x number of units afterward and i truly believe the difference that pass anaconda ferreted the price per square feet everyone know the smaller the more affordable by design units are the higher the per square feet price so real estate tell me and others i lick

even to the chips you get 5 times the amount i don't know what that is to those one and 6 hundred square feet and two different dissected what do you mean and the analysis is simple analysis will tell us that so what we have before us i appreciate the changes that the supervisor made an adding recommendations 2, 1926 and 4 what we have a push between the tension between standardization and we like to see everything step down standard and prop c we don't have the overall on the feasibility study done then with the additional affordability we have the taken the grandfathering away so there is a tension there whatever we do today, i feel like a gun to our head if we

don't do anything if we say no, we don't want to support this we've sending the message the value confederacy on the projects that are grandfathered will get run of mill grandfathering 13 or 14 percent but if we ask for changes and do more analyze we'll get more i'm torn on how to move forward with that. >> for all those different reasons commissioner antonini. >> you said mr. johnson correct me if i am wrong supervisor breed was not necessarily in a hurry to move to immediately so, i mean, it might be wise to have more information before we make a decision it is fair to say. >> the problem we've run into a deadline but if you send it out with a recommendation that

staff work on more analysis with the before and after comparison we'll incorporate that and continue to work with the planning department on that even if you pass it out today. >> thank you, my feeling is that we do still need not only the feasibility study under proximate cause but some sort of on analysis of this particular area to so if, in fact, the density increase confers value and what value it does confer and sculpt more properly the increased affordability or fees or whatever may apply particularly for this on the basis we're doing a one-size-fits-all then sculpts that we know that one-size-fits-all prop c for everyone but there maybe something desperately special

about this area that's what we should look at brown-bag any legislation is passed it could be in the form of fees or something else the other thing the "x" possess fact to we - these are the situations i'm not comfortable trying to make an exemption for this area on the grandfathering certainly be supportive of the changes based on the feasibility study but you know i'm not supportive of this so that's the only way i'll be supportive if the grandfathering was not in there. >> commissioner hillis. >> given the timing on the timeline i propose we move forward as proposed with a recommendation that analysis a financial analysis be done

development potential on soft sites looking before and after the nct legislation and key the increase inclusionary increase off that that analysis using kind of the existing inclusionary as a baseline. >> is that a motion. >> yes. >> yeah, the motion i'll make it simpler. >> recommend the legislation with the further recommendation that financial analysis be done of development on soft sites within the district looking at development potential before and after the nct in key the increases in affordable housing off that analysis. >> so that includes not

grandfathering projects that use the new zoning and also - >> allergy think you key it off as a the analysis said it is worth 3 percent more than inclusionary housing i'm throwing that out you'll add percent so the projects were grandfathered in a 14 percent or whatever the grandfathering you'll look at the nct value how it is confederacy and add the 3 percent if you do it comprehensively with the existing percentages so if you're a project that comes in later with grandfathering that percentage is x you'll add to the affordable housing if you did it beforehand and subject to grandfathering you'll add x it

is fair you key off the existing requirements i don't see a reason why not. >> one thought before i continue down the roll put it in context we did this in other density control with no height increase we charged the fees i want to understand what the value of tax back was so what level did we set 67 percent if i recapture based on the decontrols you think plus or minus the fees not just an isolation based on itself not any fees it is the on time - part of this analysis. >> commissioner moore. >> do i hear you correctly commissioner that you say we should ourselves see the

analysis and not defer judging by someone else and have that analysis referred back to the supervisors to make their own decision i believe our judgment should be not deferring judgment. >> apparently a fourth of july deadline. >> we asked this the first time arena why couldn't it have been down alongside why not changed. >> you want to ask mr. johnson. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. sorry >> commissioners i don't think that staff understood what you were looking for so in the staff report we thought you were asking for i apologize for that but the level of analyze your talking about i don't think it something we could have gotten done in the time based on the

workload and when we had to get things done. >> just to clarify the number of increases in the unit not into a feasibility analysis i think you're talking about in terms of commissioner mar preto post nct but we looked at the increase in density that was possible as a result which is i thought as arn said. >> i think when i hear financial feasibility we were looking values confederacy not feasible but a side by side comparison and we want to capture so much with the feasibility. >> emery rogers planning department staff i think with the controllers study is going to be financial models that the city will be able to use and

change the inputs in the future in the if the court please future we'll answer those questions when you come up with that and run the model but at this point we don't have the capacity to do if quickly. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i could be supportive of seconding commissioner hillis motion by understand by commissioner hillis it says that current grandfathering will be in effect but will be subject to increase preblthd on feasibility study that might allow for hire amounts of affordability but fees have to be supported by a study. >> off the current rates. >> off the - >> current grandfathering rates this legislation. >> 15 and a half or whatever

those projects are or 16 up. >> couple of percentages depends on what can be shown to be supportive. >> that - >> correct. >> i mean it is off the current rates you get a value recapture consistent what we did for central soma i realize that took a while that analysis two projects in the pipeline that have looked at both sides but analyze and similar to the analysis we heard from the planning department staff in central soma there were site increases but density increases we found to capture a percentage to went into public goods and transportation i think that here nicole the policy is all of it should go to ava good policy you know we're not going to -

supervisor breed is proposing some fee for transit it is looking at that value going to affordable housing because of the need which i think this helpful so, yeah it is off the current rates. >> off the current grandfathering rates with possible additions support by a feasibility study and the other thing about your motion will have to be supporting the line of 25 units not 10 units. >> whatever the current rates if you - >> everywhere. >> yeah. the uniqueness of this is that analysis to recapture for the inabilities on one end of the spectrum 50 percent and on the others ended zero so i think that analysis needs to be done and we'll increase the base off of that. >> i'll second that based on - >> commissioner wu. >> i won't be supporting this

motion i could support i think as a supervisor has proposed the pipeline projects that used the density control are subject to the 25 percent onsite and 33 ought and then also i'll support of 10 units and on top of will support asking for this analysis of the pre and post density chan change. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm wondering in the language that was issued yesterday late yesterday afternoon is that the same. >> i got an e-mail with an attachment which i didn't printout not handed out today and i wondering if the language that is in the package from thursday is identical of what you are talking about. >> in any presentation i

talked about supervisor breed introducing this on tuesday that was the item you overwhelmed to you and also explained what was added to this so the 5 recommendations that staff had supervisor president london breed audiotapes 3 of the recommendations i can cover those of you want me, too the two not added the provision that allows units built projects with 10 to 24 units to pay the original 12 percent onsite inclusionary and 20 percent offsite fee option and the other one was staff wanted the item to be placed at the subdivision of 415. >> the other 3 were added.

>> that would be helpful to have this in hardcopy or in front of us - eye we were given the ordinance when you were as well so recommendations two which was added to it so prior to this revised ordinance the fees will going specifically to fillmore street address staff is recommend to the citywide affordable housing fund as other housing fees that change was made recommendation 3 was just to add do the language into the ordinance about projects that have a 50 percent underscores are not allowed to grandfather that was added and taken from

the old prop c and put into this one and then finally in an economic study shows that a higher inclusionary rate is appropriate for nct describes the financial and divisadero should have the inclusionary rated those are the 3 changes that was given to you this week if you want to consider the ordinance that of being in the case packets weeping we'll have 5 recommendations the 3 plus the two to require to allow the 10 to 24 units and 25 percent thresholds and then little subdivision. >> i got an e-mail folks convicted about the fee referral language was not struck. >> the fee deferral language.

>> well struck. >> conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. that said the fees collect in the nct will be allocated with the nct is that what you're deferring to. >> the person in the audience that asked the question will come forward and explain that would be helpful. >> commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. i did raise this issue to the commissioners shortly before the hearing and last time in the ordinance unless changed an option for the fee deferral piece excuse me - the fee payment to do a fee deferral at the last hearing an odd thing to have in the ordinance the staff

response was it refers to sections of the code no longer in operation because it expired wus it was a temporary stimulus so why if it refers to a code no longer exists strike it auto at minimum it creates confusion and an exemption an option for developers you don't want to create that a simple line striking in the ordinance. >> we brought that up in the last hearing in march the same question. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> i have a question for mr. watch if you may so this gets us more than we can take it; right? the grandfathering bonus and the 10

to 24 units and then we'll say hey we want to we think more value and everyone is starting at 25 we want to go higher which is your reaction to that. >> i think that is a fine way to go i'll simply remind the commission the way you structured the citywide proposal for density bonus program was any increase in the 415 requirements will be added automatically citywide so on top of the additional density bonus program that you required which remember you were up to 40 percent so it seems odd to me we wouldn't have the same structure in this deal. >> so in this deal we add to the 25 - >> well, you know my base

organization participated in affordable divisadero and the result that 50 percent of the units built in this increased density new december vera street should be affordable so i'll not break with my organizations position and say 50 percent we have a real world example i think that commissioner hillis pointed out we have two projects one increased by 3 and 75 percent in terms of number of units and the other in the testimony given by the developer himself increased by 3 hundred percent is odd to me we'll consider keeping the standard inclusionary zoning requirement when we have confederacy that many more units than otherwise would be the case. >> so the issue i have mr.

welch that is like saying an apartment returning for $4 is 15 what value you'll get from the same square footage. >> you convinced me on the bag of potato chips i don't believe that any of the units if they would we wouldn't have this argument, huh? none of the affordable units will be at affordable prices there all be market-rate housing no one is saying we don't need the inclusionary zoning those units will be so small they'll go for $3.09 and square feet unit they're all masters and your analogy of a president 3 ounce of potato chips being a

buck 25 is the case they would make a lot of money if you guys want to look at it for closely fine i say that is as a policy should be consistent with what your staff proposed citywide which was if we increase the section 4 one 5 inclusionary we don't reduce the total 0 amount we add that and still have the additional bonus that we're ging for the density on top of why not the same policy applied to this part of world you've increased real density >> thank you, thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. being clear on the question before us talks about the feasibility studies and everything have more impact on projects that will come forward in the future projects that are

grandfathered according to what was proposed by commissioner hillis will be at the grandfathered percentage and could only be rays incrementally directing to what was shown on the percentage allowed that's as much as i can support it is even that is x post fact to say only a recommendation. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean that is consistent with what everyone is saying if a value confederacy a portion how we've done this before and other neighborhood should go back to the inclusionary percentage typed. >> whether it is the grandfathered or the 25 percent rate we're not making new rules based on the same nct district only to increase the inclusionary by whatever the

analysis the potato chip analysis or whatever it is relatively straightforwardly given the projects. >> yes. for staff director or mrorgz low the naturals be in terms of what was done for the former prop c that was passed. >> yes. it would be but i think that is important to recognize a couple of things for all changing the density of those those developments changes the value yes, however, not true based on i'm not a of him expert a 3 hundred density is a three hundred percent in increase in value not the same the units are bigger and have to look at the economics of the departments units as they were proposed or as possible under previous zoning versus this yes. i think there is increased value but not the same as the percentage of.

>> not a one for one. >> not. >> commissioner antonini. >> to be clear in terms of grandfathered projects the rate of grandfathering is based on prop c as it applies to the projects that have confederacy the additional density and they'll have to show cause why a higher percentage that's my understanding of the motion. >> again i am not you look at the value for inclusionary housing it is - >> the whole question not the 24 percent the basis the grandfathering - >> could be if you're dealing with a project two years from now. >> we're talking about grandfathering. >> it is based on what the rules are for that the inclusionary by that value confederacy. >> sounds okay to me. >> commissioner moore.

>> i'd like to ask we add to the motion to delete the reference to feet referrals through it is expired i think it should be clear that didn't have a hiccup here mr. cowen explained march and today is the day to put that in clarify that. >> that's fine. >> i wanted just to be clear you're taking staff recommendations one creating consistency with the existing things the way they are and also on recommendation 5 i would add to the motion to include the same methodologies for prop c which will be add on to the existing- and used for prop c but the density bonus program and used for the central soma i

mean it's the same analysis so, yeah. >> is that - >> as long as we're differentiating between future projects. >> yeah. it would be on top of that has mr. welch explained the same methodologies. >> it will be based on what is proposed. >> the recommendation is becoming a little bit mute but i think this is fine to keep it. >> as a seconder will have to be strong to raise anything that is decided on grandfathered the rest of the city is under the rules i wouldn't want to see much of a change a small incremental change. >> whatever the analysis. >> yeah. i mean that is open-ended i don't know if i can support the motion but >> you want to unsecond. >> i'll be the seconder

(laughter) i don't think we can frame you know the analysis is the analysis and people have been asking for the analysis one on the 25 and some grandfathered but let's see where the analysis goes. >> it's a recommendation fine. >> all right. commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded the only clarification i'd like to know is that the most current version already reflects 3 of the recommendations are we including the other two as parts of this motion with staff clarifications and striking - >> well, we'll get to the amendments so commissioners the motion to adopt the recommendations for the staff recommendations or suggested modifications as amended to include further financial potential on soft sites before

and after the zoning and adding the value deleting the reference to fee referral and including the same methodology for prop c in item 57 of staff clarification and item one the first amendment the last amendment refers to 9 first amendment. >> the first amendment in the inclusionary increases will be keyed off that analysis. >> the inclusionary adding value to the inclusionary. >> increase. >> increase for future projects you very good. >> as a seconder he wanted to clarify different dlaefktsd allowed at the grandfathered rate to be increased as the basis of a feasibility study and the percentage of affordability. >> and that's the intent is

their keyed off the inclusionary rates that will apply that is only fair. >> item 3 or staff recommendation 3. >> okay on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu no and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to one with commissioner wu voting against. >> the commission will take a

thirty minute break. >> >> thursday, june 30, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off your regular calendar on item 11 to clarify consolidating update and correct the tip graphic errors and sections that deal with parking and loading requirements an in violation of a planning code amendment. >> sdrifrgz correct the graphic errors and cross-references for various sections that of the planning code it deadly weapon with parking and loading to attempt to accomplish 3 goals to make

sure that the references to lufldz are consisted across the planning code and activity references should be consistent with those not in section one 02 the land use designation and sections relating to the land use should be combined and redundant sections corrected and eliminating tip graphic errors and planning code tech amendments changes to the parking code requirements filmmakers the accompanied floor areas for accessory parking for those areas for the calculations of areas required to you priority parking in zoning district with minimum parking requirements and staff

recommendation is to initiate those planning code tech amendment and schedule a meeting no matter than september and one last matter i'll note during the time of publication and the city attorney made minor changes to the proposed ordinance the changes are clerical in nature in table one adam back the term senior housing that was incorrectly proposed for deletion and therefore maintain a coherent insistence and the commission secretary has a red line version signed for your review that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you opening it up for public comment one speaker card tom. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom