take the agenda in order i didn't realize would've a time certain item on it. my apologies for you for having to sat here this entire day. next time i'll be a little bit more cautious when i give that nod. so thank you very much for staying. >> good afternoon commissioners. good evening. department staff. here before you purport of supervisor action on tuesday, june 28 two days ago. you have before you copies of the case reports supporting exhibits. also, since the case report the department has received one letter in support of this item which i just provided to you. the question before you today is narrowly focused on whether the proposed 100% affordable housing bonus program which is exhibit a and the proposed density done right exhibit b

ordinance are consistent with the general plan. the case report details several board actions that occurred since the february 25 commission hearing on-. i like to highlight just a few those changes for your consideration. first, supervisor tang in the land use committee have forwarded the 100% affordable hpp to be forward for consideration. the broader program including this income component such as the local and state remain at the land use committee for future consideration. today's agenda plan consistency consideration is limited to the 1% affordable component. and dvr. so, ddr or develop mental done right is a separate measure sponsored by supervisor peskin and mar covers the bowman and benefits to when i percent affordable projects. general plan consistency for these two items are being considered jointly because the proposal are similar to the board of supervisors

may want to consider them jointly especially in relation to the guidance provided by the general plan. both ordinance offers city benefits and up to three stories of height apply citywide and are only available for when i percent affordable projects. the difference between the two proposals are fairly limited and do not influence general plan consistency analysis. a word about 100% affordable projects. these projects require public subsidy to move forward. a recently approved 04 the housing bond them a tax credit, housing trust fund dollars, state grants and sometimes federal dollars. these are hard one projects with complicated financing could there develop generally by nonprofit housing organizations. in san francisco generally entitles to were three a year. the housing needs of families and seniors, emancipated youth, formerly homeless or other special populations. generally, the housing of affordable for the

life of the project. generally the housing is affordable to very low and moderate income households. both of these ordinance proposed to enhance the city's ability to increase the number of affordable housing units at the be dealt with the state federal housing dollars. we are here before you today for this commission to consider general plan consistency of the 100% hpp and ddr. on separate 26 the commission considered this question in concert with the proposed general plan amendment. the proposed general plan minutes is summarized in exhibit d. on june 28 the board rejected the proposed plan minutes with a vote of 5-6. supervisor discussion included suggestion that a more narrowly crafted general plan medics would garner more support. further, legislative sponsors proposed items mentioned that this commission would review and consider general plan consistency for these two word wicks today. that's conducted

an extensive analysis for the general plan voted to these to propose ordinance. draft findings of that analysis on exhibit f of the draft which is the draft resolution. i just want to go over a few key summary points. the general plan encourages and supports affordable housing. especially prominent affordable housing. such is the project that could be enabled through this legislation so our policies in her housing element most every single one of her area plans emphasize this point number to drop your attention to housing only 7.5 which calls for the city to encourage the production of affordable housing to process and zoning accommodation which is the exact mechanism of the two ordinance before you. the general plan also includes the number of objective policies and maps that reference height and density strategies for the city as a whole were particular neighborhood. in general, but those hpp and ddr is consistent

with these policies and programs. staff has reviewed these references and concluded in no case are the propose ordinance in conflict with any of these references. particular, most of these references are general and do not meet the test of being clear financial and mandatory. for example, in the area plan policy 310 and policy 311 provide specific height for street walls and-however it does not mandate clear-the overall height of the building. hpp and ddr projects will be reviewed and proved for consistency the design guidelines. through a process that allows the commission and staff to shift the mass of the building as deemed appropriate including required setbacks consistent with the policies i just discussed-here. staff is available for questions and or to write more detailed discussion of general plan consistency and analysis. again, today you are being asked to consider general plan consistency findings of both ordinance 100 and hpp and ddr. the department recommends the

commission find these ordinance consistent. thank you. >> thank you. opening up to the public comment. again, thank you for staying all this time. >> thank you commissioners. if i understand what is before you correctly and i did not receive any documentation until early this morning, your executive summary, you are being asked basically to approve the language that is in exhibit d. the difficulty with the language in exhibit d is it is virtually the same language that was voted down two days ago by the board of supervisors. it was a voted down to is a girl by the board of supervisors because it was thought to be extraordinarily general. in way too permissive. since staff has already told

you that the only thing before you are the two 100% of portable density bonus programs, the density done right and the 100% ah bb, there are major similarities that i believe, that san francisco's for community planning believe should be language in the replacing that which staff has suggested and those are a specific reference to what we are talking about is 100% affordable is a density bonus program for 1% affordable projects, which the language indeed does not specify. second, that it's 100% affordable projects that preserve existing housing, which was a big issue for you

all to decide and you've decided it and it's reflected in both versions. second of all, the language should be not only 1% affordable, not only preserving existing housing but also preserving neighborhood serving retail. which was another issue that you all hammered out that we included in both the ddr, density done right, and has been basically included in the 100% a hpp. if you adopt this more specific language into at the 1% affordable proposals that are going to be before the board, i believe you will have a much better time getting it through the board of supervisors that if you adopt the language being proposed by your staff in exhibit d if i understand the process that is before you correctly. and i may well not

at this time at this time of night understand much of anything bracketed thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> actually is been pretty interesting. >>[laughing] i learned a great two. >> you seen what's happening to the city right now, right >> yes. my name is dennis moscow, native seven siskind nabbing before you a number of times and part of san franciscans for community planning a night, too, am not certain that i understand exactly what is in the gp general plan agreement to which both these legislaon are supposed to correspond. but i want to remind you of something

well when we sat here until 1130-12 on separate 25th two things that are really really important that we've been discussing in menus and so on is, one, protecting existing rent-controlled housing and existing residential units in the neighborhood commercial districts where the original hpp proposed zoning 30,500 parcels. the second was to protect neighborhood serving retail could i know in my conversations with henry parnell that's who heads up the council of district merchant association, he's on vacation in australia, but he wrote letters to both supervisor tang supervisor breed urging them to definitely protect neighborhood serving retail and see explained to me, the loss of the neighborhood retail is also a loss of services to customers and their needs and when they lose that base because they get relocated they go out of business by and large. what is been offered so far in times measure doesn't quite provide any real compensation. more than that, the concern that i have is that i know she has

incorporated protection for residential units per rent-controlled housing in her measure unlike the peskin measure which also has that come up at the peskin measure does not of zoned everything for the demolition of so much neighborhood serving retail and i'm concerned that the tang measure does it so, it both of these measures are consistent with the general plan agreement, then or amendment, then is the tang measure the lack of protection really for neighborhood serving and for the of zoning. is that going to actually mean that there is no protection in the general plan amendment for stopping that and i think that's really important and i realize i'm being a little unclear because i didn't get to read the 111 page document that you guys are doing with, but i understand

somewhat about these two measures. i am concerned i like seeing them both go for. that's funded i think it's good debate at the board of supervisors and land-use and one of them is going to go through and hopefully the one with the most amendment the reflected what you guys did on separate 25th. >> thank. additional speakers on this item? nobody? this tester, not you seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> commissioner antonini >> let me get some information. it's moving pretty fast and i remember the long discussions we had about the affordable housing program. there were a lot of concerns that some of the speakers have voiced but this included four different types of bonuses. there was a state bonus program which is still in effect and we don't can't control that. then there's the 1% affordable which we are considering today and then there's a variety of other

ones that would give additional height for units that provide some degrees of affordability which would address or market rate housing and other things which i be more in favor of. but in any case, this might be okay but the other thing not to know about his oversight. so, we agree that these are consistent with the general plan but does the final product mean that those that might qualify to get these additional three floors which is a for more affordable portable than non-affordable 100 and affordable, is there oversight by the planning commission or any other city agency if one of these comes forward and someplace on a residential business corridor with residential units adjacent to it? could we say that's not an appropriate addition of three floors even though it's allowable? >> commissioners, before i can

answer the question which was a good question to be able to answer specifically, i do want to maybe wrap up some clarity about the action that's before you. because the action before you is not review and comment on the ordinance but you should of course understand what is in the ordinance. the full photo housing bonus program has been before you provided comments to the board and as mr. walters stated earlier this week, the board was on board action rejecting a general plan amendment was a separate ordinance with the mayor and proposal. so, the zoning ordinance is a still before them as is another ordinance bite before by supervisor martin-milius and peskin. were the board to approve either >> supervisor peskin: or >> supervisor mar: were the mayors ordinance they need to

know those ordinance is our consistent with the general plan. when you forwarded the ordinance work learned earlier this year you said they would be consistent that the one ordinance was consistent with the general plan as we were proposing to amend it. so, what you're doing today saying since the board they said they will want them in the general plan is you put forward, now you are think about the ordinance they like to act on and are they consistent with existing general land good so there is no new language proposed for the general plan in many of the before you. you just think about all the limits that exist in the general plan. if there's anything that makes it that is a clear and objective inconsistency then you should tell the board there's a fundamental problem with the proposal ordinance is. when we look at the existing policies and maps for the most part they are very it was a like generalized height map and we cannot find places in the ordinance as proposed amended that are clear conflict. we can

talk to a little bit more but i want to make clarified clear by the ordinance consistent with the existing general plan and there is no new general plan nine was being proposed today. >> thanks for clarifying it. i just want to clarify the reference there wasn't just to summarize the amendment that there. it's not a proposal. it's not part of our proposal today. as was discussed by member of the public. that's just for your reference. you can see what you had forwarded on separate. as it we said, were not asking for any changes to the general plan to get we are just asking that you review staff analysis that these programs are consistent with our existing policies and to your point, the place where there are some concerns around how these heights would line up with existing buildings, there are a few tools in the program you forwarded to the board of supervisors. those include affordable housing design guidelines that enable the

commission and the staff to use those as letters to shape and mold the buildings to be context specific and then there's also review procedures about which were presented to you similar to an lta process. supervisor tang has incorporated some of the recommendations you made which included adding some findings and changing the appeal body to be you the board of supervisors. so there's more. as for public deliberation, commission deliberation, and the commission has the authority to remove maps around on these projects. >> that answers my question it would be some oversight. but my follow-up question is why are we only moving this portion of the plan when we had all four parts which we had talked about and we had sculpted down to protect existing housing to protect historic, to protect retail, and we like all of

them, we like all parts. >> thank you. >> were only focusing on one part >> your recommendation has been forwarded to the board of supervisors and at this point as part of the board deliberations they have decided they only want to consider the one of percent affordable at this point. they may go back and look at the mixed income program later. this it was an intention to consider it a thick comptroller dishes the feasibility study but this point the board is really only seriously considering the peskin proposal and the supervisor tang and mayor proposal and i can as it relates >> as always when i percent >> as always to when i percent affordable housing >> is like asking the question after authority been answered. it's like saying i approved it with all the parts. am i not approve something i was just 1% affordable. >> i will show that the

mayor's office of housing put some numbers together about it this program was entitled and legislated this summer it could add about 108 units to four projects in the pipeline that will be before you this fall. so that's a significant change and so it's possible there's a desire to move things the way the consensus on going forward we work on sore the broader program >> so seconds targeted. that makes more sense and i were just talking about consistency which i'm sure it is consistent. that answers my question thank you >> one question i have is if we say it's consistent we don't change anything to reflect what we did on february 25, we send this back to the board, would we be facing another 56 or 650? >> i think that the vote was the 5-6 vote was around the specific proposal that was initiated around changes to the general plan. not around the specific ordinance. so the board has yet to take a vote on the one of percent affordable program. >> right but we heard mr. welsh and some other medication from folks that if we just put

language in the general plan that says we gain to protect small business. we aim to protect my control housing. wouldn't that do the chicken were off to the races? >> in order for general plan amendment to be initiated would have to do the notice. it takes about 30 days. then we would have a huge initiation hearing before you with that language and then we would have another waiting period and then an adoption hearing. i heard comments from board members with a serious interest in taking the language that we forwarded for this commission forwarded and revisiting and sculpting it more but we been some time for community process around the. >> so sculpting more will be changing it which would require the notice all the stuff you just talked about? >> that's correct >> so that would be trailing work activity to what we do today. >> that's correct >> they'll be done or community process >> only the planning commission can initiate general

plan amendment so the first place it would happen is here at the planning commission at the could be community process before but it has to start here. >> okay. again maybe it's really late and him in a circle here. if we for this and say, yes, isn't this what we did before? >> it's a little different because last time we were proposing the change to the general plan. now we are saying, without the change do you still think this is consistent? that's really the question before you. it's a pretty narrow question at i know that's frustrated because this such a broad meaty topic >> okay, think. commissioner johnson >> thank you. so, i think it seems like i understand it's really just about whether not this is consistent with the general plan and they already have our comments. i get it. it sounds like it's connected to different votes. one for each piece of legislation. >> no. the staff recognition before you is defined. those

ordinance and proposal is consistent with the general plan as it is been proposed or suggested. the proposals of the recently been amended or suggested to be amended consistent with existing general plan. >> got a. well i'm having a lot of trouble with that. build the reason is not one that a misunderstanding. it's the density done right legislation it was a piece in there that talks about creating a new measure for new neighborhood median income and saying the macready that terminology and saying no city would be charged with creating a methodology to actually measure that. i don't know that really consistent with objective five of the housing element, which says that affordable units should be equally available to all residents. because essentially you're creating different affordability levels for different areas of the city and i don't know that i have a

strong preference either way but something that stuck out to me and certainly, one that made me pause in terms of planning consistency with the general plan. normally, with the sorts of things the general plan says a lot of things so on balance i'm generally supportive of this but that really stuck out to me like a sore thumb. could you explain kind of what staff opinion is on that? >> sure. the neighborhood specific area median income is a concept that hasn't been fully developed. the would propose ordinance directs the apartment staff and him ocd to fine-tune that. our initial take of the commissioner noted is that this could have in unintended impact of concentrating low income households in existing low income communities. so that is something that the analysis is

done and as the program is developed it would come back to this commission for review and comment and also the board of supervisors. but, the standard word are using today in terms of finding consistency is on balance, and then also is it clear and mandatory. >> so, i can go ahead >> sort of the broadness of these undeveloped concept doesn't have a clear conflict with the policy you highlighted did i think you could find it on balance, consistent but i think this element would if it is incorporated it would be 100 and affordable program and is developed would come back to this commission. to be clear you could decide that policy this is a commission body is weighing the overall thing. you can decide this idea was to much in conflict for you and i would be part of your findings we would forward onto the board board can also make their own

general plan findings they wanted you to take this opportunity to compare against existing general plan and forward that to them. they can make their own findings later as well. >> okay. i guess the idea of the neighborhood median income doesn't seem unclear to me at all. it's a concept that, many times over many years. i myself have actually supportive of the eye. i don't my comments to make it seem like i'm not supportive of that. something i been thinking about since working on stuff and redevelopment. it's just that again, specifically to the question were being asked today, when i read the general plan as it currently exists today, i don't know that i find that particular piece of consistent. it might be something were many to consider general plan amendment in order to have those findings consistency only for that aspect of it. which i think might actually be a good idea but weather-that's not the question that's before us

today. so, i mean, i don't know how much other comments we have but i would say in general on a piece i be willing to say on balance those pieces of legislation are consistent with the general plan with a finding that specific aspects of the density done right legislation doesn't seem that consistent to me. then, the board can deal with that what they will i guess. i don't know-is that >> is that- >> is that a decision we can make a? >> will you normally is without the general plan policies and the discussion underneath it so we could add to the commission discussion underneath it was a question about whether this density done right is supported by this policy. then, the staff discussion under the rest of the policy does explain how they are consistent with the other policies. >> okay. >> commissioner wu >> i think that staff analysis that on balance, we are

supported by the general plan but also the subject of gets to the heart of what is being proposed. to the question that commissioner johnson just asked, i hear what you are saying but i think that with the objective five you pulled out. i think that in this contradictions with neighborhood preference to this contradictions with other issues that pass. so, maybe it's a conversation to be punted if that legislation really does come forward that on balance, it can on balance the general plan is consistent good i'm not sure but i don't find it to be an issue at this moment. >> commissioner more >> i like to ask mr. welch one more time. mr. welch,would you will one more time if this

commission would clearly listen to you adding more specificity to what's in front of us of how it would be different relative to talking about [inaudible] >> right. it's an amazing situation that the mayors and supervisor tang, the authors of the original affordable housing density bonus program chose to modify their program to include a 100% affordable version first did this is not a retreat. this is-we've reached an agreement on a way to proceed immediately on a density bonus program. in

large measure, it came out of the hearings held by the commission, which unfortunately, commissioner johnson, you were not present at. you were especially not present at the long commission hearing that discussed neighborhood ami's that came from this commission. it did not come from this side. it came from this commission. to try to deal with staff's recommendation for a amendment to produce and ami, a special ami program only for bayview-hunters point. which was a staff recommendation. so, the argument was why just bayview-hunters point? every neighborhood in this city or substantial numbers of neighborhoods of the city do not have neighborhood median incomes anywhere near 120% of median. area median income.

which was a large revelation to many members of this commission that we do inclusionary zoning not based upon a san francisco median income but an area median income that everybody agrees is at least 10% higher than san francisco actual median incomes. when you get to the neighborhood level, it's even lower than that. so, there was a recognition on the part of this commission and a discussion of a series of amendment that should be made to the affordable housing density program. what was sent by your staff to the planning akin to the board of supervisors, was not a passage of all for but this six, i believe, amendment that you made. no passage of anything but the plan amendment. that's what was before the board of supervisors. just a series of

six proposals, six amendment that you made, which we've incorporated in the density done right. and, we reach an agreement with the mayor and supervisor tang to include most of those. most of the agreement that basically came out of this commission. so, it's difficult for me to understand how you don't want to make clear what you made clear in february. which is, you will accept density done right if it needs five conditions. one of those conditions was neighborhood ami could another was, no displacement of neighborhood serving retail. and a whole discussion of how we are going to do that. phasing that in. all the language that i'm suggesting that you incorporate

in some way, if it's not before you, is not before you. but i'm as confused as you are than what is before you guys you've made it very clear, no density program without protection of existing house. no demolition of existing housing. and no displacement of neighborhood serving retail. we stopped at the whole question of the levels of affordability because both sides, the mayor and the board of supervisors have agreed on one of percent affordable, which is no more than median income than 80% of median income and were all in agreement on that. that's what were going to go through first. all the rest will come later. there is a proposal to do a mixed income. it hasn't reached ordinance form you get which has reached ordinance form is 100% affordable. >> thank. >> i finish the question is

the question i asked is a subset to watch you explain to her that you are catching up on february 20. how would we, in stating word declaring general plan consistencies and i, what would we miss by not incorporating more specific language about the 1% affordable? >> i think would miss an opportunity to get virtually unanimous agreement at the board of supervisors. would make things very clear. we are all somewhat confused by what it is what we're doing here. i'm certainly confused. >> well we are confused. i like you put >> i think the confusion is as

this only for commute were looking at two ordinance only considered hundred percent affordable housing husband we are those development incentives to provide additional 100% for the housing projects and units. we think that's good. and on balance, given the abilities that the ordinance have to scope those buildings, protect neighborhood businesses, and protect existing housing i think it's clear. for those ordinance are consistent with the general. i think everybody believes that nobody's can argue and that's all we are doing. but you're saying but those ordinance-thank you, are consistent with the general plan and i believe simply they are. so, i would move actually to adopt the consistency findings for those both ordinance better 1% affordable housing projects and let's go home. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> it's easier these are different ordinance. different ordinance. we are adopting consistency findings of those two ordinance. it's simple. >> one must question. then we will move on to commissioner

johnson. we find them consistent. that's great. later on, you're going to have a initiation if we need to change anything or sculpt if we scope that tonight we would be in violation actually amending to initiate change it >> city attorney by the we've the commission can initiate or forward as general plan amendment tonight to the board. >> yes. the only thing noticed today is consideration of consistency of the general plan. if you are consider the content of the ordinance and many of the ordinance that would require 10 a day notice we do not come to were trying to accommodate the board schedule >> we did. >> [inaudible] >> deputy city attorney. i think this might clarify a little bit if it were not for the general plan issue, which only arose because when you

first considered this whole packet of amendment you also had in front of you the general plan amendment. their findings were that as the general plan is supposed to be amended, that dropped away once the general plan amendment didn't proceed at the board of supervisors. so, but for that issue with the general plan, this would not have been referred back to you. because it's part of the packet that you already considered. there's no thing in the ordinance subset of that is brand-new to you. you party given the board of supervisors your recommendations on these issues did so, that's the technical reason why supervisor tang and mar ordinance specifically only come if you as a general plan consistency as with supervisor peskin because the substance of the issues you party opined on. >> commissioner johnson >> oddly after i say this one must think we can call the question and i'll go home. it's 10 pm and appeared to not confused it. the only reason i

commissioner wu brought up we talked with the neighborhood preference program i actually had even support of that program had that same comment there. again, this is not a question of the quality or goodness of having neighborhood preference program were today and neighborhood ami. but, it's just more again getting to specifically the question today and really tried to get to a place where we avoid having issues in the future with the city because if you think about our neighborhood ami that's a step up about the good province. neighborhood preference will set aside some of the seat four people within the geographic boundary. this is saying that you can't get into a project unless you need pmi level that are within this boundary of this neighborhood. that's a step above. that's why i want the board to sort of justice carefully consider whether or not a general plan actually says that is a policy

or something that the city wants to promote. if it doesn't, we may consider general plan amendment even though that got shut down at the board but i do think it is an issue. i think it something that an inconsistency that needs to be just clarified. not necessarily don't do it. >> commissioner antonini >> i'm voting in favor of general plan consistency just basically probably says this is a. i don't think were getting into the details of ami at this point. we discussed that. in the past. but how the supervisors will eventually make a decision on whether or not this is appropriate is not what's before us tonight. that's before us is just a general plan consistency in the details are something that have to be decided in the future. so, that's my feeling on it. >> commissioner wu >> i think it's been said time again but just for to be clear, to ourselves and the public but we are not making any suggestion for any text changes

to the general plan. >> commissioner moore >> i would like to make a comment of caution. i hope that i will not find myself in the same situation again. this is a matter that has some weight and if you are asked to find consistency with the larger body of anything in this but zero days the general plan, i think it should be better for there to do so. the document came in this morning at 6:21 am. it's 111 pages. to adjust this to how any of us works at least you obligated to lead more than 50% of what you will be voting on or opining on. i feel very hard-pressed that i am not giving this quite the fairness that it deserves. i do

want to put that on record because i know you are all put in a very difficult position, more than difficult, ms. rogers posted her documents to us at 1121 last night. that's a little bit too long for anybody to be asked to heavy-duty lifting. i just want to make a comment on that so that perhaps somebody listens to us as a body . we would like to be there. we like to make the right decisions but i don't like to make half informed decisions. >> commissioner hillis >> i agree with that but at the core of this is this a lot of in the general plan that encourages affordable housing. this does not. it does it in a way that i think the conflict would be does it add to much height and density that it would then be in violation of the general plan. but i think given the scale of it you know maximum three stories in the tools we have to mitigate those

three stories, that's what gives me comfort that this is consistent with agenda. i mean the general plan in and of itself tends to be somewhat avenue find inconsistencies in the general plan but i think this on balance with those parts of the proposal that protect neighborhood retail and protect existing housing stock clearly makes this consistent with the general plan. >> commissioners if there's nothing further, there's a motion seconded to adopt findings of consistency for both excuse me for one resolution for both ordinance. on a motion >>[roll call vote] >> so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that leaves us with public comments. >> any general public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]

>>