cumulative impacts go they have rapidly deteriorated our neighborhood thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners and welcome new commissioners my name is peter today i'll be speaking on the united states community development team a few comments what we're seeing here i think in all honestly disappointed in the report i think the cac but the main report quite captures the numbers and impacts and maybe that's limited in its ability to capture that we're not seeing what we thought we'll see and see what we can do about it the idea hey it is 8 years old and have to pend time we have the

temptation in many areas of leave by something not are working out with the vulnerable you community members time to look at what we intends to do about this at this point. >> i think this didn't actually necessarily mean there were any significant problems with the plan at the time but it was simply not amended highly amended most of us didn't anticipate what was is going to happen and significant adjustments are needed i'll say that we're looking at another project another major project with the latino cultural district that will have serious impacts on the community and before to keep the residents are in place i think projects like that should be held while protection are put in place that

is critical at this point, i thank director rahaim and his staff continuing to meet with you guess to look at the opportunities available for us we think that moving on an immediate policy measures including protections is what we need to do at this time and in the meanwhile see these promotions especially those huge projects wait in their ace development coming back o coming to mission street in 2 and a half blocks will bring one thousand wealthy people to the 2 and a half plain clothes of the working neighborhood without the provisions in place the planning department is looking what we can do about those things i don't know what will frvent that from happening down valencia street it can happen quickly to the mission this is the core of the community we feel protection

are needed before that kind of they know happens thank you. >> sue hester this is really a 20-year process it started in 95 and there were 5 thousand units of market-rate housing not one affordable housing built in the industrial area south of market and mission and potrero hill and dog patch 5 thousand units one for one parking there were called their market-rate housing and they exist right now reaction to that was the eastern neighborhoods planning process and reaction to that eventually became the eastern neighborhoods plan you have the opportunity to

get some feedback and feedback is not the damn charts you have that tell only a bet of what is happening what is happening is the displacement of working-class and poor people in those areas which have traditionally been within of the major resources for ellis acted and middle-income housing and jobs you should be reporting back to the board of supervisors and yourselves that things have to change assumes made between 2000 and 2008 when the planning practice was going on are extremely deft than what was happening now we're building a lot of affordable housing for san mateo and santa clara the busses for

the commutes we see them in our neighborhoods and the reaction from the hawk to just build build build is not real the building department says we cannot deal with the socioeconomic issue not beyond the scope of eir so the eir will grind on to repeal all the reasonable housing projects you should be saying wait a minute something to wrong here j r challenged you by saying you need to look at the whole not the separate individual things right now the transit system is a farce the basic assumption which part of eastern neighborhoods plan is these

great industrial swaths of land with no real transit system zoned for housing we're assuming at the time of trial was will not be for the people but added transit has not been adam potrero hill is client is out back the in is not happening thank you. >> tom gilberty housing times change my billing changes our clothing changed housing needs to be tailored to our the time in 2008, they were talking about the original eastern neighborhoods plan talking about

infrastructure and transportation transportation wise the new light rail is losing seats so you can more people can stand this is again, because of the pressure on putting people and not burger to catch up on the fatalities people need a couple of years ago on the radio rose kept mentioning for every hundred units of luxury housing need 29 units to serve those people one units due to large and 29 to handle them it looks like we're going is that way with the central transportation in tailoring our neighborhoods what we have the people that live in our city graduated

seniors that are running out of a building and their resources veterans that have a little bit of issues, a mentally challenged other than the streets the homeless on the streets the eastern neighborhoods plan are taking away places that the homeless lived this is their backyard i say 20 percent to the bottom of the people that are living of all housing in every units a project we're building 20 percent go down for those people and 20 percent not into affordable housing but dedicated housing for police and fire and nurses and teachers, muni drivers we want to maintain a web of he will limb and sustainability in the city the

tenderloin, chinatown those people needs 20 percent of those people that are long term residents seniors and long term residents that can move into the new housing we want to brierld the gentrification of 80 percent of market-rate housing you can make the people that live in this city part of the new housing are formuformula thank >> honorable commission i'll dan murphy on the eastern neighborhoods cac i've been for most of past seven years i kind of represented the develops the constituency and the cac he wanted to say a few words today just going back to the over arching goals of eastern

neighborhoods plan and if in our staff report the first goal to insure stable future for the use in the city and from my point of view what the folks have from a policy perspective so preserve the lands for pdr use and existing buildings as well yet the plan may have lacked a tool to actually create you know ground up pdr in the city the one hundred uber project this commission embraced responded to that need there could be this could be an opportune time to look at the fresh controls as they pertain to the pdrs and other tools that can provides additional space in the city so pdrs use is displaced and perhaps the urban mixed use have a place to come to tie in the

city of san francisco i will like to chat about the second overarching goal to provide a significant amount of affordable housing for middle-income families the plan i think producing a significant amount of mixed income housing in san francisco we want to see higher levels of affordability but the other aspect of the plan to produce significantly higher impact fees what pertains to other parts of san francisco so the city has access to a infrastructure money to create those complete neighborhoods so from my point of view we're pretty fare into this current connective cycle i worried about the pressures from more affordable housing and higher impact fees perhaps mandated

pdrs and umu districts you know, i worried about the connective effect of those moves at this time a previous speaker mentioned that i want to caution the commission to be careful you know the production that we are seeing is actually creating the monies to create the complete neighborhoods to you know let's try not to take over that to impact that final goal of eastern neighborhood plan to have complete neighborhoods thank you. >> okay is there any additional public comment on this item. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and commissioner vice president richards. >> i see that commissioner antonini not here we don't want to be the person that fills the vacuum and pushes the bottom all

the time but i find myself doing that today i have a long serious of notes i'll try to make that 60 inherent he know you had a lot of good things to say first and foremost congratulations to mr. base and is cac for actually what i see doing our job i sat on a cac for market octavia and when the market octavia process we didn't trust the planning department and now sitting on the commission they're selling us a bill of good ideas how do we know we were sold what we were seemed like in the plan and this is the benefit of the community to see what is called for in the plan and keep the integrity and environmental impact reports results to reach the obviously the letter the cac sent owe did get but had other copies i think you guys did a

great job and we as a commission should take the cacs advice and disconnection and explore not starting over with the plan many murphy said but take things in the last 8 years and try to make changes too difficult plan and actually make it better as commissioner wu would weep be changing other plan the market octavia by the introducing the hub concept with the height and affordability limits for anyone in the public to say we have to look at the neighborhoods plan the integrity of the process we are changing another plan to responds to the context of 2016 we'll be hypocrites to say that i'll get it on the record to say

easement a hypocrite but to make changes tom gilberty said my waste was a .32 now 36 and i'll have to get my waste resxhrgd in the pants none realized what was happening in 2008, to 2016 we should recognize this time a tech boom with tons of jobs and housing imbalance and those jobs are created in san francisco but in the peninsula and have a return to the city to organizations from the walkable neighborhoods those trends we started a long time accelerated and google buses take employees to shuttle back and forth's not in 08 and an issue parking versus pdrs and we'll hear a

project later on and parking versus pdr someone mentions that another change and airbnb none of this was happening in 08 we need to take a look at that and this commission should take the heeds and work with the disproves if they're interested in this not use the policy and even initiate the policy to send to the board of supervisors to determine whether or not they agree or not and instead stinging together decisions and confusing everybody saying that's the policy this doesn't do any good we're carving out a piece of eastern neighborhoods and now a subway so another example of changing in the area and not freezing in time.

>> a couple of things i'm trying to talk on a high-level without getting into the statistics we've learned thirty percent impact fees don't cut it and i think that will get a great value and mitigate the impacts what we are experienced in the planned areas i think that a good point question needs to look at the whole pier 70 mission bay and maybe not all the things that happened in the eastern neighborhoods but take a look at and my recommendation i'll be talking with staff and the commissioners to set up a temporary task force to come back and say what areas we'll focus an based on what are the improvements. >> okay. thank you commissioner moore.

>> thank you to everybody that spoke and thank you to the advisory committee their letter is indeed i think essential to the ongoing discussion and thank you to everyone that they prepared a thorough overview of what it is or isn't i'm one of the commissioners that sat here in 2006 when the plan was brought in front of of the commission and plan brought forward under a different director and many of the challenges at the time were the ones that we understand to rezoning m and industrial into had was something no, he real experience into the pdrs we tried to find metrics by which we could downsize without losing we were guessing confusing how

to fill pdrs and we still do know today with the discussion in the eastern neighborhoods cac in response to expanding the do i e biomedical is one part we don't know i think the policies r and plan are good what is lacking is the detail when we look at the authorness of market octavia plan and the tools to create that plan the eastern neighborhoods plan didn't have the detail but perhaps now is the moment to deplete that detail i can live with the eastern neighborhoods a matter of reiterates ration but this plan and the large amount of unknowns and didn't have part of

contingency plan we don't know and didn't create a contingency plan but perhaps the issues of now clearly summarize that perhaps food for thought to create a contingency plan and visit overseeing elements whether it is delayed guidelines and that will be not be a finite document but to start things that could car reign out of control one thing that worried me almost two years the amount of larger promotions as part of eastern neighborhoods where the community had serious issues we worked with the familiarity to create better projects that's a

disturbing thing for me that points towards tools the plan didn't have little comment which scam simultaneously with not be able to gage the projects complained about traffic and transit and the infrastructure that needed to be there we were clear about that when we created the eastern neighborhoods plan but yet in no position to create the infrastructure in advance before development changes with that magnitude the industrial uses are significantly different than you need for housing umu and all the changes we're trying to release and i'm not talking about the supple elements of

what the creation of complete neighborhoods require i think the vision the does want had is strong the department destructed to create great neighborhoods but completing neighborhoods but in the ends up none of us know how to do this this is the time to step back and take the less of what works and not works and start to feedback and fell in in order to move 24 plan to little duration of this plan into a better future we have started and cannot go back, however, we can put controls in by which we accelerate i think the warning signs are clearly there not open to a communication of what is working i'm not going to go into detail but time to be on this and drive this plan to complete.

>> commissioner johnson. >> thank you for the cac and spur and i know the structural i present the work and thank you for the reports. >> yeah. you know, i think there is a lot to glean from here and piggybacking off what commissioner moore and sxhifksz said i'm supportive of this plan you know no such things cities are commissioner tang and say you can make a plan at one at this time and this is not real the city of la they're having all sorts of issues to say we'll be able to side that doesn't make sense so i think the challenge i had in the report and listening to the comments not clear what it say, i feel

like the things that people are sort of seen a lot of angst is not clear how that traltsz into change to the plan to my mind roadway is schematics brought up a comparison to the hub that is the updates the market octavia plan but i'm not sure that holds here there are very, very clear trends that he people agree on that led to some of the changes around height and streetscape that are recommend in the hub when i think of the collection of community benefits, the scleks of the complete neighborhoods look like with the rezoning district definitions in the eastern neighborhoods plan not clearing o clear what scenario of changes is going to get the plan in line with the type of growth that people want

to see or what will mitigate a lot of the issues that people say they have what i see is sort of last week again, a lack of the redevelopment had i see sort of a miss match in housing to jobs and commercial development and open space and other communities benefits he is a mismatch to me those are generation changes i don't know that mismatch in things online necessitates a change to the plan this is a tool not making tool and the mta's the same body and planning in charge of the rec and park didn't make us able to create a master plan. the areas where all the plans are under the same controby eco

those are the things that contribute to the challenge in the neighborhoods and i'm not sure that updates in the eastern neighborhoods plan getting us that i'm supportive of the iteration and glad to take learning of central soma and obviously where it is warranted with the hub i think that is fair market value but i think overarching if i had people are constantly wanting to hear the comments if the commission if i had to summarize what i took uaw not the eastern neighborhoods cac letters didn't see it reads the rest of it that's my main takeaway one of the things we want to mention in a question commissioner vice president richards brought this up when we began talking about the hub so many changes in the eastern neighborhoods you know companies

sponsoring their own transportation network maybe had a couple of shuttles not envision anything we're seeing today, airbnb and uber and shared housing and shared knew all those changes weren't envisioned at the time of the i'm sorry but that is only going to happen i'm looking at the eastern neighborhoods and wondering what will happen with the light rail will this be san francisco a place to live and go to fresno or the opposite so we think about self-driving cars there are companies right now that hadriver also cars and nam

off 5 or 10 more that are not in the far too different future we have to think about the eastern neighborhoods plan as do we think that we're flexible enough to account for the changes with the system we have is this something about the system we need to change in terms of parties to make things happen and implement the plan or the plan needs to commissioner tang this is the decot we need to look at >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you all for coming out and sending e-mails he find it difficult to sort out what are citywide issues and issues associated with the eastern neighborhoods planning i think the cac letter and all the e-mails and letters we've gotten

touch on that certainly when i walk across the street some eastern neighborhoods plans all of a sudden are more affordable and parks and open space he know that the house down the road sold for $5 million and in the eastern neighborhoods plan we are all feeling issues of gentrification and affordability so i think we need to kind of hone in on those issues the eastern neighborhoods specific you can address in this plan i don't know if - i found the comments extremely helpful and if there is a way to formalize beyond the commission hearing a way that neighborhood groups beyond the cac i know a formal process but you know we've heard from potrero about transit issues and about park issues

but getting a broader broader take on what neighbors been the issues in the plan and trying to tease out those issues beyond the citywide issues that would be helpful in the reports they were good but maybe a little bit more on what we think can be improved or what is missing again, we hear a lot about at the time of trial and parks and them not keeping up with the projects that are out there we can prioritize i think that sometimes your joint hearing with the mta and parks are not helpful but hone in on ordinances of transportation and the issues not keeping pace this is a natural fund balance where the people are there with the

transit improvements and the park improvements we have to work together to get the other agencies involved to move on the infrastructure issues that are lagging we keep on hearing over and over so also pdr displacement certainly a beg number of pdr areas that have gone away a lot of that was anticipated but assaulted a ballot on or about didn't keep additional pdrs space or require pdr space in new development i'm not sure how that will be implemented or the way it is structured but certainly an issue we've heard you know so how do we maintain the work or get the pdr through those as one person said discouraging more work in pdr we don't see a lot of that and having pdr uses in

newer buildings put to other voters and enforcement keeps being a major issue are we really maintaining pdr uses in those pdr areas are we seeing office space crept in that's an area we need to work on the pdrs used in the infrastructure and making sure that they keep up with what is principled and development and one area didn't see touches on in the report is design of projects we certainly get around to the neighborhoods where projects are happening i think obviously there are some that are designed and integrated and done better than others and that would be helpful to have a frank discussion on you know projects work better especially, after

they get built sometimes, the shock of what we were sxept and what actually happened tifrd so covet a look at the design guidelines and how their implement that would be helpful thank you, again for the feedback two areas for me infrastructure and pdr and how that is working i think are areas we need to focus and that would be great to get formalized feedback to what is the feeling of the plan. >> director rahaim. >> thank you just quickly i wanted to thank pedro and the team for putting this together it is a lot of work and a couple of thoughts in light of everything this is going on in the city and in light of maps i think that is true i think we need to among the demographic changes in the city are beyond what we expected would happen

and while the plan is in place for a bertsd part of 8 years those changes happen only in the last 5 or 6 years and happening citywide this is disturbing to me when i look at the numbers and evictions the eviction rates in the richmond is as great as is other district it is clearly a citywide issue that is troubling right now and to commissioner hillis point i agree i was thinking the 12457k one thing that is helpful what are the issues we're concerned about relayed to the the plan we should tweak i think that staff and certainly will want changes to the plan and which are larger citywide issues we have to look at simply maybe frankly are challenging so we are looking at some potential changes

i think we think foundationally that the concept of the plan is still solid by the basic direction we think there are things that need tobacco amended and we're making we'll be bringing some of the changes in the mission district as a result of map 2020 work we think that those recollect reflect those on the infrastructure we among that most of length officials in the building will acknowledge that the infrastructure has not kept pace part of the reason the growth has happens more quickly than your ability to garner the few minutes we're seeing 8 hundreds unions of affordable units in the mission and are happening over the next three or four years the 16th street improvements project is fully funded and will be moving forward and open space last week

that moving forward so there has been a wlaug no question about that and the peace has out paced our public funds to do do infrastructures not an excuse acknowledge the timing involved i think that is important for us to look at not only the monitoring report is the data now we have to take the evaluation the cac has been evaluating and take the next step what are the changes as a result of the phase and how we do in the coming years. >> thank you for pointing that out. >> this has been so fast and citywide obviously feel the brunt but if you could look back 8 years and see the great work

evening what we would have done but invested a little bit better but beyond that note sure what we would exactly do he last week the idea of continuing the c plans at least thinking about them it is difficult to be a crystal ball. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you so it is about the fees understanding that the plans are anticipated that the fees will cover thirty percent of the costs bureau or for the infrastructure and look at the 2016 capital improvement plan and that percentage goes up i have recently seen the capital improvement plan can you talk a little bit about having thirty percent of fees saying that in 2016 and 20 three 10 year sxal

the infrastructure costs $45 million and identify only $44 million gap. >> so the 10 year capital improvement plan is - the last round we did what we call in house we take a look at the infrastructure niece for the eastern neighborhoods and did that analysis covet looked at the promotions there were a couple of ways to categorize that gap we eastern neighborhood assumed would happen but a more constrained look we knew the other agency were looking at the 5 year capital plans that was a constrained look at but that gap went down when you add in other projects that are we think our

plan also we're envisioning i think that that gap we're calling emerging niece when that gap goes up question roughly looking at the impact fees thirty percent it is roughly true the smaller gap those are projects the 10 year capital plan were committed to so problem solving we know in the eastern neighborhoods we're envisioning hopefully, a larger set of projects to serve the eastern neighborhoods and other areas. >> a followup that was a question he had from the document then you identified the one and $10 million in gap in the projects not funded or if funded no funds are commitments made. >> right. >> so i guess on the commitment that is can confuses me those projects arrow envisioned part

of plan but others not anywhere. >> i mean they're essentially plans we keep a running list of infrastructure plans in the eastern neighborhoods and we've done a lot of subsequent plans after the eastern neighborhoods to look at the infrastructure in the mission district and showplace square open space we mentioned we're finishing up the open space plan all the plans are the infrastructure so that wider gap yes all the plans taken together noting we had a large gap committed to in the capital improvement plan. >> following up on commissioner hillis thank you. on pdr space so commissioner moore reiterated this as part of manufacturing and people have a

clearer idea of what sorts of connective activity one in the m and the pdrs referred to the new area commissioner moore pointed out it is sheriff's deputies and changing into anything else we want to poet with the ballot measure and movement around the rezoning and other things has to do with with pdrs we keep in mind we have to match our strategy are the tools and the vision i feel like i'm starting with the beginning with the diversion and people are looking at 79 in zoning to meet the jobs and for the low income middle-income and the - with the pdrs where it is going i want to make sure that's where we'll ends up you look at the teaches businesses i don't see that same sort of make up of the

workforce necessarily a report this year that showed intend is he for pdrs by pdr is in a new direction i want to insure as we talk about all the changes obviously the ballot measure is not in our control but the vision the reason why we're owner move-in the public defender's last week the tool we're using matched what it is we're trying to achieve and not end up in the same place no jobs for middle-income and the pdrs are high paid - >> commissioner vice president richards. >> just. >> few more random thoughts i agree with the commissioners he rules committee this is their

own anything we see the market is moving faster than the sister a dedication on 24urs that if it didn't pan out on thursday we changed it an tuesday hard to do with thirty thousand employees and one and 50 thousand residents everybody wanted to vote and doing nothing i'm glad to hear we have it on the docket doing nothing is not an option we'll see that in the ballot people take matters into their own hands and things on top of each other and it stirnz out it is worse. >> one question i have for mr. snider a personal example we want to get media house repained and it is 40 percent more than 5 years ago all the projects we

enlightened in 2008, with the price tags are all the projects gone up in price yet the key we've selected it the same. >> yes. the price it up since 2008 but our impact fees a indexes for the construction costs. >> of the promotions we've actually completed one hundred funding thirty or $0.33 from the impact fees where's the other $0.67. >> actually they've been completed well, he think it depends on the project yes roughly some of them were completely funded i'm thinking of the in kind from the childcare supervise centering and the dog patch and dedicating roughly half in impact fees and others are under construction roughly half. >> any general fund money that

will be allocated for things automobil. >> that's a great question over the eastern neighborhoods a way to capture general funds during doing an imp they have offered to help us problem solve through some of the gaps wear going through this minnie capital plan and looking at the less of things what the gap is they'll help us perhaps problem solve through general fund dollars or other things they have expertise to do. >> i worked - two more things one the impact fees allows us to impact the things with the transportation that is where the

biscuit gaps are. >> great i think to commissioner johnsons point we need to understand do we have a complete city rue right now i think we're going away from a complete city yeah media car repair the place is no longer there i want to bay city my sxarpt needed some cleaning he went to 14 in the mix $0.83 no longer there a housing complex if i want to get coffee but other things that keep leave going those are different things for jobs and spfld training i worried about wiener getting away if that. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to follow up threatening the commissioners

for comments it is correct we were stepping into unknown territorial when we startsed about the large rezoning of the city. >> we may have to revisit that and commissioner johnson talked about to expand the existence on pdrs then my years are wide open to look at affordable pdr as a counter point of affordable housing because the restriquisi to keep the sustainable city we take pride in look at the balance and the corporate movement is retaining what is

there commissioner vice president richards. >> jonas that concludes commissioner comments. >> thank you to staff we'll take a lunch for thursday, september 22, i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off regular calendar for case 2016 and the residential examination review informational presentation. >> are we on thank you good afternoon, commissioners and welcome commissioner mondejar and knoll i'm elizabeth assistant director of current planning today monique will be presenting the

work on how we restructure the review progress for the construction in the low density residential neighborhoods before we begin i want to give a special thanks to georgia swedish to push the department to think about the current practices as the agriculture alteration projects and think about the regulations in a new light in advance of the moniques presentation we want to provide the commission with a brief history the demolition regulations in particular the evolution the tan mount controls we're hoping to change in the process in 2003 the planning commission passed a resolution for the review of all demolition through a mandatory discretionary review they asks provision for the important policy topics with the affordability of existing

housing, historic resources code violations and neighborhood character and cultural and economic different and new housing opportunities and in fill housing, the addition of housing and the impacts on renters in 2005 the planning department began to look at projects they were not proposing to demolish the entire building or removing the alteration tantamount to a demolition at a time those major alteration projects railroad not subject to review as not out right occasions under the planning code, however, those projects certainly will raising concerns with the department and community as a drastically changes having impacts at the heart of demolition controls that i mentioned without the additional scrutiny of the review these alcoholic concerns about the city's review even if out right demolitions and the liv

lead the department of 317 loss of residential units from demolition and conversion in 2007 and amended several times this code section has a definition tantamount to demolition was a method to conserve the residential building by mandating that have a position of the existing walls the idea when enough of the building is maintained it keeps it more affordable what's the tan mount to the requirement i'll read to but with the one caveat to talk about the collective findings the regulation than to expect anyone to retain any part of this presentation this is complicated tantamount a major alteration of a residential building that

proposed the removal with its own definition of more than 50 percent of the front and roof facade and the removal of more than 60 percent of exterior walls or a major alteration of a residential building that proposes the removal of more than 50 force of the vertical envelope elements and more than 50 percent of the horizon of the existing building were it's a mouth full after 9 years ever implementing that if not close to one hundred promotions it is very, very difficult to explain the rules to the public and calculate those calculations more importantly the projects over 9 years we've taken stock of the oracle and look at the

success or lack therefore we've come to the seclusion that policy didn't achieve the intended goals and further since 2005 the department that boofrtd the review of the projects and a mugged of other ways we've increased your review of unoccupied buildings over 45 years old and not designated and historic something not the case in 2005 when it started in addition since 2009 the department has developed a mandatory review program for nearly all projects into the neighbors in order to improve the continentcy and design in the communities furthermore in 2015 a law was passed bolstering a law for the removal of authorized units we strive to

improve those efforts have been improved in a more consistent review process and made that more difficult to remove the rent-controlled units throughout the city the tan mount controls remain and no longer an effective way to regulate the low density neighborhood not a successful tools in the affordability of housing nor high qualities design therefore the department is proposing to eliminates the tan mount controls and instead establish a new control entitle residential expanding threshold that will lead to the okay developments with that, i'm going to turn it over to monique to go over the proposals in more detail. >> thank you east that was a great history i worked with length o east to understand how

we got to this calculated number the department is proposing a new proposal we're proposing not part of 317 but it's own code section the expansion threshold will determine why that should be reviewed but i or you not change the current practices with the residential design era impact a project that will demo more than one unit or roach a unit what's the proposal my project that used all of its density and escapees all the units 3 thousand square feet and below will be reviewed administratively on behalf of 3 thousand square feet it will be reviewed differently the

averagesized size of a single-family dwelling is 16 hundred square feet doubling the size is for housing where possible we decided on a citywide control to make path of comfortable is easy the code is complex and that's okay. because the city of san francisco is complex, however, understanding the path to approval or disapproval should be easier you guess as planners for the public and people president to do alterations in the home in the past in this apply neighborhood character is not important and the department has the control over the environmental review that operate that he neighborhood level we are proposing a change to the capital approval not how it was reviewed what all that said let's walk through an example on this site is a single-family

home in a rh2 around 2000 square feet in in this case, the sponsor will change the size of the building 25 hundred square feet with no change in the units given the end product is one unit this project will be administrative let's see look at the same single-family dwelling 2000 square feet but creating another units one 15 hundred square feet the project is using it density to no planning commission is required and they're less than 3 thousand square feet again let's looking the same single-family home an additional of 2009 square feet but resulting in a single-family dwelling that requires the planning commission review

to i keep on saying planning commission what kind of it planning commission hearing we're proposing a new one that focuses on design review in order to allow the project 2450rgs to create a new path for approval we are lacking for the commissions input and, of course, the public's on what kind of vbtsdz are appropriate and today, we on the planning is related to the total square feet and massive block will be important to consider. >> and although we're proposing to create a new code section a commissioner tang to 317 we'll be removing the outlined code section for the commercial currently we also have that an administratively review path for projects that call the roll.

>> have two units on site in the building is unsounds like we'll keep the report for any projects to determine 02 units we're proposing to eliminating the sounds for know single-family dwelling in any zoning district and we're proposing to eliminate the demonstrative affordable path it exists with rh1 and rhd-1 are altercations or new construction of single-family dwelling should be reviewed under the residential expansion threshold because the threshold is proepsz a maximum unit size of 3 thousand before the review is required didn't mean the department will allow the 3 thousand square feet because the residential design guidelines still apply and those guidelines take into account the neighborhood context note the following remains

unchanged in 317 any proposal to remove more than one units or an unauthorized unit will be subject to a conditional use authorization 317 is entitles loss of residential and unauthorized and the department believes that the removal of one or more units needs a review if you're meeting for less than 25 percent of square footage but resulting in a united one is greater than 3 thousand square feet and one less unifying you'll be subject to the new threshold - we wanted a public merging this is a huge change here in departments project we held a meeting with key stakeholders

that have been contacting us and coming to the hearings we changed what we presented today from what we presented to them initially looking at 3 thousand square feet and realized that to unit size for greater effect of character and hoping a meeting on the department is a gearing towards architectures and the information will be present towards architects working on this now and holdings a public hearing on the 12 and scheduled another on the 27 and again, this is the the beginning of outreach we expect more merging into the fall and we're excited to hear from you and the public and we expect the decision will change. >> thank you for your time and we're looking forward to our comment we have a website

contact us with our concerns we look forward to hearing from you be we're available for questions after public comment. >> thank you. >> we will open up for public comment (calling names) and looks like a few speakers folks time to line up on that side of the room (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners and welcome to our two new commissioners here unfortunately mr. neil and david were not able to stay with us my name is a jennifer jones the executive director of the san francisco architects i'll be speaking on the on behalf of the architects as the chapter we've been

collaborating with the department as part of a working group to address the improvements and procedures surrounding the residential design team review in addition, we consolidate and provided february feedback on the draft 6 urban design fwlz and hope to be active voice in the upcoming residential design guidelines the a i sf to detainee the collaboration by reaching out for public feedback as much as that is before you today, the chapter only heard this was coming up in front of you with without having an opportunity to comment yesterday we echo it is critical those issues effecting the configuration and the evolution of the city have included in the expertise of members and were given the opportunities for feedback moving we encourage the planning

department staff to seek us out as partners in pretending something for the commission thank you for your time have a great afternoon. >> thank you. >> commissioners good afternoon first, i'd like to acknowledge staff for starting off with a strong input public component and however suggest that staff reach out to all the groups to alert them to the future meeting only a few people shows up to the august meeting only a few people were aware of it in general replacing the demolition controls for the size limitations makes a lot of sense the issue will be what size and what neighborhood as i and others appoint o pointed out in pacific heights 3 thousand

square feet may not be who high in the first nauseated the houses were typically under one thousand square feet i was unable to get my foot in the door by the size so we have to figure out how this threshold what address the character of streets and magnificence and volume and affordability in a way that is meaningful as monica mentions no buildings that maximize density i'm glad to see that applies to the units count but did threshold number is an issue with multiple units to as for instance, in an rh2 district the street might consistent of unoccupied buildings 2000 square feet regardless of one or two units but a 2 unit building in

under the first version of the rules will be 6 thousand square feet so over 4 times the predominant size we have to tie the number to the mead vicinity i was wondering about the size to lot size in cities they do the low density that's one idea but again an f ar is more specific to a broad zoning district we have a tremendous amount of data from the tax accessory on lot area are the components of far although the data if correspond to the definition and the last thing for detaining today once the review process needs articulated standards for approval otherwise we're going to have a butch more cases coming to the

commission will be approved regardless of the size nothing in the code over and over in the residential design guidelines stops you from approving 323 cumberland so if this new issue doesn't have the existing affordable housing entry-level housing. >> doesn't prompt the housing that respect the character i'm not sure there's a point to develop the rules let's develop meaningful rules. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is bryan i live in the outer sunset by the way, i read we have tied for third on the most affordable rent city with the bayview right behind the tenderloin and the excelsior so i used to an county

planning commissioner, i i'd like to take you through my seat in a second and also on the local post cac by the way, so i wanted to get any leaky windows with a replacement permit and my leaky roof put off for seven years when i heard from the historic historic preservation staff even though every window is violence i need to come back with wood as a structural engineer having this much weight in the form of tile not a good idea they want to see tile in addition tiles that fall down god forbid if a woman is walking but with a extraordinary this can kill someone the planning department staff at the

counter said you didn't need to buy the building and b put north up there the defense in cost to replace one window say; right? with wood clad rather than violence which by the way, in this marina environment violence are works better is over $20,000 difference two months rents this is a rent-controlled agreement one way or another you have to use historic material on the other hand, have something like this building didn't quality for to make this work and i have no option the up shot when you walk into dbi there's a real human being that directs you what do i need to do go to

this person and so on we need some kind of reasonable on and on person that people can talk to and not the robotic in the low rent district none to talk to you are caught into the cause of machine thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is borrowing 0 i think you've heard about the intended consequences of the new proposal i want to tell you from my perspective of the resident of inner richmond one of the members of the general public made a comment you commissioners stay to 9:00 p.m. starbuck u talking about the sexual abuse

there are right now about hundreds if not thousand of single-family homes rehabbed a good percentage over 2000 square feet with the alteration they'll be pushed over 8 thousand square feet and they'll quality to get in front of you i'm talking about hundreds or thousand zoned rh1 and have to stay a second unit and result in front of you second one-size-fits-all maybe appropriate in some situations i don't believe it is appropriate noriega the standard rh1 size of 25 by hundred lots in the imagining responding cannot benefit from that whittier's while peths 3 thousand square feet is not the right size whether evaluating what is the right size so for the proposal i

think we should look at the context rather than the hard number the hard number if one-size-fits-all didn't apply in most of cases one of the unkept consequences will certainly be making some the residents of san francisco leave san francisco and get personal example i bought a 23 square feet single-family home in order to accommodate my family of 6 i added one thousand square feet and every single one of the rooms every square inch is used it was an rh1 and as a result i'm able to today host my manual that is 85 years old if i appeared in front of the the planning commission it is complicated as proposing he certificate of occupancy have done the alteration any i mother-in-law couldn't have lived with us consequence number two those lots imagine the 85

hundreds square feet you're adding 2000 with the homeowner doesn't make sense to do the alteration for developers may not make sense so those homes are one and 20 years old about not be restored lastly i want to say the city is will diversity of everything and make the same diversity on this side thank you. >> from affordable health care act i thank you for the opportunity to speak first of all, i'd like to mention that some are professional in the field is adu program with the soft story we're looking at an

enormous potential coming out the market they're very, very successful it is really, really working and anything you can go do to help expedite that process will be great courage bogged down by rules and new rules everyday that is problematic for building and i think what was really a bad idea i want to mention this process of going through the planning process if we're working on a regular house and regular floor person four children family looking to build ann an additional it takes an enormous amount of time yet in san francisco it is rare that will take that short of time

more like 6 months or up to two years if it is a sticky item one way to academy of art university alleviate so there's a place for people complaining and not in front of the discretionary review and, yes and finally i'm really encouraged by some of the ideas the streamlining and conductor the planning to look at this elimination he understand of the elimination of the demo exterior demo limitation will be great someone buying a house should be free to determine 0 as many walls and not going through a process of review and

discretionary review or worse yet the other processes i will suggest is not a 3 thousand not a limit at all that good evening fit well with a regular middle-income family trying to do something with their house this is again putting bakes on the procerakes thank you. >> good afternoon are the residential association we're here in agreement with the demolition process at the moment it is cumbersome we feel the proposed 3 thousand square feet will kill the large family product we're trying to provide for we read everyday about the families force-out of the city

we think that 3 thousand square feet will not cover four or five bedroom house can't have a functioning lay out with 3 thousand square feet we hope you'll rethink your square footage thank you very much. >> hi commissioners i'm irene owe come as a member of the residential building association i'm a license reject and so is my partner we're one of the rear women owned construction companies in san francisco our experience is the home area as a general contractor and a mom single-family homes i've experienced those what my clients go through as a person

that owns a home gotten the planning and building process i feel this particular issue involves families directly san francisco why a lot of people want to live here diversity and families are an important part of that fist and all tees off families not just small families i feel that in this day and age the people that want to live here in san francisco that have families that want to fight to live here can drive easily to the bridge and simultaneously get a house that can meet all their needs but the families invested here that want to stay in the community and contribute to the community would like housing that meets their needs in order to stay here that

usually means people that have more than one child usually means they're trying to work from home and béal home life and work and each time extra rooms a room to work from home secondly, i know a lot of us myself personally waited agree a long time to have children to afford to have kids in the city that means you have the older apartments you bring the young ones and now older parents that needs to live with you and a lot of families are looking to remodel they'll fall into that profile so i feel that one has to approach this process in a sensible way and difficult to put one number out there feel that catches everyone but need to be sensitive that the families are investing in a

cause without this additional hurdle of is a hearing it is arduous and intimating and willing to go through the process but one other discouraging factor as far as staying in san francisco for families that's it thanks. >> good evening, commissioners i'm a small contractor in san francisco for many years done a lot of promotions for small housing up to large housing for 5 bedrooms down to studios. >> i'm against this 3 thousand square feet threshold i feel it is another hurdle that will back up the planning system

even more than was it already is because the planning system knows how difficult it is to get anything through as it is besides adrc this to it and i feel for multi generations it is common for residents they will live in future races will live in a house and four or five bedrooms is not outrageous it is just not a way to go about it it whether, interesting to see what the average square footage an four or five bedrooms are in the last while several years and maybe work from this year to that end that's for me thank you for your time bye.

>> commissioners good afternoon john, i want to thank the planning department staff that is a very we calculated issue never been in this commission 2007 when the gentleman was preparing this proposal policy. >> i think the 3 thousand square feet thresholds is going to force smaller projects because if you are above 3 thousand and a process like an lp a created probable four or five months before you get to the commission so it will force project sponsors to create smaller houses and if i talk to supervisor norman yee he wants to create family housing that is

34 or 5 bedroom houses if you is where a family with skids you try tee create all the bedrooms on one level and get into the setbacks the 20, 15 sobrieties on the third floor a lot of competing issues so the 3 thousand square feet thresholds should be pushed up a little bit and we do needs to clean up the policy that is cumbersome and look forward i think we need family housing thanks. >> good evening commissioners my name is stephen i'm a general contractor here in san francisco and i've done quite a few of the of those remolds i can assess them i'm familiar with how they

seem to lay out when you get down to the number of 3 thousand square feet and in my experience anyway, the way usually laid down that you have a master suit and one bedroom on the top floor and the other bedroom is located behind the garage on the bottom floor two floors away not ideology for 3 kids i have 3 kids under the age of 5 i want 80 a minimum of 3 bedrooms ideally 4 it didn't exist in san francisco. >> we can't say on one side we won say we want the family and on the other hand, restrict the

single-family homes it self-work if it holds a large house put a large house and i think that is exactly what should be done there. >> that way we can at least keep some of the larger families here in san francisco i mean everybody working hard to live here meetings let's not make single-family units the new unicorns thank you. >> hi my name is sha have on i want to thank the commission for listening to us and the department and monica to think about the process and make it easier for us trying to invest in housing in san francisco i think that has difficult process and long and that would be great

if we could make that simply and faster i'm concerned about the 3 thousand square feet threshold for the same reason to try to get bedrooms on the same level to be close to the children as well as having a home office for working parents that want to spent a lot of time at home with a misrepresent generational family or a parent to live there it is hard to accommodate all of those things in 3 thousand square feet we want to see that threshold get jaufltd ant or thought through and hopefully, we'll find a way to make this process to keep families in san francisco a little bit easier. >> good afternoon

commissioners anastasia on august 17th he addressed the department of building inspection and mri ma commissioner mondejar was the commissioner he spoke about the amount of demolitions were take place when alteration permits were taken out at dbi the commissioner the president of the commission angus said, yes this is important we would like to hold a hearing there is a hearing going to be scheduled about demolition and at that meeting on august 17th the building code were approved they get approved every 3 years so my question here is to these people that want to change things we have a section in the building

code one 03 point a that independence demolition a principle portion and then it also has a whole section on why projects are considered demolition and one, if a building is not a resource and the project exceeds 317 b thresholds blow it is tantamount to a demolition that's all in the building code and that was all forwarded and approved and they approve things every 3 years my question if they want to make a separate code section what codes and highway will it relate to the building codes thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners shawn rb a i'd like to start by threatening staff and thanking this commission for tackling this issue it is authority issue and aside from this this is up there with the next level of tough thorn i didn't issues for our city i want to applaud them for strooefg for something that is simpler and acknowledge them for looking at this generally, we're in support of this i do have one concern and that is what the other speakers spoke to about the size 24rer8d my concerns are broken down into the timing if i'm where we had to go in front of the commission i believe we're scheduled for january that means 4 months and aside from the traditional homeowner being intimidate by the process 40 months is not fun

4 months to a process that is already 12 to 15 months that the planning and another 6 or seven months at dbi why are we making single-family homes longer to produce the proposed process doesn't weaken or diminish our outreach or anyone's right to file a dr so why do we need to have automatic hearings this commissions calendars is impacted enough size size is not the whole story i can show you internal revenue picture of a 25 hundred square feet and a 5 thousand square feet house and in some cases, you can't always tell which is which there is ways to get the

characters of a neighborhood block size maybe a part of it shouldn't be a significant factor the practical reality is no matter who's office we walk into someone wants to have a conversation about preserving families in san francisco it happens to us everyday of the week and when we look at the housing supply and analysis where this housing about council from look across the city not in the market octavia, treasure island it will come in the rh1 condos and studios one and two's maybe sometimes 3s where else will reproduce a 4 and 5 bedroom home we shouldn't discourage it i don't want to be negative in general owe support in something

needs to happen it labels for the project sponsor but that threshold i don't feel there is any need for an automatic hearing thank you. >> good evening commissioners i'm here a lot and out in the field seeing the demos a permit is filed for a house on the third floor a piece of wall that is hung on shoring that is the house that's what is left and everything else is new it is a new house and when you do these you're cheating the school district combau your for the paying the right school fees on the addition it is all new anyway when they're out there and find dry rot the inspectors fix if

the school fees the partitioning operational is on the addition let's see be honest in their - i want affordable housing someone wants to tear down a house let them you want to build a 3 thousand square feet house you're tearing down something build a 3 thousand square feet dwelling unit but the fact it is affordable 20 or thirty years you guys are doing things for the next hundred years require the affordable units if so t it is a 4 thousand square foot make it 4 hundred thousand so it is

affordable but it is just a suggestion another way to deal with it your current rules don't work. >> okay. any other public comment. >> hi thank you i'm georgia swedish first of all, thank the commission i particularly want to thank commissioner vice president richards for taking an interest and staff here's some questions i have i only have question is preservation the dowel of the new proposal as for section 317 was priority what is the lemon threshold and handout there be another unit size and what is the public improvement for the administrative proposal and should different neighborhoods

have different thresholds? what happens to the mayor's office of housing affordability level in section aware ab the ones in noah valley the last two years they were affordable when they were approved and basically demolished what happens to the criteria in section 3173 c what about raising the threshold tantamount to demolition and adrc the reporting by the project sponsor as the construction precedes if the facade is removed is this not a demo what about the loophole the 317 and does mass equal density all those homes that brought me here are massive and can you have density without mass that's my questions and here's to you

all made copies for you all and for the minutes thank you very much i look forward to more conversation. >> citywide thanks. >> hi commissioners david architect we've been architect negative impact san francisco really since 1980, 1979 dealing with san francisco bureaucracy a long time i'd like to get to the bottom line but some people alluded to i think i hear and read that section 317 the intent of behind that is to create more affordable housing and more family housing as far as i'm concerned, i go outside of that region and

people say oh, my god you live and work in san francisco my bottom line about it is we're taking away a a and adrc b and b is just as likely to be as onerous a process asz as a and as far as i'm concerned, i have people thinking about doing projects or buying hours and remodeling them in san francisco and it is so overwhelmingly onerous for people to even consider anything in san francisco so the more bureaucracy you place on anything the less affordable it is going to be and that in my opinion makes a huge amount of non-affordability in san francisco.

>> i know that is not relevance but our josh wanted to put forward a proposal if i provided a certain amount of units you can't be bmr we have someone else said a huge amount of review and design review people can dr required to have neighborhood meetings with the neighbors they can dr it is already onerous as far as i'm concerned, and the other thing, too i'm not that familiar with that if rh1 is also subject to the 3 thousand square feet threshold that doesn't make sense to me at all because where else will you build a bigger house i may not be correct. i don't know if rh1 is included if it is, it

shouldn't and we do want to thank the staff i appreciate and your attention to try to make leave simple for people which what make it for affordable thank you. >> okay. any additional public comment. >> okay public comment is closed. let me go ahead and start off with a couple of comments he agree with some of the speakers i think the biggest thing for me want to make sure that our goals are in last name and ms. swedish maybe years for bringing up the 317 issue you pointed out the gross action of leaving one piece of the wall and the rest of the wall is coming down i want to make sure that the alignment to address that comment not to resolve the affordable housing at the same time or maybe trying to do both

i'm not sure but mixed in the goals between the efforts. >> i do think that urging the square footage number is absent generic and per strife for the city adding a different lot they're not all square and some are uphill i'm not sure the number of the square footage is the right set number to go with i'd like to hear if the staff look at the percentage of the lot size versus the building size a percentage the neighboring building and the soufrndz blocks or area and set a percentage we can't go beyond 2 percent larger than than it is or 2 percent of that lot and then the exemption a tina cottage and an big lot that it didn't make any difference to be compatible with the

neighborhoods and complimentary not competitive i also am curious to see from the developer side those are not huge development projects those are independent contractors that spoken here today, i'm curious to see that through a doted sites in san francisco and locked in the 3 thousand square feet just by my own comboergs of mine really fixing a lots one .7 or whatever million dollars will maybe put 200 and $50,000 in improvement and sell it for 2 heeded one million dollars can you sell any house in the city under 3 thousand square feet for under 2 millions and maybe i'd like to hear from the folks an

unintended consequence many homes as a result of the last speaker saying more restrictions other inventory of the city for housing inventory doesn't get renovated but developers stay away from udg current stock have a depletion of housing stock and san francisco is not the place so i'm curious want to make sure we're not scare off slow improvement and talk about the woes of not building affordable housing and going through the boom and bust and want to make sure is san francisco is steady steady steady of the great inventory of housing stock i want to see that continue to get

fixed up. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much like commissioner president fong i have a series of comments and questions to commissioner president fong for opening statement he tell heard 3 deft policy goals if i can call them that of the residential expansion the new world here ferns is about affordability so we get actually funny in terms of the texture of the thing it is deficit from the public comment most of time we hear people are upset you're taking a small may be one or two bedroom 12 hundred square feet cottage or house and making that 5 or 6

thousand feet we we're here it is opposite but as one goal people are talking about the preservation of a natural affordable housing by not significantly expanding the smaller homes that currently exist and the second is maximum zoning district; right? an rh1 but what we've seen some of in the form of abhorring is rh2 or rh3 that are looking for sixth sxangsz without adding units the only reason the projects add units they show up as a dr and in the lease of 24 months asking for the maximumtion i'd like to maximizing zoning is the second one and the thresholds one is about aesthetics; right? if you're taking an older home and

doing significant altercations that are would what we consider tantamount to demolition and ones are coming down whether needed or not and end up with a modern earth that tends to be cleaner and are more transparency elements like windows and things like that and can argue whether or not one is good or bad but we've seen arguments tobacco made that allowing expansions in a way we do right now can lead to cigarette changes in the styles of architect we're seeing in the new buildings we're seeing; right? those are 3 completely deft goals and i'm not sure this is addressed at all and the one that gets to the most directly

sorts of maximizing zoning and that is the naturally affordable one and the aesthetic i'm up and down whether this is addressed this didn't say you can't change the facade particularly if you move away from the demolition it says you can't knock out the front wall or back wall i'll keep it clear and in future presentations if there are other policy goals or 3 are the right or wrong ones i want to put that out there people didn't understand the purpose of this will be i will say in terms of the the square footage sort of question i think there's a discussion to be had is what is the right number but two thoughts financier i think square footage is the right lens to look at this because one of the issues we have right now wherewith the

way of the tantamount demolition is to complicated few people can had had calculation at all and certainly not correctly so moving on to straight square footage simplifies that process and simplifies people coming up with different numbers bans the same existence understanding i don't think the three thousand square feet is the one but the expansion one rights this says if you have a home it is already larger than 3 thousand square feet if you're adrc more than 5 hundred square feet it goes through the same process or if you're adrc and articulating a home and making it greater than 3 thousand square feet we need to look at, what is - your looking at 5 hundred to one thousand 15 hundred square feet

is like that delta you're making it bigger and he'll just wonder if that's the right range or that range needs to be different i don't want to make it complex i think the square footage is right that range we care about not the 3 thousand all that does is say generally speaking how many projects will we see with the expansion if at all and just i don't know in terms of the affordability the last one i'm not sure regardless of any of 24 what that will do without taking down exterior walls you can take out all exterior - interior walls not to disturb the

building i'm not sure this gets to that that is the first point what are the policy goals and address that. >> commissioner hillis. >> i think all great comments we've heard owe echo the commissioners on their comments i think we need to solve this problem it is come up and ms. swedish has been great in showing us the flats that turn into big single-family home a small in-law unit and so i think we need to figure out how to protect those or get at those issues he agree with some of the comments about the 3 thousand square feet being a little bit blunt and thinking of the examples 28 hundred square feet

victorian home you want to capitalized that and add an in-law unit 24 gets thrown into this but we want to encourage people to do that by skufrj them to do two flats in a current home get you out internal situation and make it 24/7 equal units and more conducive to an in-law unit and some of the examples where ms. swedish showed up a 28 foot home it is more demo than the other than i agree we have to look at it and and think that supervisor wiener got it in his legislation to corona heights but from 28

hundred square feet to 36 but every other home is 4 thousand square feet shouldn't urban design thrown if but a 4 thousand and you're building a bigger home maybe so i think ms. gallagher was right look at the neighborhood context and the clock context in some of the neighborhoods in noah valley in the western soma i have single-family homes that is a 5 unit building but a row of cottages not president a monster home in the midst how big our expanding what guess is there now and we'll get the goals of affordability if you have a small home try to you preserve that small feel especially, if it is in that context without penalizing

someone i think you know we're heading in the right direction but need nor feedback where this might kick in or not kick in i suggest looking at supervisor wiener interim legislation that was interesting i got it some of the issues we're trying to get at. >> also i think someone mentioned the adu's adding units i agree with the speaker that been an enormously great project i walked around people are making seismic improvements that is tremendously successful and should encourage more of that. >> commissioner vice president richards all let me take a stab at that i did that a month ago the oufshz in the general plan the issue two or objective two

so i this we can gets everyone on the same page retain the existing housing units and not jeopardy affordability discourage the demolition of sounds existing housing unless the dpooigs expansion a neat increase in affordable housing offense 3 protect the existing housing stock especially regular calendar and maintain the affordability of existing housing stock by supporting the moderator homeowners opportunities 3.4 preserve naturally affordable housing types naturally affordable housing

types not $5 million square feet but ones that 11 percent can still afford not the one-tenth of one percent. >> so i think we've got a complicated error from current i don't time to use the work didn't work and easy to abuse did we demo it did we cu it's height and bulk and not caring out the effect staff anytime's it we called it the last 24 months i appreciate that staff has taken the times and has the guts we need an easy to understand and non-abusive system anything we do we know there are so much money 12 hundreds on the construction everybody will find a way to go

around it i'm tired of going through the neighborhoods in any district and seeing slivers of walls hanging up i need to understand how we tie this to the building code i want to talk with the supervises and have hearing on all the money we're losing because one said we're gaining the system we have traditionally money for general fund and this is the dirty little secret it is coming out in this room i'll pursue it iowa are the issues over the past two years density quality a place on green street 15 hundred square feet a units and 5 thousand square feet for the top units 65 and three percent less that's it that's all we're trying to do we see sham units never going to get rented but they not add to

the family stock and heard that people say i'm not anti anything we have extended families but occupation of that dwelling unit is temporary to what was today's extended family is tomorrow billionaire we have one hundred units i think we have had you on the commission at some point we're demoing affordable housing people say build the housing if you start to make one and 20 or one and $50,000 and your parents give you the ability to buy a half million dollars cottage that is affordable i'm sorry if this cottage goes away in a 4 or 5 thousand square feet home

you'll not affords this city is changing one block at that time, we need to know about gentrification i agree with everything if you want to build a bigger structure and the zoning allows it by all means add a unit and make sure we are dense ferguson in the way we should and adding a square feet is not general ferguson can this b&b be tweaked maybe a 3 thousand square feet amount especially eel is not the way to go i like the percentage expansion if you have a 28 hundreds square feet home and add one thousand square feet and a thresholds is 50 percent tie he to the vicinity if the average the planning district is 18 hundred and in a block of 4

thousand square feet it should trigger i don't want to hear 3 thousand square feet in pacific heights your waste of time let's make sure we have a process if so easy quick and doable when we try to propose something that is good public policy the way people want to kill it call us on the process issues the process is too along young you're right we'll try to make the proce last thing i sat up here and almost had a heart attack 16,

2009 square feet and 4 thousand and 8 thousand square feet this is crap class family housing we have people living in 8 thousand square feet come on that's ridiculous they have the money you've got the money do it, it is public policy maybe you should be in hillsborough and stop turning the affordable neighborhoods into a millionaires that's what i have to sea. >> commissioner moore. >> the last comment yes, we don't have to be obligated to move people into bigger units and setting baselines for dog thank you you have enough

feedback for this to turn this i'll support of aids suggestion and any suggestion for you to on the doors to let them participate in the fine tuning of how this elliott can be implemented i think we have to change we've sat here, too long to hear the calculations don't work we want to ask you how you calculate square footage we have a case that brings forward gross net figures on the home and the difference deny controlled and uncontrolled is quite significant we have items 16 later where the controlled space is 2000 square feet less than the uncontrolled space islander to ask you how you calculate that's an important question when you