events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann >> president hillis: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday,

june 28, 2018. i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we expect commissioners melgar to be here soon. first for consideration of continuance, 20018-006177pcamap, amanned zoning map and abolish legislated setback on 19th avenue. number 2, 2017-006758drp.

it was proposed for continuance to july but now until august 23, 2018. item 3, 2017-00924cua, 601 van ness avenue, proposed for continuance to september 13, 2018. item 4, 2015-004297env. 271 upper terrace, 301-303 upper terrace and 4500 sf 17th street appeal of negative declaration proposed to continue to october 25, 2018. further, under regular calendar, item 12, caltrans grant, staff requesting that be continued to july 12, 2018. we've received requests from project sponsors for items 16 and 17, cases 2014-001400enx and

2017-001283cua, 792 capp street, proposed for continuance to july 12. i have no other items for continuance. i have a number of speakers for 601 van ness. i will remind members of the public that at this point, you cannot speak to the project, but just to the matter of continuance >> president hillis: any public item for proposed items for continuance? >> good afternoon. mark rober, behalf of 2750 19th street. as you heard, we had asked for a continuance to july 12. we would like to ask for continuance into august, preferably august 23, if that is acceptable to the commission. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. lucas eastwood, project sponsor for 792 capp street. we're asking for a continuance to july 12. we're in the process of setting up a meeting with community members that were out of town. it's likely to take place on july 3. we appreciate a continuance to the 12th. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? seeing none, we'll close -- >> clerk: just to be certain. for the people here for 601 van ness, this is your opportunity to speak to the continuance. >> president hillis: go ahead, sir. now is your time. you have to come up to the mike, though. >> what do you mean when you say we can only address the continuance. >> president hillis: you can urge us to continue it or not

continue it, so we're not taking the matter up. so if you have an opinion on the continuance -- seeing no further public comment, we'll close it. >> commissioner moore: moving to proposed item 1 to -- >> we can't hear you back here. >> commissioner moore: move to continue items 1-4 to the dates proposed, adding items 12 to july 12, 16 to july 12, and 17 to august 23, 2018. >> president hillis: did you want to take the -- project sponsor asked for august 23 --

>> commissioner moore: i thought that it was to -- i'm sorry. thank you. >> august 23 is impacted as it is closed, but you can certainly still continue the matter to it. >> president hillis: let's do that. things my change by august 23. >> commissioner moore: continue to the dates read into the record. >> president hillis: thank you. is there a second? >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded. to continue items 1-4 as proposed. item 12 to july 12. item 16 to august 23. item 17 to july 12. on that motion -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that passes us to commission matters, item 5, consideration of adopt of draft

minutes, june 14, 2018. >> president hillis: any public comment on draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> clerk: is there a motion? >> commissioner richards: move to approach. >> president hillis: second. [roll call] >> clerk: for those persons entering and exiting the chambers, if you could do so quietly, we'd certainly appreciate that. commissioners, item 6 for commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: seeing none. >> clerk: department matters, item 7, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. 5 wai wanted to take the time t introduce you to the interns. we have interns from our summer internship program.

maybe you can all stand up for a second. [applause] we do this every summer. it's been extremely successful. we have 24 this year, some of whom are college students and high school students from the city's youthworks program, for the high school students. there's a 12-week program. each intern is paired with a planner, who mentors and supervises their work. there are a number of site visits for interns to go to understand how we work and we are happy to have them. they will present their projects at the end of the summer. we'll certainly invite you to those presentations. to give you a flavor of some of the projects, there are a number related to historic reservation, with historic context statements. there are projects related to the a.d.u. program, to transportation analysis, to

archaeological work, looking agent sea level rise work. all the projects are identified in such a way that the interns have a product at the end of their 12 weeks, which they present to us as well that they can use for their portfolio in their futures. we appreciate your work and we're glad to have you here today and we welcome you. >> president hillis: thank you. are they from around the country? >> a broad spectrum from around the country. >> president hillis: how did you find housing? [laughter] commissioner moore, did you have -- >> commissioner moore: i was going to ask that question. i was curious. >> president hillis: we expect the housing crisis to be solved by the interns by the end of the summer. >> clerk: commissioners, moving on to item 8, review of past events from the board of supervisors, no appeals report and no historic preservation meeting yesterday. >> good afternoon. manager of legislative affairs, aaron star. land use on monday, the board

considered supervisor sheehy's ordinance that would allow a parking lot within rh2 zoning to legalize without conditional use. commissioners, you heard this item on june 7 and voted to disapprove the ordinance. at the hearing, supervisor sheehy made his case for approving the parking lot, citing that it's been a parking lot and needed by the neighbors. he also said that the owners needed the income from the parking lot in order to develop the proposed property in the future. supervisor kim expressed concern about adding parking across from a bart station and that the ord was concerns about the parking lot in perpetuity. supervisor sheehy was concerned about losing a parking lot. they voted to limit the proposed parking lot to six years, require a notice of special

restriction to be placed on the property, noting that limitation and voted to forward it to the full board with a positive recommendation. next the committee heard phase 2 of the candlestick point/hunter's point project. this commission heard the item on april 26 this year. the commission's actions including approving the zoning code to remove the jamestown parcel from candlestick point and the removal of the stadium from the hunter's point area plan. planning commission voted to approve this package amendments. public comment was generally favorable they highlighted the robust community benefits program. there were some concerns with the shipyard cleanup. supervisor kim, while supportive, encouraged ocii and the project sponsor to consider adding add usual housing to the

program in future years. the land use committee voted to forward the items to the full board with positive recommendation. at the full board this week, the landmark designation 234-246, phillips building, passed second read. and then the mayor's process improvement ordinance was considered, continued from last week. supervisor peskin introduced amendments to maintain the 30-day notification and to require that 11x17 plan sets continue to be provided and to maintain the requirement for 311 notices for the rear-yard pop-outs. supervisor ronen introduced amendments to clarify the language of ordinance to the planning notes. the board voted to approve the ordinance and passed unanimously. as amended, all proposed notifications were to streamline

the projects, downtown projects and minor alterations to historic structures. with regard to noticing, they will consolidate 311 and 312 to a single section, require a 30-day notification with mailed 11x17 plan sets for all 311 notices and 20-day notices for notices important public hearing. 311 will be required for limited rear-yard additions or pop-outs. hearing notices will be expanded to tenants for all hearings. the content will be translated into multiple languages and all will be available on-line for the general public. finally, it should be noted that the portion of the ordinance related to notification requirements will go into effect january 1, 2019. this will allow the commission to consider a policy specifying the size and content and the mailed and posted hearing notices. next on the land use -- or the full board agenda, they passed

on first read, supervisor sheehy's parking lot and the board met as a committee of the whole to approve amendments to candlestick and hunter's point. it was similar to land use and the board approved it unanimously on first read. that's all i have for you today. >> president hillis: thank you. any questions? thank you, mr. star. >> clerk: that places us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction in the commission except for agenda items. for agenda items, you can comment when we reach that in the meeting. each member of the public can address for 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any general public comment? yes, sir welcome. >> richard hack. 170 years ago, gold was

discovered near here and people began to stream here from all directions and continue to do so. once they get here, everybody is in a big hurry. i don't know when it became a housing crisis. it does have an infinite appeal to people, therefore, an intimate demand that cannot be satisfied with an infinite amount of housing. what the planning commission and others might do is encourage the board of supervisors to pass new rent control that would cover new buildings. a supervisor said tuesday it's an affordable housing crisis. we can control our housing increase in a disciplined way. san francisco architects should be required to be artists, not just engineers, addicted to the faceless, abstract, alienated, ugly-as-sin building. much of the stuff built now, unfortunately, everybody's in a big hurry, but it's bright,

shiny, new, but it's not going to last. it's architectural pollution. it should not be the spawn of robert moses, who destroyed street life and whole neighborhoods in pursuit of a theory of mechanical, faceless building, which was a reversal and perversion of his hero. i would then -- i guess that's all i have to say about that, but i would -- i would try to impress the importance of this upon you. i'm sure these expensive projects can afford a reasonable design so the developers can discharge their public duty of giving us a san francisco building that's no, sir just a box or a storage bin. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public

comments? >> i want to be sure i'm commenting appropriately, so i'm commenting on item f. is this the appropriate time? >> president hillis: what item on f? >> discretionary review. >> president hillis: no. that's later. go grab some lunch. it will be a while. [laughter] it will be a while. >> good afternoon. jeremy paul. i wanted to talk to you a bit about the coming retail cannabis applications and the way this process is moving forward. it's come out of the office of cannabis with a selection process based on qualifications

of equity partners. but without considering the impacts on the neighborhoods that are proposed for locations for retail cannabis outlets. and in many cases, it's going to fall upon this commission to determine what is the best location and what is the best operator for a particular neighborhood. none of those considerations have been made. about a month ago, there was a horserace where the equity applicants filed their applications with the highest tech electronic speed racers to be first in line. and that's the way the applicants were selected for each community. as restrictions state, not more than one retail cannabis vendor can be within a 600-foot radius. most of those are going to be

coming before you as conditional use, but they're coming one at a time. you will not see the alternate applications waiting in the background to see if they can get approved if the first application is not. these have only been vetted by the office of cannabis for the qualifications are the equity partner, not for the appropriateness of the management team or of the location. i would suggest that you will see a lot of this and see a lot of confusion about what the planning commission role is in selecting the eventual retailers. and it will be a lot of fear and loathing going on in this town about this because it's not the gold rush anymore. it's a hard business. and retail margins are similar to every other retail business.

so there's going to be a lot of disappointment and frustration. there is one thing i would like to pass up to the commissioners. there's a letter that was circulated to all the property owners of applicants for cannabis locations and it's a fraudulent letter using department letterhead. i'm going to put it on the overhead, essentially threatening federal action against property owners should landlords choose to rent to legal cannabis retail. this is an interesting time in this industry and the planning commission hasn't seen it yet. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close general public comment. director? >> per that limit item from mr. paul, we're aware of this

fraudulent letter that has been sent out on department letterhead. we're trying to make sure we correct the regard, put a statement on our website and other look agencies so we can make sure that applicants know it's not coming from the department. it's an unfortunate use of the department letterhead making it look official. it is not. we did not send the letter. want to be sure that you are aware of that and members of the community are aware of that. >> president hillis: as far as process -- as we hear c.u.s, we'll have an informational hearing to go over what we expect the process to be? >> certainly. and we can map the locations that we have received applications for before you have the first hearing. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. jonas, we can move to regular calendar. >> clerk: that places us under regular calendar, item 9, 2018-008567pca, office development conversions planning code amendment.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, legislative affairs. the item before you is an ordinance to amend the planning code to allow square footage of baseline office space converted to nonoffice uses to be available for allocation under the office development limit program. mu we have some other speakers and i will continue my presentation after their remarks. >> president hillis, commissioners, good to see you. sardana phillips, oewd. i'm glad to be here to speak about legislation that's jointly sponsored by the mayor and by supervisor peskin. and pleased to be joined by sonny. hopefully she's here. this is an aspect of office development that was not directly addressed, conversions

such as those addressed by this legislation have been happening for years. you are familiar with the call building only montgomery. st. regis hotel, beautiful, historic buildings, where they see a higher and better purpose from office use to something else, often residential or hotel. the loss of these buildings has been accumulating over that time. conversions are not solely responsible for the rising demand and rents that have been pressure on office users in san francisco and they -- that pressure, though, has caused displacement on lower revenue office users, class b and c and nonprofits and art spaces. the last space that the buildings represent adds that much more pressure to a system working against them. this legislation returns that space, space that was within the baseline amount of office that was supported by the voters when they adopted proposition m in

1986. and returns it back to office use. it's a modest proposal, but we believe it's sensible and it will work in tandem with our efforts like nonprofit displacement fund, central soma and p.d.r. to provide more space for wider range of businesses and less pressure on the businesses we want to keep. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. welcome. >> hi. hi, commissioners. sorry, this week has been so depressing. seeing you guys makes it less depressing. my name is sonny angulo, here representing supervisor peskin, who is the co-sponsor of this legislation along with the mayor. as you know, supervisor peskin has long been a champion of the smart and balanced growth, particularly as we build out new neighborhoods in the southeast of the city. a centerpiece of this policy has been anchored in the rationale

of 1986's proposition m, which placed reasonable limits on office growth to prioritize housing for workers and other vital neighborhood infrastructure, including transit-oriented development. particularly as we look at building out and rezoning entire areas of san francisco, it's important -- or i'm here today to stress that the supervisor feels very strongly that even neighborhoods like downtown and formerly light industrial neighborhoods, they're still neighborhoods, and we need a balanced, smart growth approach, when we look at upzoning and balancing the different kinds of uses. and so one of the things that i want to thank the mayor's office for is their partnership and helping to think of creative ways that we can restore this

office growth to what the voters did codify in 1986 and it's not -- prop m is not an impediment, not a barrier, to implementing exciting neighborhood plans that we have coming up. it's, in fact, something that we want to augment. we want to, you know, compliment. that's the way our office has really thought about this legislation. it's a come preliminary -- compliment. it's a way of evening out, restoring, and having balance in the neighborhoods that we're building out. so look forward to your insights and input today and thank you very much for considering it. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. >> currently the city has an annual cap of 950,000 square feet of office space per year with 75,000 reserves for projects between 25,000 and 50,000 square feet. any square footage not used in a

reporting period is carried over to subsequent years and unused allocations are put back into the pot or available for available square footage. there is no provision in the code that allows office space to be back in the cap if it's been converted to nonoffice uses. the ordinance would amend the allocation program by allowing any office space of 25,000 square feet or more that lawfully existed before november 29, 1984, that is or was lawfully converted to nonoffice use on or after november 4, 1986, to be added to the amount available for allocation for development. the department recommends approve all of the ordinance. the department supports it because it will help them to keep up for demand for office space. cities across the area have seen nonprofit organizations and lower-revenue businesses

displaced. this ordinance will help to address that need. further, the proposed ordinance will allow a significant amount of planned office space in central soma and other plan areas to move forward. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thanks. >> president hillis: we'll first open this up for public comment. any public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i think it's a great idea. it's a solid idea. i remember a time when there was a lot of vacant office space being adapted to housing and other uses and i think in the true interpretation of prop m it makes sense and that it's creative and fills an urgent gap between where we are without increasing the cap. >> i am in support of this.

i brought this up last week. being able to take a holistic approach to looking at how we can balance office production in ways that can support the sectors while at the same time making sure we can be responsive to the changing needs of our city is what's needed. thank you. >> president hillis: thanks. >> commissioner richards: i'm fully supportive of this. i have a couple of thoughts. first, as we approve the conversion of aaa building down on the street here on van ness to housing, i wonder in the '60s and '70s did anyone realize that office buildings could be converted to housing? we're here to rectify it. it makes complete sense. the question i have -- we hear a lot about studies on the number of housing units that we have to increase in order to reduce the price. with the demand for office space and this add-back considered, what will it take to be able to

level off office rents and reduce them so that nonprofits and art spaces can survive, stay here and not be priced out? is there an estimate? is this a teaspoon in a boat full of water that we're spooning out rapidly or will this keep the boat floating? any ideas? has there been any studies? >> i will freeform a little up here. there have not been any studies and i don't think we have any specific idea, to your question. i do know as long as i've worked in oewd, we have a wing of our department that looks at office rents and has been part of the nonprofit displacement work. and as they've looked back historically, much like our housing, although fortunately a little more mediated, office rents rise and fall with the economy. and when we see -- right now, we're seeing very, very high

per-square-foot rents, because there's a run on it. when we saw rents around $50 a square foot or below $60, which actually was not that long ago -- though it sounded high at the time -- we were not seeing the pressures we have. we have some data points that we can bring back to you about what kind of levels of displacement and pressure we saw related to office square foot rents and how they've changed over time. unlike housing -- housing goes like this. office does -- it's not a constant upward trajectory. it does dip down more dramatically. we can bring you back some of that information, though it does not directly address your question. >> commissioner richards: it would be interesting. thank you. >> commissioner fong: i'm supportive of this and applaud the flexibility of a lot of people in this city and hope we do that in the future and make a motion to approve. >> president hillis: second. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion to approve. on that motion -- [roll call]

so moved, commissioners. motion passes, 7-0. item 10, 2018-006910pca, home-sf and 100% affordable housing bonus programs, planning code amendment.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm paulo ikezoe, citywide commission. before you today, we have a piece of legislation

we had embarked upon creating more family-sized units, with a very high requirement of 40% of the bedrooms need to be either 2 or more bedrooms. and so those are all great components of the legislation as well as additional support and notification for small businesses. that might be impacted through home sf projects. we ensured that there would not be any displacement of people that are living in units to be taken over by home sf projects. but now we're at a time where after legislation has passed, we do see there are more project sponsors utilizing the state

density bonus law. so we did a lot of talking to project sponsors, trying to talk to the planning staff, to figure out what it was to figure out what we need to do to adjust our home-sf program to make it more attractive. that was really important. people said, we would like affordable housing, but we want neighborhood input. we also want more local control over it or local review. so what we have before you is a program that basically -- we try to craft a couple of incentives for home-sf to make it more attractive. still have the same eligibility requirements, but two changes we're making include tiered approach. so there would be three different ways that people can use home-sf and one is that you would actually go for the full

two stories above existing height limits, as well as utilizing all the density decontrols there. you could also build just one story above and have lower density or just build a project conforming with existing height limits and then you would have even lower affordability amount required on site. we also are trying to encourage the technical advisory committee to study the feasibility of the tiers when it reconvenes next year. this is a pilot that we're embarking upon right now. this is not something that we want permanent because we understand that t.a.c. needs to do further studies. secondly, we wanted to provide more -- we want certainty, but we also know the community still wants planning commission review. all that is still in there, but

we'd like to recommend that there's a timeline attached to when the projects would be heard by the planning commission. so with that, i wanted to get into the planning commission recommendations. we are supportive of the first two recommendations. one is to allow more than one zoning modification that's used. and then also to start at tier 1 at 23%, but if it's less than 20 units, allow 20% affordable on site. there were a couple of other recommendations that we were not in agreement with. the third, we did not agree with because we know that some projects may want to take advantage of the tax credit program to provide deeper levels of affordability. however, as i mentioned, home-sf was drafted to address middle-income households the fourth recommendation we

didn't agree with, again, we believe in certainty in terms of project approvals. it's something that the staff or commission may not agree with, but it's something that would, i think, provide huge incentive for sponsors to use home-sf. lastly, as we heard from even the adu conversations, we want to be sure there is something that the public can weigh in. in a nutshell, we agree with the first two but not the last three. with that, i will turn it back to staff, but want to thank paulo for working on this for many years, actually. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you.

>> i'd like to start with a brief overview of home-sf, as it exists today. home-sf was our local bonus program, designed to be more attractive in the state. it applies in our ncd and other districts with density controls but not in rh1 or rh2. what i would like to say is that the basic premise of home-sf is we're giving more as a city to get more back. what we're giving is relief from density controls and two extra stories of height above the height limit. we're getting back 30% on site affordability. the program was approved unanimously at the board of supervisors last summer and has been in effect for about a year. so in that year, the department has seen four projects apply to use the program or express

interest. the first two listed here, were projects that were filed with the department that then came back and revised their scopes to use home-sf. and then the third and fourth listed here, were received as t.p.a.s. when i look at these projects, the locations, the plans we receive, they're pretty much exactly what we envisioned when we created the program. all are on major transit corridors and designed at an appropriate scale. what is particularly remarkable to meet is how many affordable units they're proposing and how many they're proposing when you compare it to what the base zoning would require. in most of the cases, home-sf roughly doubles the density you can fit on a site, but results in four or five times as much affordable housing than would otherwise be provided. so why make amendments to a program that seems to be working? four proposals in one year is

not that many, given our typical volume. we've seen many good candidates choose not to use the program. here's a first example. this is at 2 russia avenue. it's zones ncd with a hide limit of 65. because of the zoning control, it's limited to 8 units on this site. so the plans we received are just that, 8-unit building, con towning no bmr units, because it's under the 10-unit threshold for inclusionary. and it's not even going to the full 65 feet that it's allowed to. so we just -- some estimations, if they were to use home-sf on the same site, could yield 26 units with 8 bmrs. the site could fit up to 20

units. so it's definitely underdeveloped, i would say. so we've heard that -- aside from the cost and complexity of including bmr units, the project sponsor was not interested in taking on the extra process of conditional use, which is what home-sf requires. we've also seen projects like this one at 2670 geary, lucky penny site. here they came to us with mixed-use project containing just 21 units, which is what the base zoning allowed. we asked them to explore a home-sf option that provided more housing and they developed a scheme with 121 units of which 36 would have been affordable. in the end, the project didn't need the extra two stories. they needed the extra density. it was entitled through an

s.e.d. that gave it just that, density control and no height and it was 23% on-site affordability. so home-sf 2.0, we dubbed it, is to make it available for more people to use it. it seeks to offer greater certainty in the approval process, including by offering 100% affordable housing bonus projects and administrative approval. so here's the proposed changes. currently, home-sf is required for conditional use. they seek entitlement through a modified conditional use in section 328 of the planning code. so this entitlement would be similar to a large project authorization like you see in

eastern neighborhoods. it would allow it to grant needed modifications. currently, conditional uses are appealable to the board of supervisors. so section 328 as proposed, it would be appealable to the board of appeals. so currently, we don't have specific timelines other than those outlines in the executive directive, but this legislation proposes to set a timeline of 120 days from receipt of complete application to decision by the planning commission. all home-sf projects require 30% on-site affordability currently and are offered two extra stories of height above height limit, whether they need it or not. as the supervisor mentioned, it would create three tiers or options for potential home-sf projects. tier one would be projects

density decontrol and no extra height and 20% on-site affordable. tier two, density decontrol, one extra story of height and 25% affordability. and tier three, similar to today's program, density control and two other stories of height and 30% affordability. the legislation proposes slight changes to affordable units, though the specific a.m.i. limits remain the same. so tier 1 would require 10% of units at the deepest affordability. 5% at the middle. and 5 percent at the highest. tier 2, would split 25% units into 10 at the low, 8 in the middle. and 7 at the highest. and then tier 3, 30% of units evenly across the three

affordability tiers. the last major change proposed in the legislation is to allow bonus projects to receive administrative approval instead of requiring a commission hearing. these changes mirror exactly the ones that the commission heard in the mayor's process improvements legislation, which passed the full board on tuesday. so i won't go into detail on those. the department is generally supportive of the legislation as drafted and offers the following recommended amendments. first, as home-sf, offered three zoning modifications off a prescribed list. it's limited in scope and all vetted internally. it's things we routinely grant. currently home-sf limited a project to three of the

modifications, meanwhile, the state density bonus law offers unlimited number of more generous waivers. so home-sf, giving us higher affordability should be offered out of the predetermined zoning modifications, if needed. our second recommendation is on the affordability requirements proposed for tier 1. the legislation proposes 20% requirement for tier 1, however current inclusionary rate for condos is already at 21%. so we're concerned that in some cases 20% could be lower than the requirement of our basic inclusionary. we propose keeping the 20% requirement for tier 1 projects of 24 units or fewer, because for projects of that size, current inclusionary rate is 13%. of 25 units or more, we recommend a 23% requirement.

so for projects -- larger projects, it's 19% for rentals or 21% for condos. a little background on that. 23% is what the lucky penny required. so that was what a tier 1 project might look like. 23% is what the divisedero fillmore found to be a reasonable rate on a site that, again, received density decontrol but no height. our recommendation would be 23% split into the trenches of 10 at the lowest, deepest affordability tier, 8 at the middle, and 5 at the highest. with this recommendation, we ensure that no home-sf project provides a lower number of units than basic inclusionary requires. another recommendation we're suggesting is to set the a.m.i.

affordability requirements at maximum, which similar to what they are in the current inclusionary law. so this would allow a project sponsor to provide units at a deeper affordability level and still qualify for home-sf. the reason why we made this recommendation is that certain projects could qualify for favorable financing under programs like the so-called 80-20 deals. we're recommending removing the 120-day timeline as we think it might be tough for our staff to get a project from, you know, receiving a complete application all the way through to a planning commission hearing in 120 days. home-sf will receive priority processing and we have the timelines outlined in the mayor's executive directive, which is based on the amount of ceqa review, which can be the

thing that takes the longest. and, finally, we're remembering offering tier 1 projects, not exceeding height limit, offering administrative approval, rather than commission hearing. our hope is that projects like the one at 2 russia, which i presented earlier, might be incentivized to use home-sf and provide affordable units if the process is simplified. since tier 1 projects will not be exceeding the height limit and should look similar to or the same as a project proposed under base zoning, it seems appropriate that they not be required to go to the commission. so that concludes my presentation. and then i'm happy to answer any questions after public comment. thank you. >> president hillis: i'm sure we'll have some. we'll open this up for public comment. any speaker cards? if you have comment, line up on the screen side of the room.

>> good afternoon. steve vettle. here to speak about recommendation number 2, which is to set the inclusionary rate at 23% for tier 1 projects. i would point out that the current 18% for rental projects is proving difficult for projects to pencil, to increase sub starjly for a project not getting a height increase seems burden onsome and i think it ought to be rethought. the basis of that recommendation is a study done on divisadero and fillmore. that study concluded that 23% affordability rate would confer all the benefit of a density decontrol to the city in the way of affordable housing and no benefit for the project sponsor. so it would require no incentive for a project sponsor to participate in home-sf projects.

it's a rate that would disincentivize people from going into tier 1 affordability program, if at 23% you're -- any benefit you are getting from going into the program is conferred to the city. at the same time, you are expecting the risk of a larger project. you are accepting a planning commission hearing, appealability to the board of supervisors, all this risk and no benefit. so the 20% in the original legislation, i think, is a much more feasible number. it's true that the base and affordability level for condos is now at 21%, but it's not there for rental projects. and that 21% is -- most condo projects are feeing out because they cannot do 21% on site. to use a level proving unfeasible now to increase that, seems like the wrong idea when you are trying to incentivize people to go into a program that you get some inclusionary units. if you ask for too much, you

will get none. i speak against recommendation number two. [please stand by]

to make this more competitive. there are two questions we do want to put before you. one is how do we make sure that these projects actually result in units on the ground, that they do not result in more speculation, moreland transactions on entitled projects and those 60,000 entitled units you are are well aware of. one way is to include this to have a loose it provision. within two years you commit to filing for the permit and moving the project forward. second item there are some differences between this and how we try to make this thing work with our inclusionnary housing policy. that is now indexed to take advantage of continue credible increase in land values. one way make the changes to home-sf but make it track the

annual increase within home-sf. one last thing. when we leaked at this we were looking at changes in home-sf. examples were about market rate. we have seen affordable projects to use this and haven't been able to use it and gone to the state density bonus. what i would ask you all as recommendation to have the planning staff meet with the mayor's office of housing and community development, nonprofit housing developers find adjustments to the 100% affor affordable home-sf to make that work as well. i am not sure why planning staff or proponents of the legislation look at that as equally as important as the market rate portion. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i have a letter here. i am here on behalf of mb action and the 1500 members. the original goal was a program more appealing than the state density program so the twoers would -- developers would choose our program. it is not getting used and is not working. we have change it to get the outcomes we want. ty want to ensure we are i didn't go policy on the real world. the result nothing gets built. we need to make sure they allow feasible housing. this has worked on a lot. we are deciding housing is necessary and desirable to neighborhoods. it makes sense to eliminate condition use. we can decide housing is necessary and desirable in san francisco. additional they suggested the ministerial project that do not

increase height but allow more housing units. we are not going over the height limit closer to form based zoning. what doesn't make sense is taking more than four months to process after the er. the planning commission must help usget stricter projects. when they it is for months how can we build at the speed we need. the technical advisory study committee needs to be less political. the point is to convene a body of experts to do the math. when we decide what to do with that math is for political bodies. when we allow them to play politics we deny the opportunity to understand the policies. have legislation that works and get accurate and nonbiased information to form your decision. >> mr. smith.

>> good afternoon, corey myth on san francisco housing coalition. i want to add recommendations. we are advocating eliminating the condition use requirement on home-sf requirements. when we get extra density we get affordable housing. what is that not necessary and desirable? homebuilders are taking risks. there needs to be a level of certainty. if there was no cu requirement maybe that went through with the remember. additional 30 something included in that. for home assessed projects both mixed income and 100% condition no requirements. there is a lot of conversation about how to get more people walking around in neighborhoods. we believe extra density is a tool the get us there. we are advocating for

elimination of demolition controls. there are grounds for property with old units above. if we can unlock 60, 70 home was additional below market housing we should explore it. we understand there are risks and consequences. the state of california has best practices regarding moving fees and other things to make sure people are proprotected that is a priority. if there is old buildings that are not serving the use that they could, we want to take advantage of those. also, the fact this is a pilot program, let's test to see if it works. the city should encourage the absolute maximum density allowed under the current zoning laws. you will hear me scream about the mcdonald site not maxing

out the potential housing capacity. the federal environmental study had it at seven story option and five story option. current zoning allows up to eight. that is an additional 25 homes we could provide. for all projects we should encourage the maximum amount of housing possible. technical advisory committee i agree with the actions and comments this is a politically influenced group. let's debt politics out of housing. when we came out to 15 to 18%. 18% is the starting point. logic is 16%. process is political. lastly, one of the big incentives is the legal protection. if somebody gets sued they are able to recoup the feeds. we should look