commission regular hearing for thursday, february 23, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner fong commissioner koppel and commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards is present here. >> oh, there he is and commissioner johnson and commissioner mar that expected to arrive shortly commissioners, the first item on your agenda items for proposed for continuance at the time of issues 1016 de haro street proposed for continuance to april 27, 2017. since it's onions commissioners

under our discretionary review calendars item 14 214 states street credit a request that staff is in support to continue to march 29, 2015 and 15 a for case 659 guerrero street - east side of guerrero street, between 18th and 19th streets, lot 56 in assessors's block 3588 those decreasing have been withdrawn the acting zoning administrator consider a continuance of item 15 b at 659 guerrero street for the variances to march 22 which is just a zoning administrator's hearing also commissioners under our regular calendar item 1279

cragmont avenue on january 26th after hearing and closing pub an intelligent to disagree and continue staff is recommend an indefinite continuance i might want to continue to a date certain to allow the project sponsor so modify it for a project to be approved. >> do you have a date. >> june 1st is an appropriate date those are all the items proposed for continuance i have a couple of speaker cards on item 12 i don't know if there is a chance to continue. >> is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance

(calling names). >> i would only satellite. >> if you'll talk about the continuance. >> only on the matter of continuance at this time. >> ged you have 3 minutes. >> wait to speak into the mike good afternoon i'm not sure i know what continuance means. >> we'll not continue it but continue it to hear it at another time if our opposed to continuing that foe it is the time to - >> if it is on the agenda you'll not discuss it. >> we will continue it. >> to the future dates. >> correct. >> now i understand no comment. >> okay. >> is there any additional public comment on the matters proposed for continuance. >> yes robert i think there is an urgency in the matter it's been a burden on the person for

quite some time and . >> this is cragmont; correct? >> correct. >> but i'm in favor of continuing >> thank you, thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners in on the item for states street i support the request for continuance and staff's recommendation to continue that. >> thank you, sir is there any additional public comment? >> hearing none commissioner moore. >> continue item one and noted and 12 to june 1st and item 14 to march 9. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner mar

commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to zero. >> as an acting zoning administrator i'll continue item 15 b to the variance hearing of march 22. >> thank you acting zoning administrator commissioners that places us under our are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item two for case street conditional use authorization there are no speaker cards. >> excuse me - any members of the public that wants to comment on item 2 seeing none.

>> move to approve thank you, commissioners on that to approve under our consent calendar. >> commissioner fong. >> commissioner koppel commissioner mar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards commissioner president hillis thank you, commissioners that so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under commission matters consideration of adoption one minor correction we want to add on item 4 we need to add the statement that you took dr and approved with conditions so with the minor correction for your consideration for draft minutes for february 9th thank you joan's any public comment. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve

thank you, commissioner on that motion to deposit the minutes commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner mar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 4 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i had lunch with the commissioner and talked about about the pipeline and the number of unit director if you could estate the numbers puvenl or pubically i was kaurnld certainly currently there are approximately 45 thousand units entitled that includes the big what we call the 3 big partnering that are half of that number there is 6 thousand under construction another three or four thousand at dbi for permits and there are four or five thousand that are kind of that

have had a building permit approved but have not actually officially started construction. >> just the statement for the viewing public 45 thousand units about 6 thousand started other reasons why things don't get started because of financing or other issues so the pipeline is full of entitled unit. >> should be online hopefully as fast as they can secondly, it has come to my attention a discretionary review on 100 percent affordable housing that came before us as a cu i recall that when supervisor scott wiener was exempt 100 percent projects by eliminating the cu he stated to us in the room that the neighborhood and

the community and the individual people with grieves could file and dr i never in my mind thought we'll be having a conditional use and a dr i want to say we have it on the action list we looked at ways to avert those things coming back to us twice when we looked at as a cu and not a dr a couple of other things we talked about the health we were very much worried about the amount of square footage coming on the market octavia developments i was hastened to see the coal hardware is opening up a store in north beach. >> they have. >> actually, in the site of the form restaurant that had not taken flight so that's a success and with the bernal heights retails not acquit dead yet and

one last thing that will probably come before us that is interesting this the chronicle supervisor scott wieners permit bars to be closed at 4:00 a.m. to dictate whether or not we want that just in the chronicle came out against it basically san francisco is not competing with new york and las vegas and new orleans we're not coming here because we close our bars at 2 and talked about having it both ways it will slow down people and so they can get home if we serve them at 4 it defeats the purpose we will have to determine whether or not we want the bars open until 4:00 a.m. thank you. >> thank you any additional

comments next item, please. >> department matters denouncements. >> no new announcements this week commissioners, thank you. >> item 6 actually, the board of supervisors did not meet there was no report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission didn't meet this week so we can monarch into general plan general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. members of the public may address the san francisco local agency formation commission periodically pooifks povks pooef address the commission up to three minutes. >> i have one speaker card for georgia swedish. >> go ahead any general public comme comment. >> good afternoon my name is paul wormer the planning department has taken a step that i half hour applaud

and that is with respected to the response of a public record request their moving forward in the digital age and downloading the cds they're putting them in a down loadable file for a period of time that makes makes sense but it also presumes a very skilled constituency that really understands is where this the stuff is stored how to download and for future access that is where things fall short if you don't have a computer at home and not internet access but locating person using library computers how do you deal with that digital file that needs to be downloaded and stored before that exteriors

that's a challenge at a lot of public sites they don't let you download to the computer it might be that would be helpful from the department technical people pull together guidelines for the user on how to transfer what can be very, very large files from the department temporary storage site to something like a google drive or some other free access so that people who are concerned about something go on in the community actually get some help in extracting the public records files in a way that is usable and not stressing because of the next guideline how to go through that thank you. >> ms. hester.

>> sue hester i want to talk about a general planing issue that is an interesting week and there was reports points mta adopted permanently the google bus stops on tuesday and the report for the google buses to mta as well as the report today on the next item basically hunted on housing displaced that is created in san francisco to serve silicon valley there should be a report to the planning commission a public report what the status say, i would like to know how much housing and transit was funded by permits on building in coping

tin 0 mineral park and facebook all the companies on the peninsula that set up private bus systems to dump the housing demand in san francisco how many people are on those buses coming to san francisco expect to have housing in san francisco and how do they affect the price of housing in san francisco when you have like i have it opportunity to read a whole lot of eirs draft eirs on the routes that google buses are using but that is a shorthand term 15 hundred mission 15 hundred market and central soma a lot of the eastern neighborhoods are on the roots that where new housing is

constructed is very, very easy to get to by dedicated buses to silicon valley san francisco has had and a aligned requirement the commercial developers pay for expansion of muni and housing and childcare since the 80s it was a had a right battle took years 5 years at least some of them were even longer we had on the books in the planning code those requirements that basically focused on the san francisco workforce the san francisco developers of commercial space have to pay the money to expand housing in san francisco we weren't - we never analyzed that we were also going to supply housing for cupping chin

and the park they were going to have direct buses that stopped you in the city that effects the housing crisis magnificently. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm denise a city resident i live in district 3 i came here before a couple of times this year the first time in 2010 when i sat here with all my volunteers and the residents of nob hill when this commission decided to blankly approve live nations alcohol use it is a big bad idea any heart sank to the ground all the work and visitations were presented it breaks my heart for nob hill i

know people say that note now district this is the city of san francisco it matters no one knows what it is like to feel of feelings all of my pain and we i blame you that from behind blue eyes so you might know that song the reason i say that to you, please make the city safe live nation is about selling alcohol not the artists when it was falling down a wonderful show the conditional use permit is one thing all is intertweend and didn't makes sense my friends don't leave the house after 3:00 p.m. it has to end please, please consider what happens when you approve a permanent

liquor license in a residential neighborhood to piggyback on polk corridor permit is absurd i know you did it because that's all you care about it money people want to live and breathe and enjoy the city please make the city safe and stop approving permits for all the alcohol it is too much alcohol too much all over the place and it is a citywide problem work on union street it is deplorable not a good idea thank you for your time i wanted to make finish my point and let you, you know this is san francisco no new york i love this city and everyone is here for a reason to be protected and preserve it thank you you. >> thank you, ms. swedish.

>> this is for you commissioners good afternoon. i first came here february 2014 talking about alterations that are dooksz so there is the letter it is background 3 years hard to believe i have to say a couple of things the part in red we hope you do it is something about 317 i think that is an easy fix i'm not confident about the other part i'm a little less than optimistic about the threshold simply i don't know that will safe existing housing i think that anything that didn't save it is affordable housing i've seen things about that in

certain neighborhoods i didn't like to talk about it i feel like i'm shining a spotlight but you know what i'm talking about 0 i don't know will happen with the rtd but 317 needs be fixed and b-7 an easy fix read it and safe the second united and part in red i'd like that to mr. ionin less than three hundred words thank you very much have a nice day. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm confused what transpired did tell me 12 get moved off of the agenda. >> yes. continued to june 1st. >> may i ask why. >> to allow the sponsor time

to modify the project. >> okay. >> next speaker, please. >> item 12 seems like an awful long delay. >> the time to discuss it was when we took it up for continuance that item is continued to june 1st. >> it is very long after a long delay and the lady involved is concurring a big expense and shall we has the administration in mind i know. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners thank you, again fewer help with passing zoning laws and building housing in the city

today, i want to speak about housing, of course, i'm a resident of city of san francisco and housing that is delayed is housing that is denied the reason the political friends voice their anger and concern some enemy buzz are misinformed and restricting the supply didn't raise the rents the local review processes and overbearing regulations will help the housing stock they have over existing stock by printing the hopper they've made the housing construction so restrained that the cost is the only viable choice to build in san francisco over the last 40 years easy to

distress the housing construction and impoverishing themselves paying low, low property tax they believe in hope instead of protectionism and new construction of measures with concession hope is something that it is better than the current situation if you are willing to work hard thank you, sir, your time is up. >> the frustrations into action allow them to rise above the voices of fear their oriental people doing extraordinary people things regardless to the limitation of them places on the activists and organizations the if or- the pro telling them is a bigger impact than you can imagine creating

zoning and the housing regulation measures line by line they love the architecture and are not afraid of change and believe in creating a better sustainable future creating less segregation with a rarity of welcoming immigrants from over the world. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, move to item 7. >> very good, commissioners. on to the regular calendar. >> i'm sorry commissioner vice president richards do you have a comment. >> may be one to make mr. wormer like everything we do and do a guideline to - i'll make that suggestion. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards i did want to respond we're striving to

improve our record accessibility and one of the ways was providing electronic access to the files whenever someone is not able to download files will look to other means to provide them with the records. >> thank you commissioners item 7 for case controller's report: economic feasibility study of inclusionary housing. this is an informational presentation and good afternoon. i want to introduce you to a staff member this is the first inclusionary you'll be refusing the controllers report and in a couple of weeks a couple of other bmr legislation and action for possibly a couple of weeks after that but first, i wanted

to introduce you to jacob he's been with the citywide planning division for about a year and a half serves with the implementation grew up u group has a bachelors in latin and from the university of texas and a manifest from berkley learning housing worked for nonprofit developers and advocacy groups in east bay and san francisco prior to joining the city an associate where he worked with people from the bay area and nationally avenue economic go development and affordable housing studies an interestingly and pertinent to the today's discussion what the leading analyst on their requirement they recently adopted i'm note they call them mandatory but it is a bonus program he's been part of team

to track at the impact and has served as the city's lead in housing policies and is the courage the city's inclusionary in house person we welcome jacob to the commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to talk about this constitutional right affordable housing policy before we are ted egan from the controller's office want to provide give you a little bit of background so going back to march of last year will a juror the board of supervisors did adopt a anonymous resolution declaring that city policy some maximize the percentage of inclusionary housing and market-rate development that's the name of the game and following that in advance of the prop c charter amendment on the ballot in june

they passed one in the last year, it will increase the inclusionary housing only is passage of prop c and second it required an economic feasibility analysis to be performed by the controller's office and it also called for the creation and inclusionary housing technical advisory committee to advise the controller and in june as you may know voters passed prop c to restore the board of supervisors to alter the affordable housing and inclusionary program by ordinance rather than having that locked into the charter and put in place inclusionary requirements pend further action at 25 onsite and 33 offsite or a fee and also established there will be a mixed of low income and moderate income and the passage ever prop c transpired the trailing ordinance mainly

the feasibility studies the confirmation feasibility study the purpose of the study was to recommend what the economic feasible amount of inclusionary requirement as per the direction given by the board of supervisors last march it was also to - it was informed by the tech that began meeting in may of last year and met on 8 occasions the technical advisory committee with the analysis and the consultants under the direction of the office of confirmation analysis meet 8 times and finally meeting in effectual first so the beginning of this month we reached the final recommendations and the controller released a report of final recommends just on february 13th last week so that's what we're here to talk about we have ted egan from

the controller's office do you have your presentation with you without further ado, to hear the recommendations from the controller's office thank you. >> thank you, thank you. >> cynthia goldstein commissioners ted egan from the controllers controller's office a you recall we realized our preliminary report a few wishes we want to continue to work and resolved that as jacob said we issued our final report this month i'll catch up if you, you could switch to the laptop with what our recommendations were from the phase one in terms of policy changes from the way low income is currently handled in the city first, we have different requirements for ownership and rental projects our financial analysis have

different levels of feasibility we recommended a range of onsite requirement that were 17 to 20 for ownership and projects 14 to 18 for rental projects we recommended that the city make a commitment to a long term fixed or i'm sorry long term policy of inclusionary housing that will in all constant and known increases under the thinking one way or another that land will be more valuable in the future and projects what sustain higher requirement and on the other hand, providing long term certainty was good for the margaret and could you slightly enlarge it is hard. >> i don't know if i can make it bigger than. >> that would be helpful. >> i'm afraid i don't have

handout. >> that's a lot better. >> okay. thank you. >> there was decisions of 80, 20 affordable brokerages we recommend they be handled in addition requirement will be added project by project basis that left us with 3 phase two the first to handle the question of a state density bonus the second to see how sensitive our ravages rages were and point to the to the assumptions the income and eligible with inclusionary housing and finally we wanted to recommend in lui fees equivalence to the onsite recommended we made. >> mr. egan if so is easy to use

that mike. >> that would be great thank you. >> our initial requirements started with a split of 60 percent of the affordable housing going to low income households and 40 percent probation officer moderate income households we did that because that was the point it was established in prop c we never felt not to and continue to feel that is profiting for that to comment on we wanted to make that clear and test based on feedback how sensitive the recommendations were how sensitive the recommended to changes in those assumptions in particular at the low end the rental range 60, 40 splits means less than the bmr unit going to low income households and 12 percent was established prior to

prop c there was a desire that we not go low that level we modified the approach that basically said no matter what 12 percent for low income and additional bmr unit go to moderate income until we get the 60, 40 split we asked them to rerun it they changed the numbers slightly we noted that in our report but we again are not making a recommendations of that and you know and our consultant has the capability to model other income levels as deserved to the second in lui fees the model important it so the rental projects we're recommending 14 to 18 onsite we are recommending 18 to 23 for the fees and ownership on site

to 20 recommending 20 to 25 percent i should make clear those are the percentage the mohcd and that mtc and the calculations maybe changed we provided to the city not just those percentages that make the most sense but did math and per square footage so that can be common in the fee itself changes where we were considering asking the talking to make a recommendations when in the development process the requirement vests that is important when they there over time we decided this is to the a feasibility issue and decided not to address that in the report that left us with the issue the density bonus program and we had a lot of discussion the problem with the state density bonus is that the city

is not allowed to require onsite inclusionary on the bonus unit if someone is eligible for the state density bonus the state wants those without additional onsite requirements attached to that that left us with a couple of choices we could have said if we are confident everyone take the state density bonus to take those additional unit into the requirement that will apply to everyone that will have supported a higher requirement than what we recommended we could have allow waited we don't have enough information to figure out what we'll make the decision to take the bonus or not and defer the question or made an educated more or less an educated guess we settled on a solution that our advise is permissible under state law we

think has a in his feature of not penalizing the features it don't take the state density bonus but requires additional fees but essentially that builds on the fact that our inclusionary housing ordinance is an impact fee and cities and local governments require projects including projects taking the state density bonus to pay impact fees even on the bonus unit and so we will simple city attorney san francisco will be educating the impact fees we charge more affordable housing with other impact fees on the other units in order to quality for the state density bonus you need to build the units onsite so the idea would be we're educating a fee on all the projects an

existing ability for developers to split they're into some onsite and some offsite to take the state density bonus they could essentially build onsite to the necessary amount for the state density bonus and pay the fee on the remainder of the units that will have the effect of not requiring onsite for the bonus units and paying the impact fees with other impact fees and having others assessable for the density bonus program. >> i can give you an example how this works versus how that works now versus with the alternatives considering the density bonus program if we took a project one the group talked about the numbers in here are hypothetical not recommendations not a real role project but the math is real world in the project will be one hundred

condo units thirty is to see and 32 bedrooms supposedly a 17 onsite requirement and 25 fee percentage these are requirements that we take within the feasible range but nothing else special and with the mohcd fees apply one option to pay the 17 percent onsite that translate to 83 percent market-rate in the bmr and no fee payments or take a fee option in which all the units are market-rate and make a payment as calculated and those are the fees associated with the unit types a choice of 17 units of people of color or $6.9 million in fees when you introduce the - if you

built onsite the city can't require more than the 17 bmr units we require without the bonus so the developer will be building one and 18 units if this project qualifies for the 35 density bonus program and take that they'll be building one and 8 the same 17 of the bmr and no fees if you took the 17 different your much less than the percentage no fee options if you paid the fee in full not eligible for the density bonus program this is more retrofit and lower inclusionary housing percentage with our i'll try to sodium to the correct example as the

project developers didn't want to take the fees you'll build our 83 units of market-rate and bmr and no fee payment secondly, you could do as you did in the last in the first one not take the density bonus program and pay the fee your building zero bmr and paying the million dollars or an option 3 take the density bonus program and effectively build 17 units of bmr on the base projects and fee payments on the rest this is building 83 unit and 35 bonus and paying a bonus on the fee-splitting the requirement into 35 on which the fee is paid and 17 or one hundred on the bmr assuming it qualifies for the state density bonus the city gets more affordable housing resources we get the 17 units

with bmr and $2. million of fee payments for the project so it has the feature of not effecting the feasibility of projects that don't take the density bonus program and getting additional resources more affordable housing from projects that do. >> the question we then ask is how does this compare to the essential the value captured our the affordable housing resources you could get from a world in which everyone took the density bonus program it is true they could take the density bonus program can afford more we are math founds the projects that took the density bonus program can support a higher percentage when we did the math for projects that take the density bonus program they will wind up paying 80 percent of

what could have charged in a feasible fee was compared or charged on bonus united we're not effecting the feasibility of projects that don't do the density bonus program but had we charged the maximum for the density bonus program. >> if that makes sense we have to charge the same fee can't basically is a those those have bigger - that's why that is not 100 percent you'll notice the fee it is charged against the bonus is charged on the whole project i hope that that is clear so essentially that was our recommendation our proposal on the handling the state density bonus we asked the take to approve basically or vote on 3

recommends within our report to see the in lui fees discussed earlier our proposal on the state density bonus that will apply to the fees on the units and reconvene at the controller's office to take a closer look at the uptake of density bonus program if it turns ought to be true that all projects are taking the density bonus program we might recommend a different approach but given how the we know of the state density bonus that was an approved recommendations to get it without effecting the feasibility so that's essentially the full set of our recommended on the report and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. we may have some after public comment. i understand that supervisor kim is here and also want to say make introductory comments.

>> supervisor kim. >> welcome. >> my case is on oh, commissioner president hillis and we heard the feedback about a larger font on the sheept commissioner moore we made it as large as possible to sit on a page we are happy to e-mail you the document so you can make that larger on your computer. >> so what i'm handing iuoe out is within page that is a 2016 salary average in the meantime calculator to chart out who we're talking about when we are talking about building low income housing versus middle-income housing and picked

a category of professions we often hear that san francisco is not housing when you look at it we look at minimum wage workers those are live off the assistance social security and moving probation officer janitor and hotel workers and pharmacy workers and carpenters and school teachers we know we're rapidly losing in san francisco i want to thank the controller's office ben rosenfield and ted egan and also to our ta c for the work over the last 6 months on the feasibility study that was presented to the commission today because of their work we have data to guide the discussions on inclusionary housing policies tattoos the mime feasible requirements to address a real and continuing need of everyday san franciscan households in june of 2016 when voters

overwhelmingly passed prop c to update our inclusionary housing laws we understood those voters felt there was a need for us to build not only more low income but middle-income housing in san francisco we understood that the market has changed to a strong housing market bans the development deals before the planning commission over the course of 2014-2015 we recognize that the developers can build more affordable housing they can build a wider range than income housing that's why the ordinance passed by the voters was setting a new inclusionary rated after january 2016 moving to the 50 percent of inclusionary housing for low income household but adding another 10 percent for middle-income housing this is the only ordinance in effect today that requires the private sector to help us contribute to the middle-income

market we know is incredibly important inclusionary housing as you may know is an incredibly important tool to help us build more affordable housing in san francisco while it is important for the city and the public to federal, state, and local fund to build the affordable housing we know the private sector can contribute by building affordable and middle-income housing what is important in the ordinance that we'll be introducing over the over the course of the next couple of weeks we want to continue to build the housing without pitting the income groups against each other and say stay with the spirit of prop c asking the developers to continue to build lower-income and build middle-income on top of that and not pit janitor and hotel workers against the school teachers and carpenters we need to live in san francisco our inclusionary housing ordinance that we have introduced but submitting substitute

legislation will be an important tool to expand the availability of rent rental and homeowners for people making roughly between thirty thousand to $90,000 dollars a year want to make sure we cover this broad range versus favoring one group over another and a households of 4 the typical family looking for housing a family of 4 between 54 and one and $26,000 a year we feel that is important to ask our private seethe to continue the low income affordable housing because we know that prairie in the new administration we're seeing today in d.c. there's going to be on top of what we've seen a declined san francisco fire department and so we'll continue to depend on the private sector to help us contribute to that arena and we understand the

state and federal grants are less and in cities like san francisco we recognize the need to produce more middle-income housing that's why we're suggesting a mix so over the course of the next couple of months as we put together an inclusionary housing ordinance on our private investment community we really look forward to working with the planning commission on an ordinance that will take care of all of us and we ask the commission as you ask questions today but over the course of the next couple of months to give us feedback as legislature what we can do to build a broad range of housing in the sector that's an element that is incredibly important an efficient way to house people without breaking the banks and want to make sure we are taking into consideration the highest feasibility level without leaving anything on the

table the balance and balancing the needs to make sure we're not confer to developers without having them gave back the budget wrinkle is the state density bonus which is allowing developers to build 35 percent more capacity without an affordable housing requirement i think that we're going to have to figure out how to balance this bonus that is given to the developers but also figure out how we can insure to meet the low income and moving in the right direction needs he look forward to working with the planning commission and look forward to our questions today and again, want to thank our controller's office and the j.c. i see several members of the j.c. as we put forward the best proposal thank you. >> thank you very much supervisor kim. >> commissioners before moving into public comment we want to

conclude this from ken rich from the mayor's office of economic workforce development. >> thank you. i'll be brief and want to compliment the controller in my years of experience processes one of the smoothest and best run proficient process we have appreciated that i also just on behalf of all of the city staff that have been working closely from obviously the planning department and my office the oewd and the mayor's office of housing to sort of reiterate the basic position that we want to make sure we get every bit every unit possible economically from every project in terms of inclusionary housing without going beyond a point we start to make housing infeasible and that absolutely includes projects with the state density bonus we want to make sure that we don't sort of leave any stone

unturned or give developers a free lunch but bring it up to the maximum we've been trying to do that i think you'll be grappling with the level of affordable housing you know low moderate those definitions are a good clue appropriate to ask for inclusionary housing you'll see state's next time that points out the vast yofrt of below-market-rate housing didn't come if inclusionary but comes from the housing built by the city through various streams of funding by the mayor's office of housing and that housing is to date and in the future we almost entirely have a low income level of 50 percent of ami and allocate thing to point out

historically about 40 percent of development projects fee out and that money goes to the mayor's office of housing and spent generally on low income housing the reason the mayor's office of housing focuses on low income they're able to leverage the city dollars with tax credits only available for low income and not for moderate or middle it is important to keep the large picture of everything the city has and pie charts in a couple of weeks to see what slice of pie is inclusionary and if it shifts upwards how it is the production in the city versus the affordable housing that that concludes my remarks thank you. >> does that conclude the staff presentation. >> open up for public comment on this item i have two speaker cards if there are additional members of the public to line up on the screen side of the room.

(calling names). >> mr. welch. >> thank you president i'd like to hand out a handout absolutely free we are revisiting the density bonus program question indirectly with that report and the statement of the director of the mayor's office of economic workforce development it is important to look at the bigger picture we are producing in terms of reno terms one and 58 percent of need for market-rate housing we're producing 20 percent of our need for low income housing in what real world are we over producing affordable housing

we are, of course, producing less than far less than we need of middle-income housing so it seems to me the focus the big picture focus not on how to maintain the production of more market-rate housing which we are over producing but instead how to use the resources and width of the city to produce housing building to be afford by middle-income and low income people that's what we should solve for the big picture challenge the problem with praying elevating games of in the meantime was discussed late into the night by this commission last year over the dhs we came upon it seems to me an important lesson this handout indicates i go back to the 2015 numbers we don't have a housing market

that says i'm is charged in every neighborhood in the city rents vary housing prices surveyor if what you're going to talk about producing a meaningful supply of hours by middle-income people we have to understand that if many middle-class neighborhoods in san francisco housing able to be afforded by households of one and 50 percent of ami is on behalf of market-rate in those neighborhoods advertised a listing that shows that in many middle-class neighborhoods in san francisco the sweet spot between one hundred and one and 20 percent of ami for middle-income people so the basic big question that we have to keep in mind are we building hours for existing san franciscans or a projected hopefully population that is

moving if going on behalf of one hundred and 80 percent of ami will not get the job done. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon. this is my first appearance before the commission as the new executive director of the san francisco housing coalition so thank you taking up this issue first, i absolutely want to thank everyone on the tack on the developer side of master and affordable and the city for running such a great process so we appreciate all the work put into that when we look at the report that comes out of the tax recommendation there is a very nice really helpful sheet of the number of units that looks like it will be developed the 18 percent inclusionary rate that is totals about 20 almost 27

units about that 17 hundred units per year if you look at the regression by eric fishing we know that 5 thousand units a year are needed to be built in order to keep rent housing costs stable in san francisco so i guess my question is do you as a commission feel that planning for 17 hundred units a year is enough housing to be built and if not this is a great one piece of puzzle but the other proposals that we'll be supporting to get the number up to where we can make sure that housing is stabilized and more concerning is that 18 percent inclusionary only 48 below-market-rate housing are to

be built over the next 15 years i look at the district 9 supervisor her goal to help 4 thousand below-market-rate housing in the next 5 years alone so all the bmr units over the next 5 years the next 15 years going to be in district 9 only this piece of - this report is alarming that we're not planning by itself not playing for the additional housing especially the lower amiddle income housin in conclusion i think we have definitely concerns about the legality of the state density bonus i'm sure that will be accounted in court one way or

another and want to meet note that the other is concerned raised i think that that is the appropriate time it should go back and look at scenarios assuming that the assumption that the next 15 years about look exactly like the last 19 years that's one scenario and other scenarios should be looked at thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is bob till anyone mandi have a 75 density bonus program project in the mission i'm here to make a specific technical point the application of an in lui fee to density bonus program units is, sir vents the state density bonus law the reason is that the state density bonus law as you may

know didn't allow san francisco to apply for bmr percentage to the state density bonus units why would it be legal for san francisco to apply the economic equivalent of the bmr units to the state density bonus unit as you may know the state density bonus law is very controversial it has been challenged many times legally in the state by cities trying to circumvent its purpose i think that is pretty sure that if you apply an in lui fee to state density bonus units that will be challenged a some point if not challenged than ever city in the state can shut down the density bonus program law simply by putting in place a very high in

lui fee on density bonus program units like saying okay we don't want you to go across the golden gate bridge we'll not stop you but raise the town hall toll to one thousand dollars a trip you want want to i urge the city attorney so be back to the drawing board and pass the state density bonus that was passed by governor jerry brown and understand their intent to keep the city out of a potential legal problem down the road thank you. >> thank you and him sonya i'm here a a co-director of the party so we agree with everything that todd said the technical advisory committee

instruction effective was to assume that the next 15 years will be like the last 15 years the last 1 years was a bad time as far as rent increases and displacement rented doubled in the last 19 years i was shocked because i didn't expect us to make basically a plan to fail you know i've thought that everyone, everyone statewide wants to get housing prices and rent under control i think that we should plan to be successful it in stabilizing rent applies prices and not plan for the rent appraise it double again we are asking the puc to reconvene and do a feasibility study assume we are able to get rents to stay steady to there only with inflation and not much

more and that assumes that in the meantime won't go up san francisco the states of moma increasing is people's income rising but low income people being displaced when you are looking at assuming that in the meantime are going up that is a proxy for assuming that people will be displaced in addition to reestimating the tax study no need to rush into that the tax study we assume we get housing crisis under control and like todd said build 5 thousand units a year not only 15 hundred units a year also rereview the nexus study it is what under lies the inclusionary program orthodontist and the nexus study is the white with errors assumptions in the nexus

study we know are not true the nexus study assumes one hundred of the people that more often will not have moved here otherwise we know from the controllers report on the june version the mission moratorium when you build buildings 84 percent move from somewhere else in san francisco that is like 1 assumptions that state of california we know are not true so you know the assumptions that were underpinning this whole task for the report are you know we have to redo the whole thing thank you very much and that will take a long time but thank you. >> mr. clerk. >> hi laura clark 3 minutes is a long time i think most of it is covered i think there are a lot of bad

assumptions put into this study i think that is well within this bodies personal responsibility to make sure that the sumentsdz made don't come crew u true we can build a lot more housing no universe we've been under producing market-rate housing this body should take full responsibility for god blessing the institution of single-family zoning that should be a moral quest this body embarks upon in order to make sure point assumptions in the study don't come true i'll save two minutes for you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i come here representing tndc a lower developer in the city and speak about the increase proposed

there the ami by 85 percent by which we want to ask you to go against that that will even a higher burden on low income people people of color we need to increase the affordable housing and we believe strongly by increasing 35 percent bmi will do nothing to help that we're extremely concerned by the negative effects this will have on competition already extreme competition for low income housing we had on our lastly building that we built for every one hundred and 50 units over 4 thousand applicants and that is just mathematical thing to

understand there are huge monuments and small supplies by increasing the ami to 85 percent will not increase the housing availability thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is curtis the president of the tenderloin neighborhood tenderloin market street for the mass coalition i can go on and on i'm here to speak about that piece the consideration of raising the aiming from 50 percent and we defining the affordable housing for san franciscans and frankly i'm angry we're having this conversation as part of puzzle as we move forward i agree that study needs to move forward but this particular piece i'm angry we have to talk about that we just had to conversation almost

in november residents took up the issue we discussed it and voted on it and overwhelmingly rejected the idea of raising the ami on affordability why did we do that inform recognized an attack on protecting people and a give away and not contribute to the housing in but increase the displacement of low income people they'll be expelling with folks i don't want to hear the argument to build more housing for teachers and police officers and firefighters they didn't support the ami why? because they care about their community and don't want to take their housing off the backs of low income folks so san francisco is clearly said to the city they want real solutions for housing but don't want solutions that

penalize the poor and give big a ways to ami developers are so why are we hear discussing that nothing has changed since did short month of november i take that back one thing changed the make up of the composition of the board of supervisors perhaps mayor ed lee feels now is a good time to - because he might find a more favorable reception i reject that wholeheartedly and ask that for me p you by my other names stinks as bad we don't need to revisit you as the board of supervisors we need to move forward without that piece and frankly the only answer for me is clearing resounding san francisco said no no

no thank you for listening. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is laurie have been a community organizing with tndc and other groups from the city i'm against the i'm going to 80 percent is where he a housing crisis in san francisco and the proposed legislation would take away lower-income housing for the higher income bracket we need to work on production for low income housing and against the displacement of low income people and people of color for example, in the 1980s the black population was 14 percent now it is lower to keep the city rising we need diversity and care about our neighbors in the neighborhoods make supporting locating housing and housing for the homeless a

priority thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is joe i'm with the mission housing we welcome the following discussion for the policy discourse on the environmental matter prop c that passed by almost 70 percent of voters last year sent a clear guidelines to make sure that the low income unit that require malcolm x residents you understand that today's hearing is informational and no legislation before you today, however, when that comes and the regulations are to be heard here we see original intention the proposition be kept we exist in sf we must be tim about maximize

missing as much inclusionary and we ask you explore the inclusionary percentages in sensitive neighborhoods and adding the excelsior to that list thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello my name is teresa imperial from the veterans housing program i'm here to talk about when it comes to affordability we're very much concerned that the low income will be up to 85 percent ami as our service where we help in housing applications and through the post application process and we have seen people who our low income for pretty much homeless but have jobs they're earning minimum wage for the

below-market-rate housing if that the low income increaseed up to 85 percent ami we we will fear that most of our clients or applicants will not be qualified to new below-market-rate housing but we at the same time see there are people who are not low income but you would say in the 60 or 70 percent i'm they're not qualified for the currently bmr set up right now for the rent-controlled units rentals so the prop c gives that opportunity for the low income and the middle-income to be qualified for middle market-rate especially, if they're not qualified for the homeowners but that said please take into consideration when it comes to affordability and ami to really

look at the middle-class and the sectors that are considered low income and middle-income who are struggling at that point we have not seen an applicant come to our officer who are 100 percent and 20 percent ami looking for affordable housing just so you can you know about that we're concerned about so when we talk about prop c and when during that proposition promised to provide affordable housing for low income and middle-income housing thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners peter i'm here on behalf of the mission economic development agency you have a lot more speakers to cover those topics i'll be brief and talk about one area that is critical want to bring to your attention to the fact it has to do with with some

of the other subjects including we'll look at today, we strongly believe in macro economics not without building in the system that make up the total itself not all neighborhoods are create the same it is critical we look at how those things impact the neighborhoods individually as well as what our one measurement could be what have the financial feasibility in different neighborhoods if we look at the recommendations coming in the report we see lower numbers recommended that are actually coming in some mission projects not only lower inclusionary numbers on the projects but their added less than official ami split for the working-class we're seeing numbers coming 23 percent at a 19 four split and

17, 8 split those are live right now we are recommended that a sensitive neighborhood element is critical to making sure this we think that very much in line with the intent of voters to make sure we are looking to the health of most vulnerable community members and communities under threat right now thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is don, i come here and crack a few jokes but today, i'm serious because i got this letter that i want to read and he found this last night and it says this everyone has a right to a standard of live adequate for health and wellness for his or

her and of heir family including food be clothing housing, and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security and the event of unemployment, sickness disabilities or the lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his or her control this article was written - that was a universal declaration of human rights and this was written by the united nations and the united states you know they had agreed to this and for me when i read this last night i was like wow, that is what the united states agreed to article 25 but then when i see up the

streets i see a lot of homeless people through the very docks and sleeping ♪ tents and everything else but america agreed to article 25 the united nations declaration of human rights and i feel like if you honor that there will not be that many people on the streets i think of people with mentally illness you wouldn't let a person with cancer out on the streets or chemotherapy or people with mentally illness wouldn't try to help them at all we need more low income housing, housing for really poor people because it is hard for them to get on their feet i think that deep down inside

that is a compassion and i wish they were - wish the city were abide by article 25 and help the homeless out in more low income housing and that's all i have to say thank you thank you, mr. boyd next item, please. >> hi good afternoon, commissioners my name is marilyn with people organizing for the economic and environmental rights i support the people who are making sure that we don't there the package 85 on the i mean, i'll read off that a similar worker will earn $80,000 to afford an 80 percent i'm one bedroom rental and then if we

think about janitors and our service workers probably 2 people probably don't make 80 thoughts increasing will not preserve the working-class people in the neighborhood and echoing that were supporter - voters greatly support prop c and really didn't port prop u more of a thing that plays obvious out in the conversation but definitely want to make sure we support low income and middle-income definitely- i've heard from someone who spoke earlier we know we're producing more affordable housing but a lot of the housing is contested and detailed. >> heard people contesting and filing appeals and making sure we increase the low income and middle-income make sure we are providing help for people that either getting pushed out of the neighborhood and city thank you.

>> thank you very much next item, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jesse i'm also with people organizing for the confirmation environmental rights i voted in favor the prop c with an overwhelminging majority of san francisco as a organizer and students i see the technical documents that are shared with us as a a historical document didn't don't take into account all the documents if i may take us down the history that is upcoming folding before us you mean of the persian mission laundromat in the basement of that laundromat was housing over 20 lower-income immigrants folks on the fringe of displacement paying 3 and 4 had had dollars a

month have been living there over 10 years not one block away from that laundromat is the proposed new development of market-rate housing which will be completely ineducational to any of the folks that gave a large chunk of their lives serving and thriving in the city we love and that they love this includes families and people that are terminating ill to piggyback on the comments of something else you wouldn't want to see people vulnerable living on the streets that is the reality we're forced before and the people in the enjoying one the last low income families people and folks and configurations in the city that is increasingly seeing the stress of people who are displaced moving into that

neighborhood as well as others in the city that have no where to go i call think you when it is time to use the tools we have to secure affordable housing for the folks that need it thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon from the veteran guilty center i'm amazed i've spent the last 25 years of my life fighting trickle down there is it is something that breaks my heart because this room i look at this room and whether or not i agree with everyone we're some of the smartest people in the field and many positions dealing with the issue of the housing crisis and this study is co-founder coming

forward with flat answers things we expect things that don't give you a lot of information about the inclusionary housing policy like what about the needs the marketed studies the people that need this type of information about the neighborhoods and what very support the top grateful and the things that guarantee goes into play when you approve those projects that are in front of you it is shrines you're looking at a business model from developers you know affordable but developers only it is procedurally a business deal and i'm really concerned this is the basis of a lot of things

coming up i hope everyone is aware and amendments changing the ami we serve two to 4 thousand different families and senior citizens looking for avenue that will qualify in you change the ami 2/3rd's of the seniors don't qualify they're by extremely lower-income housing or even below that but just to be clear 50 percent ami is not homeless housing it is my salary you know 1/3rd the room it is salary people working in the restaurants that have the retail and everything their telling them to commute further and further away to get those jobs look at you're on sustainability of the san francisco that's all i have to say thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioner good afternoon. my name is ferpd with the council the community housing organization i think i sent you all a letter and a table of income levels that might be relevant to the discussion today first of all, i want to say thank you to the technical advisory committee in the process that the controller put on the 3rd time i've watched one of these technical processes around inclusionary housing and i have to say that was potentially the most thorough debate that i've heard in those 3 times undergo the inclusionary process what the letter to you is several questions to consider today, i think you've heard from the controller around the maximize feasible amount of inclusionary what they came up with 20 percent rentals and condo that is reasonable but understand how those numbers were the basis this is a conceiving approach to what would be the maximum feasible amount the other thing discussed how much this will there over time improvements how we begun to understand the housing costs of low income this is really in the long term how much can the land price sustain iowa the controller came up a range of zero to one percent there and came up let's do a half percentage that sound good we're talking about ranges the third income levels should be served this is important you'll see in the next foe weeks competing proposals how to serve the various income levels this is

what the table before you looks at with prop c was a way to expand our low income to serve folks that have not been served bet itself existing construction laborers arrest teachers earn too much money from prop c it is not about taking away affordable housing like the stinky prop we dead but adding to that pot you may be seeing before you in the new proposal that had a big splash i didn't press conference last week to cut away the housing we have that is affordable for cashiers for janitor and hotel workers and parliament intuitions for school paraprofessionals and not only that but on the flip does the

rental does it actually because it lowers the income cuts the housing for school teachers that is important for you to think about those income levels. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with we're concerned with a proposal to change the inclusionary and i'm it is about helping us out the housing crisis the city should be focused on helping everyone to have stable homes not pitting different incomes with each other thank

you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. commission i'm andrew i'm with so moved cam and they're part of latinos that provide services to adults and families looking for housing income at 70 percent the controllers analysis assumes that the split proposed by prop c 55 percent ami for rent and 80 ami for condo and 40 percent middle-income one hundred ami for rental and 100 percent this

creates the housing caught in the middle of our low and middle-income workforce half of their income yet earn too much for the low income housing the may proposal eliminates the category and concentrate on the moderate under the circumstances here average 85 percent ami and the and 20 that he is thus pitting the low income with the higher the folks will have to earn 80 percent this is far more that the workforce other persons the hotel workers and janitor apprenticeship and the jobs that will be left behind by the mayors proposal with 100 percent 20 percent will be unavailable at the 100 percent ami by raising the income levels the mayors proposal will equal to a process of $2 million for develops for 100 percent with inclusionary units and more for condo projects we think an should be additional as prop c

calls for note taking away from the low income workers served by inclusionary we recommend maintaining the low income categories called for by prop c and adjusting the unit by smaller units with household and lower ami with income household what we see in our office every time affordable housing units affordable with 44 unit for 1 hundred locals apply for that competing with each other we should focus housing for all income levels the mayors is a backwards move thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is laura i'm one the hours case managers for the housing program at the

center i can only speak from my own experience from the clients everyday many of them as the co-staff said don't qualify for the 55 percent requirements for bmr so we're simple be mothers, we're talking about workers and talking about seniors people with disabilities who as of right now don't qualify i'm with one of the folks from the center

unit before i know he doesn't for the current development so people come to us and we have to say the city is not building housing for you unfortunately 29 thousand a year a lot of people don't make that amount on the other side of the spectrum we have some field workers and muni whole muni drivers and muni drivers who moved out to get work they can't afford even with the city salary to have their families live here they don't make 80 percent ami

you know we have a lot a lot from this changing policy took place will not the very, very low income but also people that are here who love the city and work for the city that keep our streets clean they can morning live here we have overcrowded households two or three families living in one bedroom those are working families that can't you know can't afford inform move to saint lee drove those are the families we see everyday in our office and that their competing there are thousands of families per development applying to so we hope that you will take into consideration thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners and of housing for chinatown cd i can to come you, you wearing with two mother foreveral hats and one hat one way or another

was a member of trek advisory committee i hope had a chance to read that on the back of 3 page letter john and i wrote to the tack as a dissenting opinion and i'll be happy to talk about the recommends and come to you as the chinatown cd c and chinatown cd c position one of the disappoint that the prop u fight in november reared its head and someone with proposing to away with the two-tier system it is important to have something that

serve the low income people we recommend that continue thank you. >> thank you, mr. jones next item, please. >> good afternoon. i'm teresa i work at senior citizen disabled action and a long time resident of district 3 i've gotten to know many of the seniors that matches the population that i see at the office those are people who 5 years ago thought they were middle-income they standard of living was one that was comfortable with incomes on average district 3

that will 37 thousand for district altogether the rents were on average or the anchorage was about one thousand a month for a one bedroom about 2011 there have been over 2 hundred people in north beach alone that have lost their homes throu those people have no where to go their way of living has been lowered immensely no housing included in san francisco for them we're not building for them even though they've worked entire lives to create city that most of us enjoy and the workers on the fwhooifrjsdz once lived nearby didn't need a car didn't need a bus could walk to work 40 percent of all workers on the wharf are currently living in

the east bay and that's not right. >> this is our this is happening throughout the city and each neighborhood different needs had different lose and we need to make sure we are including all people and especially those who have fewer options than someone who makes one and thousand dollars a year so, please don't let us pit one and be there for the san franciscans that need and will and have given thank you.

>> thank you, mr. cowen. >> good afternoon, commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. i'll pick up a bit where my colleague fendering do left off and talk about a couple of things that have not been mentioned unfortunately, i guess to repeat most of options is being sucked up by the new conversation of ami take into account i don't know why we're going there this is the state density bonus i'm happy to give a perspective if i had that was a miss opportunity by the city and here we are but i wanted to focus on number 7 and 8 on the document i know you've been studying awhile we've been talking first family unit about jet informational a few weeks the majority of this committee is a parent and many folks are

we want to see more family housing but the question how to get it we've recommended this section 415 an opportunity to put in standards for single-family homes know in the bmr those units are occupied by people that go through the screening we know when it is a family unit that a family will live in it you can't for market-rate housing but specific housing around bedroom size out of affordable housing standards and about the number of unit in the mix to put in 415 i read the hawks and it was interesting the examiners are hacking so be that it is a nice piece written about families and workforce but not over a solutions it didn't happen by saying we want it but proscribing it real estate confirmation are that building larger units is good for families is professionalable as much as smaller how policy dictates those outcomes that is an opportunity for 415 with the inclusionary the second issue is number 8 about fees we talk about the onsite unit and the state generally speaking people want to get mixed use onsite but developers fee out is currently

by the city proposal on state density bonus how do we insure those monuments are equal to the amounts onsite one fee the controller acknowledges that how no recommendations how to modified the feet methodologies we suggest you put into the ordinance a tier system of low and high-rise development that takes the different levels of fees they're paying their fair share so the building over 35 feet we want to recatch that incentive thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> budget & finance. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> thank you for listening to

u.s.s. and being here. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> for my own perspective or point of view in my personal cave. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i am a single mother and it is i'm already struggling to provide for my own daughter and worry other families that are low income like me. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i know other families are in

the same circumstances and worried i will not be eligible if this proposition passes. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i will also like to propose. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> for people who are very low income that have disabilities or who are retired and some of them living in disinherits they don't have a place it live. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it is also very warrior that a lot of the facilities for families homeless families are

at the maximum capacity they can't longer take families or individuals the shelters are awful. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> also that families are waiting for marry housing opportunity to come out and apply so they can keep their families together and barley able to pay their rent for a home for their families. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i hope that proposition will help more families be able to afford to live here and they don't have to move away anywhere thank you. >> thank you very much next

item, please. >> game-changer. >> i want to just say the situation that raising the i'm that was 85 percent whereas presently many, many people in san francisco can't afford to - what they're paying for most cases for people that are poor living in the sro that will continue to run - their effected and everything else so i'm totally against the mayor's proposal you heard me say that mayor is trying to put housing out of your reach more concerned about what is coming in town but citizens who cannot afford to be here many had to move because

the rents are through roof you guys are doing nothing to stop that i see many residents that can't afford the cost of living in the city many long term residents were eric acted out of their homes to this point and displaced like sutten ended up dying on the streets had a home for many years and her landlord decided to get her out for the unit for himself never mind that she lived there for a long term and when they lived in one the city sros paid 90 percent of hernandez is to rent and the city they're not doing if you go about that many unemployed san franciscans due

to the lack of work are our jobs are afforded in source and outsource workers to other countries that's a disgrace you want more money but deny the people who live here take away from them and give to something else we're san franciscans this is our home, too you don't say to go through what we go through in soup kitchen likeness not enough shelters to stleep in beds and the shelters are dangerous and people are doing drugs nothing it being done to fix that problem and they have a place to call their home where they could raise their children yet there are families living in poorly kept shelter by the way, the first families and many people of people of color our poor san franciscans deserve

better treatment we pay rent and taxation and vote like everyone else the mayor along with the planning commission and others don't have the right to sell but out sir, your time is up. >> sew, sir everyone has 3 minutes excuse me - >> thank you, sir thank you sorry. >> okay, sir everyone has the same amount of time let's get to the next speaker thank you for your comments. >> sir we're happy to accept additional comments in writing

next item, please. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you very much next item, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul wormer so when i came got interested in land use issues i was working as a nonprofit in oakland and with that did was getting me interested in land use and environment and makes me release the complexity of the system we're living in and introduced me to in put. >> output models that are useful economic model very powerful i believe this is used in a number of nexus studys that the planning department has run in particular one on the impact of market-rate on below-market rate demand

i don't hear that study referenced when we're talking about those problems of housing one of the interesting thing was that market-rate housing now an older study market-rate housing created a demand for about 40 percent of the units in below-market rate space we're proposing a solution to build housing we're cap at about 28 percent of the market-rate housing built we have a market-rate base solution we'll fall 12 period behind because of services demanded by the people who are moving into the market-rate housing that means we're putting demands stressing on the housing for the below-market rate at

full cross at the scene of the accident is he forced people into the city that he can't live here on transit and the roads driving transit costs up i'm not sure to what extent the analysis that was done has looked at the full impact on san franciscans they've talked about the housing but you know we've come off a real estate period wonderful in the city tremendously expensive properties changing hands at a high rate why are we in economic trouble in the city and are we really talking about propagating this we can't afford to support transit because of the increased demand but lack of money so i think there is a problem here we're looking at a point in a very complex system that is housing and think how do we there the hours but not thinking

about how this plays into the much more complexities system we're living in if we don't do that we'll not get good solutions and afford the housing that people require that's a problem. >> thank you, sir next item, please. >> and anyone wants to speak an ms. hester feel free to line up on the screen side of the room. >> sue hester looking at housing is like filing a bath tub and not seeing the drain is pushing it in and going how rapidly in the at the same time the workforce is not a high-end workforce in san francisco we're not all lawyers and as engineers or developers who make $200,000 a year and the workforce that is being

underserved and is lugd your housing rapidly is there is still serving the people of san francisco operating with the clerk at the local store and hotel workers and even union workers they go to the east bay to get housing they derivative if there's no transit to their neighborhood, they take bart and drive from somewhere else and so we're emptying the city out of the workforce that is in the city without every naval the change of the workforce demand on transit and roadways obvious city and that's not healthy planning one speaker talked about the workforce formally being able to walk to work

and now 40 percent of them living in east bay this is an enormous problem so we have got to have a planning approach that looks at the entire region how we pushing people out of city and where they'll get transit or transportation the second thing we need to do you have an opportunity to because you have it on your calendar a real report what is happening around construction student housing the planning department planning commission has not had that hearing the board of supervisors had a hearing a year ago enormous concern about academic institutions and nonprofit about building housing because the market is too high for students everyone except you guessed that the academy of art their really

building housing and no understanding of what that is and the last thing we're losing rent-controlled units magnificently it is a planning issue i know the planning department didn't deal with that you have it on your schedule about two manages from now we need a serious discussion about rent-controlled and what it is we've lost their dealing with that everyday - every week. >> thank you ms. hester next item, please. >> good afternoon commissioner and residents of san francisco i think what we need to focus on and remind yourselves i ourselves that market-rate development and building more construction either apartments or single-family homes is not creative demand for housing jobs creates the demand for here in

the bay area we've been creating magnificent amounts of job but the cities have not kept up with building now construction of apartments and condos the only way we can reduce rent, reduce the cost of pretty much a condo or home by building more master we can't do one single approach of only focusing on affordable housing but we need to focus on the market-rate housing as well to bring things down because for the poor people of our beloved city it is the barrier to entry to get into a bmr unit where purchasing or renting if online for a studio bmr unit to rent is $1,500 that's 5 hundred square feet and to purchase a condo you know it is a very expensive as well in order to rent or purchase a bmr you need a good credit

report and qualify for a mortgage so we can debate for the next one hundred years about the nexus study and the percentages but the bottom line is we need to drive down the pressure of costs for the average person to get into an apartment or condo in the city of san francisco so i recommend to please take your time as much as you need to review ted egan's report and vet it out and understand the impacts of the system for the average person in the city of san francisco to rent and to purchase thank you thank you, mr. hall. >> overhead please. >> i've showed you this before

may not be the most updated housing report we have to look at the target - we've build in the pipeline of what is in the pipeline of the above market-rate the market-rate housing as said we're at 200 and 95 percent and at the moderate and low income we're at 43 and 47 percent respectfully so we're way out of balance now there must be some logic that assigns the balance why we can't find a way to

follow that balance why we're building so much market-rate housing and so little based on target so little affordable and market this report has you know basically which seem to do anything about bringing that into balance if we start taking away from the low income to feed did moderate we have a need in both of the areas what we don't need it so much market-rate i've tenant a couple of that's a good question meetings it all real estate economics driven just accepted by the city that we have to - the developers have to have 18 to 25 percent return

over and over guarantee they'll go away and not over build all the market-rate housing we're healed hostage by of the developers threatening to go away so we don't meet the housing crisis and alleviate the housing crisis what we were doing we are creating the affordability crisis and have been when you look at the report i volunteering currently you to think about the balance and think about. >> any additional speakers on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. i know up to commissioners. >> here we are after hearing everyone here we are

it is like ground hog day not february 2nd we have incredibly complex issue housing in the city and honestly today something in that came out of everyone's mouth we patiently are truthfully everyone has something to say about housing a monster with a thousand legs i'm having a hard time trying to make sense ever it i don't have all the context what you said was true everything is true how can it relate to you know it is some point maybe over my dining room table do a systems approach market-rate housing generates demand for housing we get tax money from those people and mitigate and build more housing

how this gets b.a. packed into the garage i love for anyone to work on it sounds like putting this in context prop c don't care a stab in the dark and said 25 percent is the number of inclusionary housing we're not sure but a team fourth whether it is a good number they contact saying here's what we think master and rental and 7 or 8 recommendations in the meantime what has happened state density bonus to come on the scene that makes things complex that is what we're looking at today, the issue the ami it is not anywhere in the report it talked about where you want to get the minimum 12 percent of lower ami on projects and have the reminder of 60, 40 not the -

where the ami stuff coming from all people talk about the ami. >> changing the ami levels not in the controllers report is it somebody. >> there is discussion of the they're there's legislation that is being developed by both the board and mayor right now to talk about this issue the proposed ami levels and discussion. >> combot. >> the control reports didn't address that but it is specifically about the controllers report as charged by the boards legislation to look at the economics of the inclusionary. >> so that's ms. rogers. >> in my interest to the commission certainly safe is proposing a proposal that is out there from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin and so we'll try to present a broader context of the understanding of need to

help you look at it proposal in light of what we learned today about howard street. >> the nexus study was brought up by several people have a refresh on this study i'm losing track of time is it this fall. >> it was published in november 2016 so we can dictate. >> did we have that come before us yet. >> thank you just try to get myself positions for how i want to respond mr. david can you come up please you said something that startled me that report is making assumptions how we want the last 15 to dictate the next. >> we should go to a member of the taking the way to create

that - we're making the assumptions that the rent will be how the cost and the exact same manner during the next 15 greats that's my understanding of what was the summaries. >> you might want to speak to - >> mr. egan so we're at the same starting date. >> good afternoon, commissioners one of the recommended was that the requirement will rides .5 percent every year for the next 15 years and the thinking behind that was land values are traditionally risen many san francisco so projects should they rise in the future will support a higher percentage and many reasons why relating to housing demand and supply rents might not change in the future, however, we thought that was a reasonable summaries to say the

city's economy how it will look in 15 years if there is a radical difference we be happy to adjust sew you're not saying the rent will double in 15 years. >> in the last 19 years i mean, if he looked at only the last 5 years you'll say a very rosy view the san francisco economy when you look at the last 15 years the two biggest recessions so not an up story from the demand to supply on housing supply we're not anticipating major changes to the city's policy that fosters the 5 thousand affordable housing units. >> we have 4 thousand in the pipeline and in degree how does

that factor into all of this does that. >> i would say that we have had in the last two years that's been the strongest history in the master and not able increase from an earlier uptick but no projection we may make one when the 45 thousand units but will materialize as housing units. >> i have more specific questions recommendation number 6 this, please the state density bonus so let me try to put this in context that was passed in 1979 prior to us having the affordable housing requirement ours came in the 80's in the state density bonus was trying to let developers recapture the

value of the 5 percent minimum 5 or 10 whichever the costs of providing the units the make up is that your understanding the state density bonus. >> i'm out of my department of the state density bonus. >> somebody ms. rogers the intent of state density bonus i thought was to pay back the developer for making the housing affordable. >> that's correct that's since the late 1990s the thresholds are the 5 or 10 percent. >> is a calculated case i don't have it but the deputy and you'll get an increasing bonus that is greater foreign or for the lower be affordability. >> the world has changed and the affordable housing is higher what the table will proscribe. >> it includes the percentage and the number of units provided in the project and the deputy of

the affordability so the i'm level you're reaching it is the matrix. >> so i'm looking at here i'm an average person on the street the nexus study one report before us and i'd like to have you tell us what you think about the report we have a nexus study that says 40 percent he requirement because of the market-rate unit generates 40 percent of a person in a store like a cashier or whatever we'll give the developers a 35 percent bonus for rental of finally to 18 and owners another percentage and we're also saying that we're only charging density bonus program is 80 percent of that so this i'm trying to maybe mr.

egan. >> the 80 percent may be one number too many we're charging the in lui fee for the project and we're not charging the last if their bonus units will be charged the same as other units. >> ifd percent bonus for rentals we're charging them for finally to 18 percent on site someone said the rent-controlled unit were on site will be fees covering the costs of fees on site we cannot demand they're involved in the density bonus program how does that fee relate to what they would have paid. >> the question of the fee itself that thing we're talking about you know 23 to 25 relates

to something outside the scope but it is important, important people to remember the nexus study is a parallel study. >> not part of feasibility analysis. >> so this was affordable housing recapture if you're in the eastern neighborhoods you have a fees all the fees apply to the unit okay. thank you. >> okay some other question so we had a speaker get up and say projections come before us and approved it wednesday 20 percent and thursday 25 percent how can we sit here and say we want to charge less than what we're getting that doesn't make sense. >> a number of reasons a project might be able to do more or show more affordable housing than the ranks we're recommending one reason because

there is not a market price for land high profile sources they're free and have more resources abdominal available more affordable housing there could be differences across the city and landlord values that allow projects in some areas to support higher affordable housing we raised that issue with the taking i think the group concluded conducted not an easy i kn thing - the territory is a city average and projects on either side. >> maybe we can work on that in the next report. >> a couple of other remarks on the inclusionary my heart

jumped the inclusionary will reduce the city of market-rate housing but increase the number of bmr for the locating folks and raising housing crisis for consumers on average i get out of this is true i have no reason to believe that is not the feasible impacts will be over crowding with the rates up no-fault evictions so a lot of things of the objections that interesting we want to make sure that didn't happen an untended consequence recommendation 3 for the 20 to 28 percent for overflow room with the represents is this to close the loophole between when the developer says it is cheaper to fee out does that kind of

close that loophole. >> that loophole will be a policy goal it is simply what is the equivalent cost. >> i think coming up with that answer thank you it is also help us to close the loophole so the equivalent i agree with the index over time to make that predictable that makes sense i like the 3 year look back and i think i will save more for later but appreciate this is a good job. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> a couple of questions on fee your assumption on so you assumed in our analysis to this discussion on ami what is currently the rule that 60 percent of units are at the lower income level and 40 percent areal a higher or

moderate. >> off the top of my head the percentages are different for renter but we modeled it on a 60, 40 percent 60 were protecting and 40 moderate. >> your model mr. give the opportunity us as policymakers to adjust that from the the president was to adjust the ami levels down or up. >> certainly we can support that like i said, we did one alternative simulation. >> can you remind me what the alternative simulation. >> it was never less than 12 percent low income. >> what's the law. >> law of privacy. >> the difference between the ability to do more for overflow room versus rental that is a direct relayed to the ami level or other things that play.

>> no has to do with with the sales price of margaret costs and vacancy it is - ownership is more lucrative in the city at the moment. >> no way to quantify the i'm levels are different for for ownership. >> that's not the driver. >> i thought what the gentleman said to us what interesting and kind of looking at ami and context of what the rental market and even you can look at the for sale market it did you look at that at all i don't know where those numbers came from but what rents are in various neighborhoods and what i'm level they would equal to. >> it is interesting to know in various neighborhoods what

are market rents and who can afford at what ami levels. >> i can say that those numbers came from real world actual projects across the city and rental projects that are reflecting costs and prices and rents as of 2016 in terms of the market rent and who can afford what it is important to remember that the vast majority of rent is market rent we have people of all market moving to san francisco and most in this decade are low income the ability for them to accommodate themselves is how many people in but unit. >> i think that is good to if ami is going to be an issue what level should we target for ami

or pac or are they competing with the measures at different ami levels just to put it into context what an average rent you know rents change throughout the city or what an average for sale what i'm would that target. >> we say given the market rent this is the household for that to be on affordable thirty what's her name of income. >> mr. richie. >> i think we can work on data very, very total because you brought it up in we've seen that in the outer neighborhoods represent rents are down one and 20 or theo percent of ami market rent that is clear as well in the central neighborhood registered with higher than that in any conversation around bringing ami into the one

hundred rank the mayor's office of housing in the room will say that such a proposal will have to include a provision that no matter what the code says the state says you can offer them one hundred and 20 percent of ami or 20 percent of market whichever is 0 lower a safety value that says regardless of code about bmr's if it neighborhood has rents lower you have to be 20 percent lower than the market otherwise end would be bmr's that were the same as market-rate and that doesn't make sense. >> thank you i want to put that out there. >> on the fee calculation which i admit i don't understand how the fee is calculated seems like an overly calculated way to calculate it but did you - is

there a way to better calculate it fee - i guess the goal a make that equal to the units onsite. >> what it cost of subsidies is sew that's not one the tasks we look at in the study to figure out what costs the city occurs in producing affordable housing and how to better match the total fees to that cost we're providing the fee percentages just equivalent to the develops on the onsite that were feasible. >> we are often faced with the developers there's an incentive to fee out or to do onsite and they're often policy you know preferences to do onsite so it gets kind of into a little bit of an unknown as to what the fee

is or how to make that equivalent. >> that wasn't challenging for the consultants to say this is how much per unit this onsite costs and translate that basically cash value per unit subordinate an equivalent from a. >> oh, is that how the fee a calculated no. >> why not. >> that's a question for the other study. >> from a policy perspective is there an ability do we have to make the fee equivalent to the fee and through state law make the fee so there is a preference for unit and i will defer that to something else. >> the percentage requirement for offsite is not linked by law to the onsite except in the that can't be above the nexus you so

you can what the controller is giving did you the economic to 18 onsite is 23 to offsite you're not bond to set those we want to incentivize so we'll adjust them the other issue we'll in terms of how the per unit fee how many dollars per units is entirely a different question i'll leave that to the mayor's office of housing. >> it would be higher. >> as long as you don't go above the nexus otherwise a policy call. >> okay. all right. >> and then the increase over time i mean, i agree with the intent to get it to you know there it over time i'm not sure i get the confirmation behind that return for an

investment is different for the same price if you have a bmr condo here versus where you go to oakland i'm wondering if it is part of analyzed you did or

whether it is also be at some point if we increase the i'm for the homeowners unit i'm wondering another what point that doesn't make sense anymore economically for a family to buy a two bedroom condo and mission bay verse cross to the square in terms of relationship of what we get versus what we need i have have not hearted heard that as part of conversation i worry about that i see the mayor's office of housing and community development back there i'm wondering what that looks like for rent-controlled units i understand to commissioner president hillis point earlier about saying there has to be a little bit of relief mechanism 20 percent per neighborhood but at what point did that makes sense for rent-controlled units good in terms of increasing the ami are we going to if we built

framework will we be faced with a whole bunch of units that can't move and if i'm one the owners i'm not the developers they often get out of it but sitting i'm the owner like not be able to move and wondering in the mayor's office of housing did an analysis how long it takes and whether there is a relationship between the ami and the ability of margaret agencies to move those how long their unoccupied and all that stuff. >> to your first question commissioner we tried to do a study that were laid down by the trailing legislation to look at the economic feasible inclusionary housing during the work we ran into many, many policy questions but not close enough to take on that amount of

work the question of - when does a household decide to have a bmr or a market-rate unit in some other city is not something we considered the city has a number of policy tools i'll ask my colleagues mohcd to speak to that. >> good afternoon, commissioners mayor's office of housing and community development we don't have a study we have anecdotal information at this point we currently have unit that recold one hundred and 20 percent i'm no shortage of boroughs it does that make

sense? the neighborhood that takes to find a qualified buyer i can get real data on that so that you can see that comparison but that's up to one hundred and 20 percent ami. >> i get the quick numbers at one and 50 percent or one and 40 percent ami you can buy a two bedroom unit in oakland you know in the return for the investment is very different than a bmi here i'm wondering is that the trend that some of the legislation that i've seen that is worked on is that a possibility i'm wondering how you feel that will go. >> it is theoretical at this

point but you have good questions. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i had a few things but we've had discussions the sort of split policy and economic between homeownership and rental i'm glad that was brought up and like to say since that came up i'm not sure that those sort of discussions of policy around homeowners will come up in the orientals i understand that is not the scope of the report from ted egan's the controller's office but i will say since that was brought up that you're right commissioner mar the math didn't add up over a certain percentage of ami and not just about the market for resale; right? no shortage of people any particular in case level that needs the place to qualify for

it but the return on investment for an individuals are families getting the unit is very different and that's how the program is structured we don't appreciate to the market level but significantly blowing below that so the unit can be kept in the bmr program that's a different calculation and a discussion for another day we have a lot of discussion on the homeowners versus rental we need to talk about the inclusionary policies interact with the good of people owning property i don't know they're the first decision but. >> couple of things again, i appreciate the controllers report this is now a bunch of times we've seen this report since the task excluded and this

very complex stuff we are talking about not hard but complex lots of valuables that shift and challenging to stick a pin in and say the boundaries of what we can do with the legislative process at some point have to decide had is what we're doing i want to have everyone understand those are forks that shift over time and not the same year to year and commissioner president hillis took the words out of my mouth didn't match up to the construction costs the way the construction costs are ballooning we're talking about complex things over time interest rates will go up and salaries go down in the

construction industry those things can change as of now the in lui fees are not close to the construction and whether or not this is something to be considered for the in lui fees or at least give information on for a project how many actual units do we get from a project i understand that is economically e restaurant the fees maybe for a project but in the real world the dollars are given as of right now didn't cover an equivalent unit somewhere else so it was not the purview of the controllers report but not necessarily that will come up again but part of the citywide conversation how we actually get unit on to the market there's soapbox one second

i was clear coming in today, the discussion about i'm are going to be part of discussion around the various versions of updates for section 415 i'm not going to touch that we'll get to that later not the purview of the controllers report and over time one the shifting discussions not for today, i horde a couple of people in public comment and important to say this not all people of color are poor we have a fault equalization how to maintain the diversity communities and support of neighborhoods with a lot of the diversity and communities of color with with affordability they're not the same discussion i want to make that point i heard a number of people say safe community of color you must

have low income housing it is insulting to say those are the same as long as we do we'll not get anywhere in creating a different city not a discussion for today with the controllers report a lot of other factors but it is a position that i come from and something that will color everything i say in the future on this topic so one of the things this came up a couple of times maybe for mr. - so there's been an issue two people said that mr. egan and others saying we're creating perverse incentives to hold back stimulates i'm not saying that will happen but my understanding that entitlements in the city regardless of how you get to

them cu or whatever the entitlement they are a sunset date can you discuss that how does that work when you get a property entitled not having it forever and hold on it for something in the far future. >> our sunset is 3 years from the construction document and allowing for a litigation or something that will stop the cost so for that time period. >> what if i sell entitlements does that clock starts again. >> i don't know see. >> typically 3 years i think we've revved from the city attorney's office entitlement stand point it didn't community-based away unless the commission or staff approves the project takes an action to revoke it but the separate

questions the bmr so a discussion who there should be a time limit for a bmr. >> right. >> so i understand that we've had that i think we're talking about two discussions that's what i'm getting to what think for the entitlement for the property your ability to build this to xyz it sounds like that didn't go away. >> the advice we've received is actually requires an revocation action. >> so - >> but it is the thing is written into the planning code we can establish anything we want. >> you and the board and mayor wanted in the form of legislation. >> in terms of inclusionary rates help me my memory is not an elephant so i believe whatever the rates apply whenever you have construction

documents; is that correct. >> or when you get the entitlement. >> remember the trailing legislation has the established the rent position. >> combot. >> so those graisht positions are in place as of right away. >> so the approval of your environmental application. >> acceptance want environmental application. >> thank you for that sorry i wanted to get that straight it is a minor but semi important point and don't want it to be a lightning rod; right? a separate discussion of entitlements and when we get projects and what value maybe conferred from entitlements and clarify that i appreciate that. >> so a couple of other things on the state density bonus it clearly has thrown a whenever

into many things based on the policy but like to say once again on the ami the state density bonus preceded the tax credit and no compatible tool for housing so i say that and pistol for when we start to discuss the ordinance and the ami covers and then - two more items i appreciate the letter i read today and there's discussions about having difference inclusionary rates for multiple bedroom units so saying if you have a two or three bedroom unit presumably have two or three working adults in the household that are bringing in some income that is more than just one head of households bringing in income and what that can support

i think that is a really interesting point don't want to get into the detail i thought about, about i think that will come up as we consider the specific ordinances but it is interesting i will say once again, i see a perverse incentives in terms of creation of units who they go to but hostility not part of controllers report that is something i nodded in the discussion that is something to really consider and then finally, i want to get to the point commissioner vice president richards said this mr. egan pointed out then when we talk about how we sort of match the inclusionary rates to the market essentially how and there's anything from this is it forever and always to block steps or increases and decreases

or changes to do nothing and project level negotiation so i want to enter into the discussion that when we talked about individual projects be able to support more housing there is always a trade off with those projects either you know they can't no longer support the prevailing wage and have to their costs going back and getting concessions from the learned may not be visible but always a trade off what we're asking for more inclusionary for certain neighborhoods than others and in the span of what we talk about what options can we have to make sure the inclusionary is the time in the market i think that it is challenging for us but agree with the proposal if the controllers report to a sort of have sort of a step there over

time so much that is complex about the product negotiations that sort of thing as we've seen in the history of time it is exorbitantly to tie the market in the scheme of things i wish we had a god eye are crystal ball this is what will be supportable in this and that market but without that having the controllers report is helpful. >> can i make a comment on that through the chair. >> just because of issue of project level no more questions was brought up i want probation officer point out if you look at into the next few years and look at the large projects in the pipeline probably eight or ten total coming up and you know those - the affordable housing from those are effectively inclusionary but their negotiated i bans a performa with actual economics and almost

every case we're going to be at least in the mid 20s and maybe in the mid 30s on those projects if you look at we're preparing those numbers you'll see them soon the total units is quite a bit more of unit from the inclusionary program in the same amount of time so in effect we do project level negotiations for the very large projects where that makes sense and none would not want us to do that we get the highest numbers and looking at a performa and spending months and months with the developer squeezing out of them we can't do that on every project but the unit from those negotiations will be more overall than the units from the inclusionary program. >> thank you, mr. rich good point i've been in the past in agreement but for the projects you do have all the factors

accountability a large project and last year podium and a lot of pieces to move around and don't necessarily have that will the projects that are not subject to sort of the larger economics and project agreements in those cases that's what section 415 covers i don't think that sort of looking at the tiny da is going to work for inclusionary now there is something to be said for arguing for other types of community benefits you can make a clear argument from a nexus but the controllers report makes a good point here. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i'd like to thank mr. egan and thank the controller and staff for the spending a lot of time on the project i reject no, i actually, i appreciate your

candor to include the disagreement that takes a certain amount of currently and appreciate you being as forth right. i feel the same anxiety i felt for the pga of prop c where we spent a lot of time talking about the issues going for long, long meeting with the same people that spoke today about their concerns said the same thing and indeed acknowledging the huge gap between market-rate housing which is being built in the city the problem for those who do want to live at the lower end of the market is less and less possibly because the numbers are not decreasing but increasing despite the numbers on the books of units that could meet the targets and diminish the gap

having said that, who are we build for i would pickup on supervisor kim's question because i hoped that prop c would give us tools by which we can better handle of what is already a very much losing proposition i know that each of of us feel about that the same thing how, however, why are we changing the income the target for inclusionary housing if i read the report correctly and why are we shifting away from prop c goals again, i'm having a simple reading of the report and leaving out the subtle's and the deputy of knowledge knowledge and in the end i'll gravitate towards listening to those who are speaking to the addition of

middle-income i think it is important and over passed which i think follows pronouncing, however, we're doing that at the expense of both who we were originally concerned for and fighting for for the last 8 and 10 years my question. >>was raising households income levels why are we - wait the reality of the actual dollars that we are saving and are those savings for a developer dollars where are the savings being reapplied for covering low income units i don't see that being spelled out if with we are to maximize the inclusionary the table of the ami calculator needs to be look

at more closely we are acknowledge hearing about ami but not understanding the salaries which are behind them and the people that make those salaries i feel comfortable using the language of dollars we know what the types of dollars do and don't buy us in the city to better understand the shift you're now making to hire ami at the average and in that sense it is shown in the table you are leaving out those people which we have original been concerned about which are the ones we are creating neighborhood plans mission 2020, etc. etc. i am confused by the rolling back of the affordability when on the other hand, we're trying to create neighborhood specific

plans that try to more grace that broader concept of all >> thank you commissioner moore. >> commissioner vice president richards the stands 24/7 me and lunch is my comments i'm hungry question for mr. jones you wrote a letter commissioner moore included me briefly what was - you have done definitely here. >> i think basically there is a poor area i think what the taking report report didn't capture the issue perhaps one the underlying concepts that was

talked about the idea to the talking to come up with the current production stays in >> produced more levels of low income - methodology is hard an economic analysis requires the data to be the data to be good for the analysis to be good the data provided by folks who have a vested interest in making it look like it is hard the most data comes from market-rate developers the database is -

the data that under lies the analysis is a challenge also the way the analysis is done a peace meal this and that and rather than taking the analysis how does that work versus other potential options the results were in some cases didn't match with the data so for example, the bumps the average bumps a range of zero to one that was a vote and not saying one percent makes sense or a half of a percent makes sense and you bonus is another result not matching with the result of opinion that the city attorney has offered and therefore not present to the taking and became the reason we treated the bonuses the whe bon

and developers are offering inclusionary they can't you doing it in real life the model is the problem not the real life and things left out of the analysis entirely that have been touched on the sensitive neighborhoods and questions of the fee level and the investing and time investing. >> thank you very much in closing on the state density bonus program you know we're incentive viking the developers by giving them the bonus and we don't want to disincentive individuals lvrnd to hold on to the land we want all the costs not to go to the

consumer but a person got up and said we shouldn't westbound taking this out of the rewatch bonus i disagreeilevying the fe to create a windfall for vendors but to give an incentive for building units and lastly waiting on this and studying it which is kind of a theme in sum of what the other folks say we have a country's move on doesn't make sense for whatever day or month another project will move in we need to move on this quickly thanks. >> thank you seeing none, no other commissioner or comments if we

can ask what's the process from here we've got ordinances that i guess are introduced in some wait the timeline moving forward. >> currently on the schedule a march 9 two weeks ago from today an informational presentation to go over one from supervisor kim and supervisor cowen from december you heard supervisor kim indicating she's planning on bringing substitute legislation and look forward to discussing that and any other proposals in the context of that information you've heard and compare all of that to what we heard from the controllers shoed with the additional compensation about the housing units and have a hearing schedule for potential actions inform deliver the recommendations to the board of supervisors as to what changes should be made for 15. >> thank you actual for thank you for your time to come here it was a productive discussion and thank you to the taking and

the controller's office and other city staff for participating we'll take a one hour break be >> good afternoon we welcome back to the planning commission regular hearing for thursday, february 23, 2017, commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on item 8 the code enforcement program - informational presentation. informational presentation. >> chris code compliant thank you for the opportunity to present an overall of our code enforcement program i promise you this will think simpler and not tax the brain as much we

provided a comparison of our code enforcement activities over is past 5 years. >> can i have the overhead, please? thank you and as you can see from your handout we're comparing and listing the numbers of the open cases from 2012 to 2016 you can tell a significant difference from 4732, 3, 4 envelope to this year's total this calendar 2016 to 4 thousand plus cases at first, i was looking at numbers from 2006, 2007, 2008 that were actually

forwarded to me by a colleague that was cleaning out old files i was 90s some of the complaint levels and i do remember a few years ago your complaint were rough about thirty per month and in that period of time the violation types were generally mostly illegal uses and front yard that was a and alteration, however, in the recent years they've changed to representative what is happening in the city in code enforcement the complaints that are filed very clear bar roommate of the stress and finding housing and industrial space in 2011 and 2012 we start to see significant numbers of complanths reporting short-term rentals now they represent 4 percent of total number of complaints a very,

very sharp increase from 2015 however, what we're finding as well in later years is that we receive cases that involve the lose of pdr and other illegal office used and in the last 5 years finding did troubling cases are the house related cases the group housing the hacker hostiles and dwelling mergers and violations the bmr as well as the short-term rental cases and most recently not surprising we're getting cases roughly 14 that we're working on with other departments unfortunately similar to the ghost ship type of building all of those are priority and in many ways their complicated than the past types of cases we still

have steady numbers in our illegal commercial uses without a benefit of paving and the violations and conditions of approval cases we've kept up with the coddling we close as many that are open still have an actual case level roughly sociosome months more and some less a steady caseload got below one thousand as many cases are coming in we are closing cases we are a little bit behind i'm telling you staff the dream scenario we we close out all the cases we can close them and that's with a thirty day period but not gotten to that

i also included a map where the cascades are that roughly can tell you they're relatively evenly prospected around i city their clusters and those represent you all the cases that was a little bit complicated not enough colors for all the types of of violations but a rough idea where they are and fortunately through our support we have been able to keep up and have been able to increase our staffing and this has been very, very largely due to the commission we've doubled our staffing that contemplates of years and years of under staffing made tremendous gains, however, in the staffing table you might want to note that includes the staffing that we have now that we have given to

the office of short-term rentals the office of short-term rentals has 3 positions and that includes two planners 3 and one planner intuition the office of short-term rental is staffed with 3 positions under the general agency under the office of city administrator so i might want to mention as well under the general advertisinging program that is a separate program when this first started in 2006 or 2007 a separate code enforcement unit and there were separate staffing two planners and will 5 or 6 interns that larger concluded around 2012 and so, now we have one advertising so you can see we've made tremendous gains and

a staff of 14 and we're happy about the staffing where still have the load we have but much, much better. >> the next package i want to go over with you are penalty i's i know you're interested in the pencil till earth and heaven ring. a large increase into the amount of penalties we collect they've been reported out in the program as well as joe general code enforcement the recent increase it largo due to collection of the 3e7b89d from the academy of art in the general advisement program, however, a couple of years were basically large

settlements from sign companies one of the things we emphasis and stress is that the staff we stress that our program emphasize compliance with the planning code not the collection of penalties we do - are able to collect penalties in section 176 of the planning code the penalties are a big stick since the program come in roughly 9 years ago that has helped the compliance many people unfortunately do not consider abatement of their violations and will exposure us until they get the letters this is a something really, really significantly helped our compliance what i wanted to do it give you a super simplified view a recreation of how our program works the complaint are filed we

essentially have complaint through the enforcement hotline by phone and fax and i'm through the public information current and the reception desk and electronic website through snail mail that is surprising popular people want to be unanimous at times and get referrals into 311 i've enclosed a complaint form it gives us an idea that makes it easier for us to file the complaint i've also gone ahead and included improvement process to let you know how those roughly go about our process we send out a notice of complaint every time a file a complaint is filed it goes to the property owner on record we use the sear

information and goes out automatically calculated we do we say a dmrament been filed not specific what type of property and complaint and what happens is that the property owner if we're lucky will call us back immediately and ask us why the complaint was filed and if there is a violation on the property a lot of times it didn't work that way we may have to escalate it to a level of enforcement and go to the notice of violation it takes days we can start educating penalties but, of course, we do have a robust appeal period there's a lot of

due process so i've included about the due process progress in general it is a little bit different than other advertising signs we use this for most of our cases from a notice of violation to request the zoning administrator hearing free at charge conducted bit zoning administrator scott sanchez arrest corey teague or his detainees when it decision is made there can be a violation of penalty decision the party is allowed to appeal at the board of appeals sometimes there are many weeks many months and sometimes unfortunately years until we actually the address the abatement of the violation the due process is very important it is very important legally for us to address the process in one fix, however, what we are going to be doing is

if now we've gotten one 76 well under our belt here we'll be coming back you, you to say in the summary summer and meeting with the city attorney we've been exploring options to essentially tighten up 17 of one of the facility issues on one 76 didn't allow us at the present time to address repeat are violators is sometimes upsetting to staff that our complaints have to be refiled we believe we've addressed it but unfortunately, the property owner the same property owner and business owner permanent what will happen once we are gone the same violation may occur it is something we want to discourage the possibility of increasing penalty we've been

having a series of meeting with the city attorney and another thing we'll be exploring with the city attorney is a way to deal with urban laugh demolition right now the 176 doesn't deal with the unlawful demolition one 76 didn't deal with things that are irrational and, of course, with the loss of demolition the building is gone we'll not get it back can't be abated we've been exploring the options with the city attorney and hope to come back from the summer as well with some options and ways to deal with unlawful demos in this case we'll come back with the idea of penalties i believe it will discourage some unlawful decisions and that is something we're working closely with the city attorney and again, we know

it is important to the commission it is troubling to staff as well what i've included is some details in terms of the cases opened in 2016 and those that are closed and going back to 5 years and in certain cases the types of complaint were two fine-grained and been cloeld some of the case types but give us an idea of the teaches cases we are dealing with now and again, the cases we're dealing with now are much more serious because they involve loss of housing we're not going to get back or lose of pdr their definitely high priorities and a life saving factor that the department of building inspection those, of course, are very, very troubling we have to immediately jump on these nodes

we don't enforce like front yard paving or legally fences but pdr we have to get on them right now or losing the resources this is how we prioritize we've been blessed is staff we assign an a quadrant level we do use the quadrants we have additional staff and the code is so complicated we're also assigning cases like complaint type with some of the complaint types maybe such things and grep or pdr that type of thing because it is difficult for the staff to be totally conversant in terms of their method the enforcement on all types so i've been

assigning it in that manner any questions you may have i know we've had a long day already by i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> about our enforcement process. >> thank you very much see if there's any public comment and then questions. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore and p. >> well, thank you thank you, thank you an amazing report and i hope as the the enforcement comes more to people's eyes we're discouraging people to violate violations in the city have there are - have been increasing because everybody thinks no ones cares but the pedestrian and at - over the years almost 10 every so often i

snap a picture in town and send it to the group of people that were talking to us and say hey, is that working for example, in the things have chained to the extent you have to be code period of time to understand whether or not this fails under a code for example, the wrapping the historical buildings on pine street was a columns they're wrapped three quarters of the health club that observes the stock exchange and it is groovy in reality it is totally against anything else i'm not the interpreter so the pro to goes to the group hey, you guys what are we are doing they're on it and do what they need to do or

established a ruling with conditions rain daugherty did external appearance and therefore a month or two getting a reminder there is a change that falls back with the recidivism in terms of improvement they'll do it again and send another picture is this it i commend you for doing what you're doing and if i could perhaps discuss this with the budget that those people that need to be on airbnb that their additional staff being assigned to the case i building that the more consistent and quickly we execute the compliance the better we are to say no. >> thank you commissioner fong. >> do you have a comment. >> ms. hall.

>> thank you very much for sending us those e-mails we appreciate the eyes and ears we work on a complaint basis only and not always obviously not going through street by street to see the violations we always appreciate those and you can freely to give the complaint out to people they find us generally but not directly sometimes their boungsz around a little bit. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you for the programs experience of frustration ones the program develops that is good to see positive results which is a matter of equality and fairness that's a good reason to keep this in the budget and applaud our efforts and the teams off the record. >> can i ask you on the loss we've seen a couple of loss of

pdr but an office tenant is in the space how is that - enforced what - once the identify a problem a tenant with a lease how do you get it back to pdr use. >> not easy many times what will happen the fact they of the the lease with the property owner sometimes, we'll see that the property owner has knowingly advertised it as flex space database so there are cases you run into the permit very clearly says no office use we have a few cases right now where frankly it is upsetting but essentially we need to get them out i mean not an immediate issue a month or two it is hard to find a space

we are pro business and want the business to thrive but not in those types of spaces we've had a couple of trainings of brokers we said look you have to understand in those areas you can't have office use we are setting up another wound it is not easy they have to find another space but still have to vacate. >> how so the relationship with dbi i can imagine with the complaints of unlawful demo a dbi enforcement issue they exceeds the permit as well as planning. >> fortunately i've got a great relationship with dbi i regularly meet with a few of the top members of dbi and i frankly started doing that a few years ago because the projects i was

having trouble with were the same projects they were having trouble with we'll occasionally meet over coffee and say you know a lot of it was like have you run into this and that particularly with the ghost ship type of warehouses we exchange information i think we do need to work closure together on certain types of cases their troubled by the unlawful demos their clearly not happy as well i be we have to get more coordinated and make sure we're on the same page but work well with them and the other departments but with dbi we're next door and frankly a lot of the cases that we have if it is a construction related we send it to them first, they have more field inspectors that works out that way they'll get back to us.

>> thank you commissioner mar. >> hi so i was on the bank one of the things that dbi has done i think is really great for the habitable organizations that have special relationship that the constituency not likely to call for encroachment because they don't speak the language i'm wondering if you think there is any possibility using that idea or piggybacking on what they do particularly for the demolition i'm wondering if you - so the complaint that you get on if you think their pretty much across the board you know equally intersource throughout the city or neighborhoods that tends to have more complaint than others as they're not evenly dispersed some types of

complaints are more prominent in some neighborhoods but the code enforcement outreach program is what you're speaking about i know we have a discussion at the warehouse combrep about using this group to outreach to in the resident of the building i know or knew the program but it was not as extensive as it was i believe you're right it could be very, very well utilized in terms of getting the word out i didn't realize they have such an active group. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> so this is one of the soapbox items since i started with the georgia swedish getting up and showing you those bizarre cases where demolitions are called alterations and so fought

for the 2017 reform, etc. and their definition of demolition i guess the thing that bothers me is like on the cragmont street one clearly the house was down with the photograph the dbi inspector said but dbi doesn't apply their penalty this is the disconnect they're saying that is demoed why did it kick ever to us to approve it. >> i can't speak for dbi on this file but i know they're not happy about cragmont as well we'll be exploring that further with them and one of the things before we go further and brick that back to you our proposal for possible penalties for unlawful demolition we are clear they work with dbi as well and be sync with them.

>> i would like nothing more than them to apply their penalty what we diagnosed. >> they are before i don't know their standards in terms of when they apply and don't. >> the dpoongs will be a meeting item. >> yeah. >> on the detergent and complainants someone has to make a case and the compliance have the deterrence where we penalize you not to want to do it i don't put a quarter in the parking meter but a $75 ticket makes they think and punitive if i'm one minute late on the parking meter automatically that's a hyperbole but this compliance

base wringing things into compliance really is not having any desired effect with how does one thousand square feet when they commensurate to pdr i don't think the penalties are enough it is kind of a enforcing mechanism if we don't have something that is dvrlg others it a cost to business. >> i agree it is the cost of doing business there are businesses that build it ♪ certain cases professionalable high growing businesses frankly and that's why i think we have to have higher penalties for those who don't comply within x days or continuing to do this clearing the 258 didn't work for certain types of cases for most cases that works well, there are

state limits in terms of how much we can charge and have to be conscious but looking at all the alternatives i'm seeing about the egressing violator that repeat one of the reasons we don't close cases rapidly we know the mo and keep it on what it does we come back at the end of the month it sometimes will force the planner to you know drive by or something like that or it is one the methods we have but the repeat violated are very troubling to me - what happens we get the reputation as you kind of mentioned that the public buildings we're not doing our job >> the other question a business in my neighborhood it opened up illegally the retail

use they put a kitchen behind it completely unpermitted and then have a planning issue and a heartache department issue and didn't pay their taxes they had property taxes yet they came and wanted to get an entitlement how do we catch those types of people an issue over here and here and here and remedy those. >> in certain cases we'll find out the problem we deal really everyday with the healthy we have contacts there the healthy right now especially in the environmental division has turned over 12 or 15 staff retired within a short time period but if we feel those are really troubling and that their deficient we can frankly block

their permits. >> if i don't pay any dmv fee for a licensee don't get a inspector sticker in the mail or owed al anyone for not paying child support do we have a database that says they didn't pay their taxes anything to look at costs to actually help each other out. >> there's a little bit of - some of that comes through in senator wiener's legislation it didn't work that way and one of the things we talked about scott sanchez and the zoning administrator talked about in the past having some of our dream conveyer that is have

- we can make sure we're not duplicating the enforcement and we're making sure that we are that both sturdiest of those assets i want to thank the wonderful staff in the planning department staff and take that opportunity and kate connor is a really, really terrific and she's exemplifies the interagency working in collaboration with the multiple agents very helpful thank you. >> open up for public comment

and maybe questions any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and recognize commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much thank you for the presentation i'll keep it short it is really good to see all this in one place as a redevelopment i've been familiar with the mohcd policy with the homeowners policy with a number of years and with the been the board with a cac and administer some units we control which goes to my next point for the second time i'm quoting how horrible i am are for many years have questioned the homeownership program not

how it is administered or enforced that makes sense the mohcd staff you say can be better coordination but with the number of units that on the market for the families in the unit it is great for them but as continuing on a comment i made wisp talking about the controllers report from the offices of inclusionary there are so many chief administrative officer yots to the homeownership program the amount of appreciation the fact you can't use a home as an investment in terms of be able to use other fund they argue that costs the housing crisis but having our home there in the just as a place you live but ann as an investment the pack that that is not the case with those properties you can't transfer title not role a property i own

that you can do whatever. >> want with makes me question why we call it a homeownership program it is something for everyone to think about particularly as we go forward and how to support those things that is a different cost and different level of support to support a rental inclusionary program versus the homeownership and i want to put that out there being honest for many years questioned the value i think that is a value in setting up people for actual homeownersships; right? the appreciation the plaster for the unit you're in to set you up to get the future finances in order to do that the unit themselves you know it is like homeownership that is something i've thought about for over a

decade helpful for the family and the staff did a fantastic job and sound policy it i think is time to take a clear look at it and without you know - judgment look at what value that program is providing for the families of san francisco thank you really good information and great to have it all in one place. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> to commissioner johnsons point ownership like stewardship quote overflow room was a good word that hit me a really good point we hear a lot from the public and public comment about the bmr and criticisms at the program or programs for the li a low the i

didn't on hayes valley for one bedroom i don't get it do i stay in the lottery or keep on going. >> that's a high threshold maybe things change. >> well, there are a couple of things that are changing to make it easier to apply i don't think that will change i think that every and every single opportunity for stellar wants their own pool of people and the people quality to what their pricing and united is what their two bedroom arrest three bedroom the make up of the unit is we're moving to an electronic application system. >> wow. >> where people will be able to create an account within the system and then all the information is stored if at the choose they

don't have to but they can store all the information and when they want to apply they still have to get a new preapproval but they don't have to submit all the documentation. >> that's great. >> you talk about the unauthorized liens is there a star saying you can't get a loan out. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> and the title report didn't - >> i don't think they look at titles for a entity line when they see the address and know the other unit in the building are going for $2 million you know - it is amazing. >> i'm not talking about little banks. >> we're all required to pay title fees but there are

expensive that is amazing so on the recertification the rental unit i inherent any great, great aunt building and don't have to pay tax it is not on my tax return what happens with a windfall. >> in homeownership nothing once it, be whatever liaison you pay your mortgage a rental unit we're not looking interassets oh, sorry so you will probably what we'll do with the assets or is - put other than 10 percent over $60,000 becomes infused into our income if so it a big enough and the asset over one and 20 percent ami. >> so i have a statement and all that stuff what if i don't

turn it in and in any checking account a big exit position. >> my staff have been deputies detectives we actually do look at bank statements and we look and see if there's deposits coming from other accounts and we'll ask for the accounts and yeah. >> and will show up on your tax returns. >> the short-term rental thing if you're not registered with airbnb for turning over the tax thing and not a register number how do you catch someone. >> it is harder if we suspect a lot of times as mention it is the people who tell on them we

have a hotline as well the people call and say you know, i think my neighborhood is in bmr and renting out their unit and - the hey, that will tell on them. >> having a valid register on the listing will happen. >> i hope that will be while i'm living. >> i get the owner unit and live there 10 years and make a mortgage do i get my principle by the way, back. >> you walk away with whatever the sales price is - the percentage of ami that your original the 90 percent in 2000 and now you're moving in 2017 we price to 90 percent homeowners

in 2015 and whatever increases no ami that happens over the years you get to see it in the sale prices. >> so when you - like any sales transaction you pay off debt when you have a first mortgage if you have a second a down payment assistance loan you pay that off and whatever is left our entity. >> generally what is the - for a two year someone held the property for 20 years what can they expect the delta i can tells you this people don't think since a bmr with no money in it and the foreclosure people walked away with entity in the building in the unit very sad.

>> wow. >> and are there other situations where people end up with less in principle. >> no. >> so this is a great thing. >> yes. >> a wealth builder. >> i like the way your work with assessor-recorder i think that is really good i'm glad we had to informational. >> commissioner mar. >> thank you so i had a couple of questions first back to the issues that were raised by the commissioner johnson and commissioner vice president richards there was a guy who has done a bunch of research will the economics of entity building in bmr's he says that actually, the returns for investments families is actually higher than than the bmr market the amount of money you have to put in to get in it much lower, in fact, i don't think the problems are the

entity building is the next step up. >> because once your other out of a bmr you can't use other products like that so no other stuff that's the thing i'll encourage us to think about that ladder the question i have for you ms. benjamin in terms of you know monitoring in compliance on the assets but the when people go into the lottery if you have data about the geographic distribution of folks getting into rental and overflow room bmr's and whether or not this is reflective of the distribution of the city as a whole. >> we actually do have data we just started collecting real data in the last couple of years

and what we found is that we actually do look like the city as a whole except there are - we are under serve in the homeownership program under serving folks and over serving others. >> who are you under serving and over serving. >> over serving white and asian. >> what about latino and african-american. >> under serving both. >> how do you think we'll go about correcting for that in terms of the marketing and all of the stuff that goes together. >> we were working hard on this we have we are actually right now doing a study i know

that it seems like so obvious but we're actually looking at actual research to be able to determine what keeps certain demographics from applying for housing it is not that the people that are the different ethic groups not getting in they're not politically we're looking to see you know what is really keeping - we have a sense of what that is but want to conduct real research to find out when the people what is keeping you from politically applying and we are and talking

about a marketing campaign to address people where they hear information rather than you know there was a time not so long ago other chronicle and tribune were the place they got their information not true anymore to so a campaign where they get their source of information. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i'm glad we had a number of comments on the homeownership and program and the policies reasoning and hoping we'll keep on going thank you commissioner mar for bringing up the sort of disparities in the inclusionary program in terms of demographics it is supporting and connected to another question i meant to

ask this is is about the lottery system i'm drawing on my experience working with the redevelopment project and on the cac board and i know that people don't like the idea of studies but good to see the generalized data from my experience is the system it's the way it is set up it is written into each project has to run their version of the project system and the rules by the mohcd but what happens so - you know happens groups are able to organize and; right? and get individuals to enter their names into multiple lotteries the more time your name shows up the higher the likelihood you'll get a spot and, of course, a broader

demographic generally in the city what the population looks like in certain groups that's a major issue and not something that is not true but i think that is something to think about in terms of approaches i know you'll do a studied in the middle of the campaign to see how broad it is other factors that maybe the agency can influence or other factors outside of the agencies influence i want to enter into the conversation today to ask it question in connection with that a number of years ago not that many years ago this certificate of preference was about this and it got extend a discussion about what that meant in terms of lottery a preference for the

certificate of preference and there was talk it was passed down it got into broader conversation around how are the lotteries structured i'd like to ask you this question have they've been updates for the system over the past if you years ago i saw you shacking our head when i said individual projects were left on their own to run their version the lottery. >> what changes over the past years. >> thank you we have made major changes to the lottery system and now the mayor's office of housing and community development monitors and conducts all affordable housing lotteries whether that is an inclusionary lottery or 100 percent affordable any lottery housing lottery that happens not city happens because of the

folks here but. >> i'm sorry. i'm to interrupt you does that mean that each individual project has their own lottery. >> ) multiple voices) i have to put my name in multiple times. >> we've switched to electronic lotteries as described for the homeownership will be in the future in the next hopefully 18 months if they finished building that all but the inclusionary lottery and application and listing is all electronic now so that people can create an account and when they see they get the notification of an vacate they can say oh, i quality and push a button and

we're contracting with several agencies sows to housing agencies for those who don't have a cell phone or smart phone or a computer or have access to one they can assist them in applying and, of course, we'll take paper applications this has alleviated that from here to here to therapy this and that and lining up around the blocks where fights come into play it is a mess we're really very pleased with the go electronic lottery system laura's e louis us part of the study to see to see trebtdz in plain clothes and is duplicate applications in a way we're not

able to see before and this study about actually be able to tell us whether or not the understanding that some folks have people are organizing different negligence and getting on buses and we're able to see if that really a effecting the outcomes of who gets into the units in that way. >> okay. thank you. >> (inaudible). >> right i know each project has its own covenant so here's preference 1, 2, 3 sometimes maybe like a sf employee and get preference number two other projects a different set up; right? that's my point i'm happy we moved to electronic system it is you and me sitting

in a room a few years ago and said great there is something more to consolidate like evolving have a geographic preference and just - again, we're still in the place people have to organize know those listing are there to know they/to put their names in ten times or 10 different opportunities if - >> we've made big strides that geographic thing is still there. >> that's amazing the staff will say oh, we already did that (laughter) commissioner moore. >> commissioner johnson thank you for those pro-vodka remarks they make it better i want to thank you. this is amazing and

have to admit i never heard about the first one. >> appreciate what all is involved it is so extracted it is fabulous can i ask a question how are we stacking up and other like cities. >> oh, boy i love that question i love it to regional or national conferences and people from all across the country say you got it together so well, a system you're ahead of the game and doing things so well probation officer - our inclusionary program is modeled across the country i get calls all the time for can you share with me our policies and procedures on this and that and which is beautiful because those other smart brains are working it and adding things to

it i say hey we should be doing that back home so i will is we're pioneer in inclusionary programs of this type. >> hopes there will be many california communities knocking on your door as we powerful to new levels of affordable housing requirements but i will say somewhere in black and white have a report it is amazing thank you. >> we've talked and debated the city preference and i don't think i'm not sure that got implemented but looking back it kind of where people came from who occupy the bmr units whether rental or overflow room can you give us a sense like a at some

point were they san franciscans in the neighborhood. >> i don't have the data we started implementing the neighborhood renal housing preference did it on 9 properties to projects so for but i can tell you that if you don't live and work in san francisco the chances ever you getting one of the are - >> before the preference. >> before the preference that's how they generally work and on rental how are rental increases figured bans income. >> increases in ami yeah. >> we once published for the new year. >> so not your own ami not your own income but the ami. >> the ami of the region yeah. >> so thank you for that and to your colleagues you know we see it at that high-level in

setting the rates it is good to hear how it is implement in the real world and as you collect that more data dream graphic data to get a at some point of who wore serving whether teachers or we hear about the units and kind of you know more about the people who are living here. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to item 10 for case accessory dwelling units amendments to comply with state law - planning code amendment. this is a planning code amendment. >> over before i move on on someone turned in a speaker card henry for states street that item was continued. >> good afternoon, commissioners

kim planning department staff the item before you is a ordinances introduced by supervisor peskin the proposed amendment would bring our local our existing local adu program into compliance everything changes by state law before i continue with my presentation i'd like to jieft lee if supervisor peskin to talk about the ordinance. >> thank you, welcome, sir. >> good afternoon good evening commissioners and commissioner president hillis and lee if supervisor peskin thank you for hearing this item i know we're getting there the legislative process quickly because we need to do this at least our ordinance is null and avoid i'm happy we are moving forward before this i want to acknowledge the success of the adu it was packed by the board

of supervisors the program provided for over one hundred new readings that is a huge achievement that will grow as we address this and outreach in the coming months and thank you to the planning department staff for the work to make that process smoother and in planning that outreach turning to the amendment as kim mentioned they have that on purpose only from our office perspective to bring our local citywide adu into experience with recently chartered state law so working closely with the city attorney and with planning department staff the ordinance was drafted with that goal in mind to address the - the most substantive change in single-family homes in rh-1 or zoning district for adu's not undergoing seismic yugd they

must be is administering approved as the term is defined building areas and the city may not quotes the minimum parking requirement if it meets the requirement of the ordinance then includes the existing heath codes must be approved within the days the application that is kind of a streamlining by the state the approval for adu's and single-family zoning district otherwise the city as the adus if being used as short-term rentals and prohibit subdivision of the adu for spate financing the city attorney advised two not before you the first to allow for adu's in rh-1 and rh-1

f zoning district to be circuited in the envelope of the subject lot they're allowed in the envelope and second amendment for adu's created within a single-family residential zone if the adu is contained with the existing space of a single-family homes to require the independent assess and providing setback for fire safety that is from the recent amendments to acknowledging our deference to the zoo opinion we build that the amendments are before you and will bring our local ordinance into compliance and prosecute of the adu program - we do supervisor peskin office understand a diego rivera on beef the straerldz to make

further improvements to the adu ordinance and working closely with the stakeholders and folks to work with the areas of improvement and look forward to collaborating with the ordinance i know some have been raised to you with that said, i want to caution against pursuing policy improvements at it stage of amendments with the ordinance into experience with state law those conversations are ongoing they will with having further daily don't want to delay the amendment by tripped urban design u up with the other pot policy improvements and so we just building those are better addressed in subsequent trailing legislation you'll see that forthcoming and with that, i respectfully request you approve that and thank you for your time and consideration today.

>> thank you thank you lee. >> so i'm going to elaborate about the proposed ordinance and have my colleague from supervisor farrell's to talk about their own amendments effective give you a little bit of background effect january 1st, 2017, state law required all jurisdictions to have people in single families as long as they follow a set of rules they are local programs not fully compliant with the state law those will be deemed null and avoid existing adu programs allows the adu's in single-family homes except in the rh-1 district, however, the current standard needs to comply with the state law using this state standard and

requirement in the state law the proposed ordinance will create a new set of controls for certain adu's used from the single-family homes in rh-1 or rh-1 f districts with no waiver from the planning code is noted all at adu's will remain subject to the existing controls this means that different adu's proposed in single-family homes were wavered from the planning code if are needed existing controls will apply and not the new controls under the proposed ordinance i have a summary chart that confers existing - sorry are existing controls with the proposed controls so that you can more easily see the differences the exist program applies to all

zones except rh-1 b and the proposed ordinance applies to rh-1 and rh-1 f with the planning code and number 2 adu's can be used in the envelope in minor options for expansion and the proposed controls under the proposed controls with the adu's can be within the existing envelope number 3 adu's can't take space from an existing unit under the current controls and adu's can only take space on an existing unit including basements and attics but not garages 4 with the no-fault evictions under the proposed ordinance no-fault evictions will not apply under the existing program adu approval is not adminal - the

rest is similar remains the stage especially for rh-1 d indignity circling the planning code refers to state law for the districts and the proposed ordinance keeps making that reference staff strongly supports it that will bring the local ordinance in compliance with the state law approving that ordinance will help the city in advancing the successful local adu program staff also recommends some modifications for the clarity of the language in the ordinance along with posted accommodations the first commendations the

property ordinance maintenance the existing language of the code that references the state law for adu and rh-1 districts at the same time the proposed ordinance creates detailed new set of standards for adu's for single-family homes in rh-1 but no labor from the planning code is required staff recommends the subject in rh-1 d districts consistently to the same set of standards without this recommendation the department will need to issue a zoning implementation for the state law for rh-1 d districts to develop the bulletin the department will duplicate this in interpreting this law in the proposed ordinance the second commendation about the spaces to be converted to adu's actually

in the table under number 3 in the third row in the table the proposed ordinance allows taking space from an exist unit and not allow from the garage staff recommends including garages as eligible office space space to be converted to adu's that is consistently consist with the policy in the adu's it is allowed garages to be experienced to adu's the recommendations number that will clarify the language in the property ordinance to replacement of the required parking staff recommends the ordinance that planning code already allows required parking to be with bike parking the recommendation number 4 is relayed to the departments process the proposed ordinance maintenance the residential design guidelines and the historic review process is

allowed within the process staff recommends clarifying that these review processes have is to be continued within one and 20 days as required by state law the recommendation number 5 rugs the historic preservation commission to conduct within the process staff recommends allowing the process so for all known historic as the proposed ordinance allows this to be properties listed in the california register of historic places for me the recommendation number 6 will allow adu's in single-family homes in multiple zone parcels to be subject to the new single review process as written the proposed ordinance requires the adu's in single-family zoned district and this recommendation process may

seem unfair with adding the units to a single-family that allows another unit we don't have approval options awhile adding a unit in the single-family in an rh-1 or rh-1 be s is at capacity can be reviewed - approved this recommendation will halt and provide equal options for single-family homes regardless of the zoning district that concludes my presentation. i'd like to introduce my colleague from supervisor farrell's office. >> good evening, commissioners from supervisor farrell's office i'm just going to read the letter we sent to you earlier and have copies my colleague was supposed to be here but dear

that concludes my presentation. we want to thank you for the work as we consider the policy reviews and authorized as accessary dwellings the commission and the board of supervisors have considered multiple pieces of legislation developing and changing for 8 and citywide adu programs more work needs to be done for the best possible program in place one of the shared goals to have more housing units across the categories that enhances the existing neighborhoods accessary dwellings are a great tool for doing that the board of supervisors has voted repeated to support the h the adu program we ask you consider that but consider the following amendments to insure the health of the adu program number one protection clarify that temporary evictions in retrofits to the building where an

existing tenant is wloutd to return not a position on the adu the seismic unit cap remove the caps on the number of adu's with the seismic riecht in the - as long as on those the commercial space is not constituting more than a 25 percent reduction of the space on the lot and room down clarify that any residential shay's says that a allowed to be converted to an adu and timeline we request you consider a legislative timeline for any complete adu application thank you for considering those amendments and please don't hesitate to contact our office request from supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell thank you. >> thank you so is that you've led the staff.

>> in response to the recommendation that ms. hefner talked to build an expansion the recommendation to do that in rh-1 and rh-1 s will allow that rh-1 district. >> thank you. >> we will open up for public comment on this item any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and recognize commissioner moore. >> this is very exciting but complex piece of legislation and i think that is simple it is the staff's recommendation including the added comments from supervisor farrell's and supervisor sheehy letter which i've never seen that come into play i would have loved to see all those with a

little bit more advanced time to examine them or ask questions from staff and gives me the kind of thing i'm prepared to move with the basic legislation itself and surface and further conversation trailing legislation whatever the proper form there is a lot in there to me as other people reflect on the legislation and understand there will be an ongoing amount of discussion so i will rather have a followup people of trailing legislation to properly address owl valid questions as brought forward as the question of curiosity and unfortunately mr. hefner is not in the room i was encouraged that the legislation as it stands with the cage challenge from the state has produced 10 hundred units i'm confused to know how many of those were retrofit in which

neighborhood obviously supervisor scott wiener has work in the castro a longer t for application and probably for the dwelling units. >> i believe that most of them came from the seismic retrofit by kate connor can comment. >> kate connor planning department staff when the seismic program was introduced that was incredibly popular the majority of the comments from the accessary dwellings are associated with seismic retrofit i will say for the pilot program and the castro as well geographically program in district 8 only a handful of those were their geographically

based. >> it is amazing eight or ten months ago we recall asking a hypothetical question how it is tracking and no conclusive answer that - but what you're describing today is a very, very different story and i have to assume there are undiscovered resources to aggressively add a number of additional housing units on this as proposed so i'm going to encourage we move quickly i like the majority of points but give it more time including for the discussions monk all the parties that want to take that further. >> thank you commissioner fong. >> i'm sorry, i may have missed it in the current bathroom, supervisor scott wiener what is the volume of number the applications or

permits we were issued or in the process. >> by that little on the same page and for the pilot and it was in district 8 i think 6. >> permits. >> most of them are alleviated that the seismic retrofit that was the most popular. >> i'm kind of with commissioner moore this letter last minute that seems like points that needs to be worked with the planning department staff it is difficult to make an opinion at the moment. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm so encouraged by the residents finds on all levels not just the partying do or do not but do it as best we can and bring the best minds and questions to move forward in a powerful way i think given the way the city is built and the conditions in which those opportunities arises there is much more there that currently

meets our eyes so like i said let's move forward and spend time to add the ideas of other aspects that is an adu best adu project ever done. >> i second that whatless before us and staff is naval works and moving that forward i don't think we've had time to review the changes promoted by commissioner sheehy and supervisor farrell although i think some of them we've limited the units in an adu and discussed in the past i think that recommended at times that is lifted or so there is several merit in all of them i mean most of them if not all of them we're moving what we have before us forward and the board can take

up the issues if need be. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. he was going to ask that same question i don't know if we want to continue that i like the staff recommendation and the analysis they've done, however, some of the items from supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell i was going to ask the city attorney some of the items seem like if they make it into the board file and we've not opined recommending them we got it last minute it from they make it into the final legislation will that have to come back to us for example, eviction protection and the number 4 this commercial space are two, that jump out to me if we too make a recommendation up and down or discuss it from they make it into the final legislation will they come back to as you deputy

city attorney mirena burns. your including items in the executive summary. >> no letters from supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell that ask us to consider additional amendments and they were not reviewed by staff this was sort of a little bit last minute and seems like the commissioners are inclined to support the current proposed ordinance with the recommendation made but for modification by staff but they don't discuss these other items that were brought up today, i'm wondering they're from supervisors if they make it into the final legislation in the deliberations is that considered different enough to come back to the planning commission we've not spoken about those items or analyzed them. >> i'll recommend is that the commission if you're inclined to

think you need more time make that part of your motion those are provided to you at the last minute the commission didn't have time to review them generally that is a judgment call depending on how much the commission can review an item if it comes in at the last minute and have not had time it will not be referred back i feel if you think those are for whatever reason the commission can provide have not had a chance to review that specifically made a motion. >> move to approve with modifications and noted by staff and the case report and making a note that the items presented by supervisor farrell and supervisor sheehy were complicated and were not wholly

reviewed by the commission at the hearing. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'm looking at the 9 unless one thousand units at the starting gate we put it together and do that once i don't see i'd rather wait a week or two and get it in one so i'll not hear the amendments again i do have questions on the current proposed so under the recommendation clarify the section 207 dot 4 the departments preservation for any known historic resource is that california register. >> the proposed it is an ordinance that is drafted only in california register we're

proposing the recommendations is to broadening broadened that and put any. >> that's second category a what about a b building we don't know what to do an evaluation on it. >> no, we won't - >> it's not scared that worries me no review on properties it is not known if it is fiscal and so. >> generally under the resources i mean that staff gives input out doing real survey on it over-the-counter and reviewing the adu's so for i think is a practice we don't a lot. >> i move to continue this two weeks the whole thing. >> not a second. >> (multiple voices).

>> commissioner moore he wish mr. hefner were here i heard him say to move this in basic form and things come together and be thoroughly examined as a whole set of usable ideas including the ideas of whether fully registered were local can we look at the problems of 953 treat last week and questions we'll have to workout with the department in order to be thoroughly in support of that idea i'm declined too you are too many questions and say we let them come forward as a working piece and through the department and with us and others to resolve them he put them forward as ongoing

additions to trailing legislation. >> i'll second the tuition. >> that's not a continuance but for the other items it is basically, the let the legislation go and support it and (multiple voices). >> okay. can i just you made a position to approve to - >> i made a motion. >> second. >> commissioner moore made a motion to approve. >> made a motion to approve let the staff work together with the questions and i rising from supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell. >> can you second my motion. >> fine second. >> i think that is maybe best to leave it at you know whether there - these things will move on their own track i recommend making a motion to approve what

is staff is recommending that is supervisor peskin legislation with some modifications and recommendations it didn't talk or discuss some of the facility issues that came up in supervisor sheehy or supervisor farrell's letter so these may come back may not depending on how they decide on that legislation and we move from there. >> commissioner mar is next. >> i just had a complafrgs i heard lee is that he wanted us to - he was suggesting to move that note including the department recommendation one thing that is important which is the garages you know and so i want to make sure that you know if i'm supporting commissioner johnson or so motion i'm declined to do it includes the recommendations of the department. >> that's the way i understand

that. >> you can include that administration so the staff is recommending and up to the supervisors supervisor peskin to take the moifks /* moifks modification. >> our adu program that exists on january 1st that's why there's a lot of pressure to move this forward now. >> oh. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you so i made a motion to approve with staff modification and it wasn't seconded yet and i think if i can clarify for the discussion what i've hearing in commissioner moore is let's move forward with what's present and if there is nothing else that comes up for example, in the letter i agree agree with that last year a couple of things

that contradict staff recommendations so for example, i'm looking at the eviction protection number one that what that wording is not modification but the staff says to look at it for the - ordinance to move forward with an approval with modification and then if some of the other things that differ from substantially if the written ordinance that will be trailing legislation we'll consider at this point. >> commissioner fong. >> first of all, we are all on the same page where we want it to go and reviewed and including the letter with the process of it and mr. starr. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. answered that time is of the essence we want you to pass it

on to you today that's why we brought it to you quickly and the commissioner wants to pass this without recommendation without recommendation but their clarifying recommendations things in the adu program or particularly with the historic resource so they're not controversial i respectfully ask i include the clarifying modifications in whatever recommendation has forward. >> to summarize i think we have 3 motions one that is set back around

june of 2015 the first ordinance for the general plan not 3 the height maps of market octavia and not 5

the height and bulk of the height and bulk on the maps will be for consistency the proposed building amendments effecting two of the parcels with the project on 1540 market street it amended height and bulk to reflect the 6 hundred and 68 sequester between zero, zero one and 5 lot one is a thorough story office space which allows building heights up to 40 feet and to continue the four story office space it is up to 4 hundred and feet with the portions of the lot up to one and 20 feet a small sliver of the lot will be redoped for height and bulk district up to 40 feet tall similarly to three hundred and 68 on the lot

rezoned for the height for 4 hundred to 4 hundred and 20 feet we ask this to come before the commission around june 7th and the planning commission will consider that project in its entirety in summary that has a expansion demolition of two building with 40 story residential building with 4 hundred feet tall with a participate with ground floor retail use and garage for the residents the project will include the construction of a public plaza within the oak street public right-of-way florida please note a couple of corrections first, the paragraph reads that the motion it with intent not a motion but a resolution to initiate rather than a motion of intent now proposing 2 hundred

not the three hundred units in the during that period amendment resolution this indicates three hundred units were collected to 4 hundred plus unit the resolutions will also be revise to see the applications was on february 26, 2020, on behalf of the previous property owner of the project site one additional clarification that the case report indicates the loading on market street will be eliminated and direct the passenger freight to oak street the existing market street will not be removed as all on market street had been conducted as part of the better streets plan plan today no public comment on the project itself however, members of the public have commented on the draft eir the planning department represents the planning

commission adopt the resolution to initiate the zoning map amendment ordinance the planning code and ordinances i'm the zoning map and the general plan as indicated in the case report the proposed amendment will not result in the potential on the project site rather the amendments allow the corner at the van ness avenue right-of-way if 15 to 43 and allows for the open space for the busy intersection to be more heavily traveled and this will alleviate windy conditions to clarify no action will curae as a result that have but to consider the adoption at a future date expected an and after june of 2017 that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i be my colleague is here.

>> staff we don't typically have the project sponsor but about a single project so we can give you 5 minutes if you like, sir. >> i have no deserve michael principle project sponsor great to be here to be brief we called this the great all-star doughnut heights walk we're only - is that glazed. >> we did two years of wind studies everyone understand the wind continues that pushing the tower close to the intersection of van ness and market street and oak is not feasible we are pulling back the 9 thousand palate under the existing zone back from the doughnut shop site and form of creating in the future we hope that that doughnut sites is part of a

plaza two public benefit outcomes that is the sole reap for this hopefully, the materials will make that implicit inform up zoning but shifting the tower away from the doughnut shop corner that's all i have to say. and, of course, i'm i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> so open this up to public comme comment. >> anyone wants to seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards >> it is straightforward we're not hearing the project that is something we've erupted we should reserve comments for the specific project pieces to the time the project is before us i move to approve. >> commissioner moore. >> it was well present and clear inform intent on up zoning ambassador leggings the understanding the project. >> just want to make sure the proposal is the modification.

>> so commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to i have a motion to adopt this resolution to initiate amendments to before the general plan and the zoning map as amended by staff commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner mar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero commissioners that places us under our discretionary review calendar for item 131900 mission street discretionary review.

>> i was going say good afternoon by good evening, commissioners adachi before i start, i provided mr. sucray with the revised report that was e-mail to you that clarifies the dr requester and the project sponsors response the item before you a request for discretionary review for the demolition of an existing 17 hundred square feet lightville after all shop and the 75 feet tall approximately 16 hundred plus 7 story building over a basement that includes nine hundred and 89 square feet of commercial space and 16 thousand plus square feet of residential use for 12 dwelling units, with a mix of 4 one bedroom and 8 two

bedroom units as part of project that are approximately, six hundred and 10 feet for the 3 units and 8 hundred square feet for common space through a deck at the 6 floor the project will provide 14 class one and class 2 bike parking spaces the project is located at the southwest of 15 and mission street and move forward with a 16 hundred plus louis after all shop was constructed in 1965 immediately surrounding the proposed project is a 16 unit apartment building 4 to 6 mixed use building with ground floor storefronts and dwelling units at the floors above that includes of story 200 plus across the street apartment that was conducted in 2013 per

the dr requester is acting on behalf of the opposing and in general a conflict with the policy number one that emphasize the existing neighborhood serving retail be prefers and future opportunities for future employment and ownership of the businesses are enhance the dr requester states it is in direct conflict with the planning code priority policy no. 2 that states the existing neighborhood character westbound reserved to preserve the culture and economic differently the neighborhood and lastly they're concerned with not enough commercial space at the ground floor instead of residential in an zoning district the dr requester states the project should make a significant contribution to affordable housing in order to remain in compliance with the policy to

date the department has received no comments the department recommends that the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as promoted because the project has at the land uses and - the project is in appropriate infill that eliminates non-conforming use for the retail use in an area that encourages keeping with the neighborhood character the urban design team determined it is intended uses are compatible with neighborhood and consists with the guidelines of the mission area plan the team determined the design the empowering will enhance and promote clearly features that are fine constrain compatible with the mission street nct the project is supportive of the

transit first policies by not providing off-street parking and the number of bicycle parishes the project will provide a permanently affordable offsite and the planning controls and plays pay the appropriate fees and as permitted the project sponsor requested a administration the rear yard requirements by providing open space for the telephone dwelling units through the common deck at the 6 floor of the building to be shared the zoning administrator considered this in 2017 and indicated the intent to grant the modification and finally, the the project is advancing the policies of the general plan and mission plan that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, sir 5 minutes.

>> good evening, commissioners i know it's been a long day i'm here today on behalf of the permit holder mix economic development agency and appreciate our time sfgov can i have the overhead, please? we think this proximately should be reviewed in the mix in the complexities if you look at this map which comes from the united states developments team someone googled the pipeline so if someone oman with concerns not enough developments this didn't

consider the conversions we are looking at an unprecedented amount of development with 2000 market-rate united and the cumulative impacts they have gentrification displacement impact on the working-class as we all know we've lost 8 thousand latinos in the mission and concerned if we don't work together the commission the planning department, the mayor's office, supervisors offices to move things in another direction that number can spike considerably according to chu chu analysis i wanted to talk about the mayor's office of housing data from 2000 to 2013 nearly households earning 2 percent of ami moved into the mission the mission is where we are siege a quarter of new wealth folks felt by the

mission families this is a big event going on. >> so let's look at the map i gave you mission street and the 1900 mission street project we think are really at the heart the crisis in the mission for the first time you'll notice if you look at it map you can't figure out what dot is 1900 mission street that area you're seeing so many projects close post citywide that map mass so many applications coming in right now we'll try to focus you can't tell when a which one an increase and sales tax as money comes into the area the applications more people are chasing that that is how wealth

corridors take off fortunately that is our family corridor this a significant problem with the new van ness street so if flipped into working-class to upscale we're concerned therefore we feel they're significant we're looking for the first time ever that's why we're that's a great question in 11 electricity to caesar chavez we're looking between caesar chavez and 25 street we think for the first time we're going to see this foot trap traveling under the highway so people working north of the highway will be coming to for example, an italian restaurant down the odds walking down if lunch and have the series of new high end

development just beyond the bridge you see piling up on our map we think the projects that requests the variances and especially this is at variance that changes it to a less inviting style in terms ever on the ground community family feel and instead feels of moves up the space we think that there should be some sort of commemorate community benefit to accompany that we think a project of that is able for one thing and should do more to help the community and specifically in this case to help this family corridor that is really seeing that unprecedented growth i want to look lastly at the project for a second and note a few of the things

that is a discretionary review request which i appreciate you hearing what kind of things to reiterate we think this project should do considerably more than 8.5 percent affordable housing we think that to be automobile shop you don't have to look on yelp how popular this 24-year-old body shop we want to see that retained to move to a compatible location hopefully nearby the owner of the shop peter has been unable to do looking for time trying to relocation relocation and lastly we want to see some amount of redesign i think this is not what we think of as family corridor look first housing not invite to mission families like

to see less hard colors and floor to ceiling glass highlighted here i mean, i'm certainly not an architect but the housing the more traditional housing next door exemplifies the feeling of the family corridor so lastly summarizing he's a close significant impact to the public and this project going forward want to see the commission use it discretion to ask this project to do more for the community and we it in the baffle 80 significant projects coming along with it. >> thank you at this time we take public comment for those in support of kerri and opposed to the project. >> mr. hall. >> thank you, commissioner i'm

rick hall with culture action network and with the commission development committee i thank you to you guys for the citizens of san francisco you have a challenging job to balance the interest of what is before you in discretionary reviews is unclear how much discretion you have i trust your use i was watch sfgovtv he. >> heard one 98 van ness your decision was a great examples how you can balance the things for the city and come out with good decisions i ask you to take dr on this project not only the consideration of things raise by the conversation of the mission street corridor and it's family

the conversation goes well beyond this project and hopefully raise policy issues that can help prevent this corridor from the state of van ness street this is how van ness triggered by a few modest sized project we have to pay attention to the smaushl projects because in the cumulative they're very damaging even the tools that create to help the mission ignore them the packet says not subject to interim controls not subject to prop x and as a matter of fact the prop 2020 will take care of the impacts not true not ready to be effective to mitigate a serious of project like this and redon't have mission guidelines yet urban design

guidelines so in cases like don't - da is how to start more policy discussions for the mission street family corridor back to architecture for a second just before coming in i was looking at twitter and saw with tweet from john king that said architecture is the identity of a culture we build what we are in a february 13th column reporter asked why they're not getting build in the community like like a ton - you get all the condo buildings that are designed they're trying to appeal to the 28-year-old tech worker and wants to harangue out

on valencia van ness street thank you. >> any is there any additional public comment? >> opposed to the project. >> i do agree about the architecture i'll say the majority of building in the mission they don't really resemble the blocks they look like giant boxes of chick let boxes really with no chick let's inside empty boxes of chick let's but to kind of echo what others have said there is so many of those types of units that that have been built in the pipeline it is incumbent you use our discretion i know there are a lot of people that say their born and raised i've been here 53 years nobody

cares or so that seems that nobody cares he was born here nobody cares you spent our life in the mission a big chick let box to be built but people that conditioner this home people that see what is being built and who is distinctly impacted i work for snubz i see people that spend their lives not mission and can't stay here for many, many reasons the affordable housing that is offered with the development like this you know that's lacking again take take into consideration the other things that people are saying those ideas this input that is why you're here why we're here thank

you. >> thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> the first the community was not aware of the project we had 3 meetings over a period of 3 years the first in october of 2013 that was a preapplication meeting there was a full mailing as required by the planning department we had a public meeting and that public meeting gabriel of meta attended and we had a very heart full dialogue

he was critical in a number of measures and after deep thought we actually agreed with a lot of his points and reconfigured the project to make it more suitable to the communities point of view we have a public hearing for a variance which also was a mailing and the va a rear yard variance was approved and a notice of application which is dr is richmond inform two public notices post on the building and the second concern the city planner left the department doug who is behind me was assigned to the project and provided oversight i'd like to take the opportunity the building violates the planning code it is not in compliance with the nct zone with the rear yard variance was approved at a da are hearing the e-mail if peter this morning he had questions about the rear

yard variance that is typical for a corner lot if you're walking down the street you want to see a continuous facade like not missing a tooth and smiling it is good to have corner lots to have a rear yard it is important about the impacts on the neighborhood i kind of see periods of time point of view and understand i like the term those projects should be baldly feel like we have done a lot in the project first no evictions and no existing residentials but the block is one block the site one broke if bart in the most important corridor of the city it has changed the nature the transportation in the bay i live in the east bay and come in on bart we want residential

development near bart have 12 units that eases the demand for housing and one onsite affordable it is interesting the new zoning law no longer how the automobile services in the - i come to you and want to put an automobile repair company there i have to a cu and probably won't be granted that. >> our original plan included 9 units with one large the law of the land unit a parking to accommodate 5 cars and that configuration had no requirement for housing units we modified the plan based on the feedback and suggestions from mr. medina with meta in our community

meeting and scattered the top floor into those units we split those two into two smaller units and the third floor with 5 hundred square feet each the second floor we resolved do office space to include two additional units those design changes be transpired the bmr requirement and have unit 2a an onsite dedicated housing unit on the basement and first floor eliminated the car parking to create a 2012 living space provided the required number of bike that concludes my remarks on site and forcing the tenants of the building to rely on public infrastructure for transportation and on the site plans currently

all of the 15 street frontage that is the longest piece of the frontage is clear-cut we are eliminating that be curve cut to have 4 on-street parking for the neighborhood and new streetscaping improvements along the pedestrian corridor on 1 street we're applying for the the better streets plan for that corridor. >> i think the one thing that gabriel said that hit home a loss of two jobs with the after all we spent 3 months trying to find a local business we signed a letter the intent with jason with runs the sidewalk juicy hires at risk latino youth according to his projections we

offered 13 or 14 jobs and want to hold him accountable so there are two jobs lost in the all repair and 13 jobs added to the in the juice bar and maintenance on the building. >> is that my time. >> you have 40 seconds. >> so i'll say you know in summary in property owners have expressed concerns we good faith effort negotiated with the community which was via gabriel early on and honestly his comments made the project a better project for us and the neighborhood. >> thank you so open up for public comment any public comment? in support of project and opposed the dr requester sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us, >> i'm representing sf bart we

support this project for reasons you probably guessed thank you. >> sorry, sir a two minute rebuttal. >> yeah. it is true that in 2013 gabriel medina submitted the project tried u e trying to move forward what the scenario was i want to clarify from earlier he in no way supported this provided his idea and asking for if we don't see side enormous impacts that will happen remind you this is our central family corridor i want to back up when you look at the map we'll present another

map those are mission street addresses tons of projects on might so looking a huge number of projects that is where thousands of mission working-class live and that's where the great bulk of sros throughout that area the city line that including they house a lot of the families lake like the grand southern we are we've moving in an upscale direction in that area i think the cumulative impact it indeed what you need to be looking at yes projects will come forward and saying yes. we've moved a few things forward and wouldn't want to detract if certain localities like getting a program in there that has that

works with the youth in the neighborhood is definitely better than what we're seeing oh, we're opening a retail use but we're looking at what is happening we don't think we should eliminate more and more and more automobile use because we're near trait that includes what that feels like the style of this new building is just on the surface have a different sense of evil or feeling with the map 2020 one the fundamental issues long time families they don't feel welcome those are the kinds of changes that take a popular mechanic shop and convert it to a building that looks extremely modern totally differences than the surrounding environment that

sends a cue to other brokers and other developers for where this corridor is going we're asking you along with the planning department the mayor's office of housing and community development has been helpful to step in and mitigate the direction we're headed thank you >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon chairman aim doug elliott one of the sponsors the project and also a director at the e h housing working to create affordable housing in the bay area and done that through the low income television station credits i see there is an opportunity to do something that provides a balance when we went to this property owner he was ready to retire and didn't

want to sign the lease we saw the opportunity to do what we consider gentle and balance project that met the city's housing requirement that created smaller units very few projects getting built built with 5 hundred square feet and take advantage the transit and actively engaged with the community over the course of the years and incorporated their suggestions we feel it is a balanced project and understand the tension between the gentrification that are in the mission and between the need for housing we don't think that ever project is the right project what we could strikes a balance we appreciate your consideration. >> thank you very much so that concludes many portion of hearing and open up for commissioner comments. >> commissioner moore. >> the first one that came to mind the starship enterprise

particularly because this project in the area where it is speaks to the new housing thursday, february 23, 2017,graphies and because of the unusual highly glassy appearance didn't smoothly integrate it is the physical visible reaction to a project with a number of issues i'd like to go into in terms of policy the one thing that strikes me the most this project didn't respect the lightwell to the adjoining residential building the plan shown in the applicants depiction of the project nor the proposed project shows the next to it; however, you look at street maps including one of the pictures included here ladies and gentlemen, in the package

you see that the major lightwell facing the after all body shop and relies on the light in the project that is a major i think oversight in the design of the project which will effect the entire building all the way through the second policy point is that private roof decks on property line in the conditions like that together with private stair penthouse is something that the mission has stayed away from entechnology because when if there's a lightwell in the project that we're discussing will be direct inside into the adjoining windows the common roof deck has a health will hold back from the property line for diminish the increase in height

over the adjoining building something we have to which we have discussed again and again to exhalation of transitioning of the height to adjoining buildings and the commission has made great progress in pushing a number of proving projects back why we didn't diminish the unit count for height we basically forced them into stepping down to adjoining buildings which will apply to the mission street as well as to the 15 street this building is basically a vertical body with no significant modulations of the facade the last point is building expression and material that is overly glassy with the exposure we'll get a building not resist of residential uses but drawn curtains that is the

nature of the overly glassy buildings germany think not a good understanding of neighbor scale windows penetration of relationship of open and close facade localities as well as much a reality you have stucco buildings this building in its own massiveness has a glassy find that that questionable relative to the harmony in the overall character of the neighborhood, however, i think the biggest issue to come back to my first point for us to consider the impact on the liveability of the building and as we all know the code requires matching lightwells and there are no, if and buts but primarily windows facing to the

west and the architect of the project perhaps speak to that and explain why you handled the building the way you did. >> i can speak so that the sited plan didn't show well but on i think you have the whole a .1 a 2 above the mezzanine a matching lightwell that is incorrect because it comes to the roof deck to the roof plan the roof plan is over the entire surface to qualify as a lightwell it has to come all the way it the bottom-up and extending our roof deck over that opening you're not providing a lightwell. >> that's true. >> and exterior shaft not a lightwell the definition of a lightwell in the way the planning code and department enforces the matching lightwells for us. >> that's true this was an

intelligent to be a metal grade on the roof deck. >> that does not qualify as a lightwell they're for light and air as the urban environment while we have adjoining buildings have to protect and maintain light and air not a grade over that to the adjoining building that is my comment from what is in front of us. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much sorry. >> thank you very much i'd like to thank the dr requester for this item today not necessarily about your case but i know before you come with projects in the mission and thought the public comment i predict you're bringing for the your own er to consider them

independently so to get to the point here - to the project sponsor i appreciate the changes that you've made in the project before today and glad our able to do negotiation but actually commissioner moore picked up on a few things that are really important to talk about the building design and then may get to some of the items that the dr requester has brought up so commissioner moore's comments makes sense a great roof deck is no the lightwell more to the point something i've thought about this site reminded me of the site of another project i believe on a sub standards fell street or oak street i don't remember which street. >> fell street and similar. >> yeah. it was narrow and actually this project reminded me of that narrow rectangle site a substandard lot with 20 or 25

feet wide and 100 percent feet deep a similar setup and similar issues with the lightwell in that project and in this case it wasn't justice windows into the apartment that project had like, yeah - not decks but. >> corridor. >> the corridor the entry corridors to the building so you covered it up that whole thing was dark we sent the project back and asked them to create the lightwell to create the lightwell but to create transparency through the building they have light if the street side and not just from above to this is the one comment i'll make on the project i think it needs revision in that vein

to look at a true lightwell i don't know if in the the planning code or building code but look at this project and the staff can get the address on fell street near market octavia. >> octavia. >> it was octavia. >> right fell octavia. >> right the freeway parcel. >> right. >> we got through together as a team i believe staff can pull that project and if there is a continuance today i don't know if there will be but if there is and that's a great project to look at so sort of recreate the solution this is a similar project i feel that doing something similar will help to solve that if we can to me with an of the only issues that physically with the project i

understand some of the concerns about floor to ceiling glass and sort of how that can essentially be like the glass wall during the day people don't have windows open and but curtain tapes your looking at fabric and glass i'll encourage the project sponsors to think about that and have a corner facade been that during the day white curtains that's what you'll be looking at i think we can do better other than that change to the design i appreciate they subsidized it into more residential units and one question for the project sponsor unit 1-b 34 is it a garage, ground i'm sorry with only a is 3 floors. >> it is considered one bedroom or two bedrooms or three

bedrooms. >> okay. okay thank you and sorry to the dr requesters issues i appreciate you're bringing them up i think that some of the expiations we're gotten to in terms of the use of ground floor retail space will go towards making sure this is community involvement in the building and not just open commercial usage i don't know if it works to have the after all use in the retail residential top i gather that is not realistic but i do hope that what the project sponsor has agreed to do to date will help to have more community involvement in the building. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess, sir please

so you've heard a couple of commissions two or three commissioners can exactly do you want. >> i think that to the point about the automobile body shop we would like to see it in a compatible space we think those jobs lost are happening rapidly and probably off the top of my head i can name a half of dozen lost body shops and really disappearing at rapid speed the owner is understandable concerned not finding another space that's an example we see like project sponsors can do to help stabilize the neighborhood because while we're looking current solutions no saying what is happening down the road not sure with lease or mou or the

arrangements with the juice bar so we want to make sure on things like that like 5 or 10 years from now it is in the you know a starbuck's; right? so that those are the kinds of things we are concerned and certainly sitting down more affordable housing the nuking report we think that one affordable unit out of 12 compound that with project by project and percentages that are piling up we want to see you're asking for more on each of these. >> thanks when i read the full analysis now i can go to sleep like i didn't the night before i like the fact you added more projects and talked t with meta we will talk about the design and the

lightwells is an issue but, sir. >> and mr. hall i went you immensely and glad you brought this to our attention but with hit me this morning he keep i know there is. >> blah, blah we are on a commercial corridor nct we have an non-conforming use went through the whole 2020 stuff and this project is a part of other projects but just i spent you gu

think we need do something with the design hello two other commissioners to make a motion. >> just a question from the architect for the project sponsor on the light well. can you show us that again we do have the ability to match that light well and remove that we remove the grid >> yes. that's not a problem. on the floors where you see below the roof level, we see the light well, there you had commissioner johnson would

spoken about transparency on our side. we do have windows in our light well that open to that same space. >> but it's also a light will? >> yes. >> on your side is a light well? >> correct. >> so i think the difference there wasn't a light well. >> even when they have it there wasn't-there'sbetween the wall >> hears he's got a light while he was below marching by well in windows on our site that on the roof that we were showing the deck that there is a metal-there is him middle grade rebecca be eliminated. >> so i supports eliminating that great and matching the light well the entire way up and perhaps directing staff to make some-i like the design but i get the issue of it being

perhaps not so the right spot for it. you know, i want to see staff continue to work with you and make it a bit more contextual, a little less glass. i appreciate the work you have done with representatives of meta-and on the retail space good i think that is the most important. i often have debates with mr. papadopoulos about visit arrow which doesn't necessarily-what's causing gentrification some of these issues is not necessarily development. it's more akin to it's happening in the retail spaces and i think we need to have housing avail above we don't appreciate those changes you've made to have an additional unit but we see in places on the visit arrow where old auto type uses are being converted to large restaurants but certainly there is no limitation that can happen here in the future. so i generally like the project i like to see some design changes of the light well and continuing to

work with staff on making it a bit more contextual but i think overall good work for the site. so thank you >> commissioner moore >> i like to these my point about the private roof deck. the will be obviously a change when the waiting is old we've worked out to be a matching the emphasis of the light well to the building adjoining it. i do believe that we need to speak to the abandoning of stair and houses, private stare and houses. there can be a patch that's what it is but the roof decks themselves need to hold way from the building is because you will be looking directly from the edge of those private decks into the adjoining windows of the light well across. those are not just minor rooms [inaudible] major rooms is very clear from the layout in each of the buildings when [inaudible] the other thing is i would so request that we are holding back from the front end of the building

with the common roof deck as well as number one and then i like to ask the architect, including staff, why are we talking about mezzanine on the ground floor? the three-story townhouse on 15th st. is actually the ada unit with a bedroom in the basement with a ground-level being ada accessible. that is the requirement of having to have one ada unit in this building and then cut into the mezzanine and other part of a room all of it kind of like knowing how to work the system. mezzanine's are not too typical in this part of town. we tell mezzanine's are highly unlikely. i am wondering why we're going this route? i like to ask the architect perhaps to speak to that but this is not an area where we need to have 15 or 20 foot or what ever ground floor height in order to

accommodate this little move could mezzanine retail is difficult to work and otherwise non-commercial corridor. it's very difficult to work. it's not particularly successful model in the united states in general. it's much used in europe but not here. so why are we doing it here? we're doing it to accommodate a sizable townhouse ada required units. i am saying, that is a lot of acrobatics if you want to really take a magnifying glass but i'm at a point where i think this building, because it doesn't seem to that will resonate with the rest of the commission, that this building is we thought all the things that we are matter. that includes how we accommodate ada compliant units and how we are not having retail with the mezzanine, which even as a juice bar is highly likely to not succeed and