case 2, 2017-002545drp, 2417 green street. proposed for continuance to october 24, 2018. item 3, 2017-014849cua, 220 post street, indefinite inwants. under discretionary review calendar, we received a request from the sponsor and requestor for item 20, 2009-0880drp at 2100 mission street discretionary review for a one-week continuance so they may

come to some apartment of agreement. no other items for continuance or speaker cards. >> president hillis: thank you. do you want to speak on this? >> i'm asking for a longer continuance on item 1. the reason is, we were told it was housing with commercial below. and lo and behold, just before fourth of july, a note -- and the notice goes out, not on the building, but on a pole, saying they want exception to the height and want to have restaurants, bars, and retail on the second and third floor. i want to make certain we know what the project is before we make special zoning decisions. i think the public should know

what we're getting and i would like it to be continued for a month so we can get a handle on exactly what this project is. it's -- the lot is the size of a postage stamp. and we were told housing and then this came up. we haven't had a chance to present what it is to the public because it happened just before the fourth of july and right after, conveniently, and we would like to have a continuance for a month so the public can find out what they're doing before we make changes. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> commissioner koppel: move to continue items 1, 2, 3. >> president hillis: on item 1,

we're continuing until just next week. i don't know who knows but just a response to -- >> i think it's being continued because of the commission calendar. we had it on this date, but it's full. the date for the review is over i think on the 24th of this month. it would be up to the supervisors to provide an extension resolution for that. >> president hillis: so we need to hear it -- >> next week. >> president hillis: or calendar it? >> yes. >> commissioner johnson: i second the motion. >> clerk: motion to continue as proposed, including item 20. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously,

5-0. commissioners, that places us under commission matters item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes for june 21 and 28, 2018. >> president hillis: any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close comment. commissioners? >> commissioner koppel: move to adopt draft minutes for june 21 and 28. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to adopt the minutes june 21 and 28, 2018. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. places us on item 5 for commission comments and questions. >> commissioner koppel: i wanted to -- you mean commissioner richards? sorry. i did press.

can't show up late and not hear about it. i wanted to formally congratulate our new mayor london breed. i had the opportunity to attend the ceremony. it was a beautiful day. we had our first african-american mayor, chinese dancers and pride choir. >> commissioner richards: there was an article in "the chronicle" that supervisor ronen is proposing harassment-based rent increases on single-family homes in reference to costa hawkins. we've heard about people that pay $3,000 a month and then all of a sudden their rent goes to 10,000. it's a great idea that we start

looking at single-family homes. regardless of what people say the estimates are in the richmond and sunset, 25% to 33% of the people in those homes are renters and have no rent-control protection. so i applaud supervisor ronen and hope that passes. there was an editorial in "the new york times" this saturday, "down and out in san francisco on $117,000 a year." it's interesting. it talks about the west coast becoming a string of guilded megalopolisis and that urbanism has failed us and we need to do something new. they talked about san francisco, vancouver and seattle. and in here in san francisco, what they -- his name is timothy egan. he mentioned that there has to be a social compact when we want to have more people live in san francisco. he says, "can people accept more crowded neighborhoods in a city

that's second most densely populated if they feel the elected leaders don't have a decent plan?" i think that's really telling. i think a good plan -- and he talked about mayor breed and what her position is on housing and i think it's -- it really questions how we're going to achieve these additions of residence and what it will look like. he talked about seattle as well, where seattle actually has built more university in the the last 5 years than in the prior 50 and yet prices are still increasing and i wrote a question there, why? maybe they didn't build enough. i know there's a task force that the mayor is put together on housing and how to solve the housing crisis at all income lech levels. it's a good article that starts at what new urbanism looks like. i have no idea. maybe the committee can come up with that. lastly, when we have developments, we have people that get up and say, we have a finite city, only so many

natural resources and so much land, etc., etc., and people bring up water as an example. we all sit up here and we go, that makes sense, water, especially in a severe drought, is an issue. and i was really surprised on saturday, again, to pick up "the chronicle" and see there will be limits placed on water coming to san francisco and there will be from places in the bay area and talks about san francisco p.u.c. reviewing what the water impact will look like. for the first time, it jars me that we're looking at a natural resource that is being cut and we have it have a plan if we want to increase the population on how to serve everybody with the water. it's the first time i've seen something like that in print. it's a good article to start a discussion and i look forward to that. >> president hillis: anyone else? i, too, wanted to offer my congratulations to the mayor. it was a great ceremony.

of note, one of her first policy initiatives she talked about was housing. i took it as a challenge to us that she wanted to see -- although i think we do a lot on the housing front every week, but she wants more and more housing, more affordable housing, and also with the concerns we have about protecting those that are here. so things we've done of late, a.d.u. reform, process reform, it's good. we continue to re-evaluate them and make sure they're working like we did with home s.f., but i took it as a challenge in kind of a reflection of what we do here. it's just not enough. it's not happening as fast as we would like it to be. affordable housing market rate, housing a.d.u.s and home-sf projects. so it should be an interesting next couple of years. >> commissioner moore: 5 want to

join my fellow commissioners in congratulating mayor breed. i think it was symbolic that the day started gray and right around the time of the ceremony, the sky -- the sun was coming out. it was lovely. no matter where you stood or sat. i stood way away with the common folks, and it was a festive, wonderful thing, including walking to city hall afterwards, where i have never seen a row of people all around the perimeter. it was like four blocks long it was fantastic. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: item 6, director's announcements. >> no formal director's report, but i didn't want to draw to your attention an item in your packet that you have received an updated preliminary policy analysis. >> clerk: commissioners, item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of

appeals. and there was no historic preservation commission yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the board was very busy this week. land use had like 10 items on it. first on the agenda, land use considered the duplicated version of the process improvement ordinance created by supervisor kim when the original ordinance was heard in committee june 11. the duplicated ordinance was to address a specific issue related to signage on historic structure. planning staff has worked with the property and supervisor's office storm have an alternative means to address the issue that with not need legislation. voteded to put it to the call of the chair. next supervisor tang's ordinance that we provide flexibility to the accessory dwelling unit program. the commission heard that item on june 21 and approved the ordinance with staff's modifications. the commission supported supervisor tang's provision to

prevent new a.d.u. the modifications were to, one, allow expansion of a.d.u.s within the buildable envelope, clarify code provisions with regard to expansion in cantalivered rear decks in yards, stand-alone garage structures limited to existing footprint on corner lots. krar phi -- clarify that dormers on stand-alone structures would be allowed even in rear yard. allow in lieu fee for trees and the same for units undergoing legalization and consider size thresholds and address the eviction loophole and legalization program through amendments to the admin and planning codes. supervisor tang accepted recommendations 1-5. during public comment, provision to allow a.d.u.s in new

construction was equally opposed. supervisor safai suggested allowing a.d.u.s on new construction in vacant lots. it was not added as amendment, though. there were concerns in public comment about removing requirements for cantilevered rear yard. they talked about having a notice. that amendment will go to the board next week. they moved to move it to the board. and home-sf 2.0, tiered system that would last until 2019. the commission considered this item at june 28 meeting and vote 6-0. one would allow home-sf projects to receive voting modifications, and those in tier one to set all

affordable levels as a maximum and then language to require home-sf products to receive a commission hearing with 180 days of come motion of the environmental review amid language to include a use-it-or-lose-it profession, to file within two years. supervisor tang proposed amending the legislation to incorporate 1, 2, and 4 from the planning commission. supervisor tang commented she would not make theation recommendation for maximums, because wanted to have middle-incommune its as intended. also did not take the use-it-or-lose-it recommendation because she didn't want them to be less flexible. supervisor tang announced that home-sf would not be allowed to

provide lower percentage of affordable units than the inclusionary requires and to ask the upcoming tack to consider that when they next meet. several advocates expressed concerns about the proposed ordinance wanting to make sure that all projects in the mission keep a high proportion of deeply affordable, low-inco low-incolow-incom low-incolow-income units. commenters were generally supportive to make it more attractive, rather than the state bonus program. supervisor kim asked why it is not differentiated between condos and rentals. and supervisor safai had questions about tiering the bedroom mix requirement. both issues will be considered in the amendment sunset in two years and had a chance to evaluate the inclusionary program. safai made a motion to send it to the full board with a

positive recommendation and that was taken unanimously without objection. next on the agenda was zoning map amendment for burnett avenue. it would amend the zoning map to rezone one parcel at burnett avenue and burnett avenue north from public to residential mixed low density. and rezone a portion north to arm 1. you heard this item on january 18 this year and unanimously recommended its approval. land use committee, president of the h.o.a. that was connected with the lawsuit spoke during public comment to state that the h.o.a. is supportive of the settlement. and voted unanimously to send it to the full board with recommendation. central soma packet of legislation was continued to the july 16 land use hearing. the continuance was needed to draft and format required amendments to the ordinances. at the full board, the board considered the mayor's process improvement ordinance

this passed its first read last week. supervisor peskin introduced additional amendments to restore the prof uses of sections 311 and 312 related to building permit locations. supervisors moved several clean-up amendments recommended by the planning department. the board passed as amended. it's scheduled for second read next week at the board hearing. the public parking lot in the glen park n.c.t. passed second read and general plan and planning code for hunter's point shipyard phase two passed their second read. that concludes my report. >> president hillis: thank you. do we have an historic preservation or board of appeals? >> historic preservation did not meet yesterday and no report from board of appeals.

>> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: if you could in future reports lump these suggestions that you made that they accepted and suggestions you made that they didn't accept, it would be helpful, because i'm trying to follow 1, 2, and 4, and what the numbers were. it would be helpful for us. >> i do send it to you ahead of time. >> commissioner richards: i know. i'm soeeing the public saying, yeah, that would be a good idea. >> clerk: at this time, members of the public may address the commissioners on items of interest to the public in the jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. and i did have two speaker cards.

>> president hillis: go ahead. >> can i get the over -- perfect. i want to thank commissioner richards for his comments on the water. it is something interesting to discuss. sometimes the commissioners bring up a lot of interesting issues during their statements and i'm wondering if that -- if those would be better served if they were aagain agendized. so i was -- i was fortunate enough that one of my staff members was able to have lunch with commissioner richards and he shared that he would be talking about water, so we did some research on the issue. i want to present something, some ideas around water and the way we think about it from san

francisco. so water, much like housing, really needs to be thought about regi regionally. our water also provides water to alameda county. if you look at this map, water usage per person per day is tremendously lower in a city. so we in san francisco, we use about 40 gallons of water per day. as you move further out into the east bay, you can see it goes up to -- sorry, i have numbers here that corresponds with this. in san francisco 40 gallons per person per day. in alameda county -- sorry, alameda county, 53 gallons per person person day. contra costa county, 61 gallons per person per day. so if we're thinking about how

regionally we can conserve water, we want to encourage people to move to san francisco. there is less water used per person per day in san francisco than there is in alameda county and contra costa county. if you think about it, it makes sense. we don't have lawns that we're watering, right? the minivan is not getting washed as often in san francisco. and so it's an important environmental conversation to have. one last map that -- this is a map that actually shows our carbon footprints, in the same way the carbon footprint of urban san franciscans is smaller, significantly smaller, than contra costa county and alameda county. so i encourage us to think regionally and look at the a

data as to where the most effective way to be environmentalists can be. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. steele? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm james steele, bay area native and proud resident of district 6 and i'm here to talk about something that's been bothering me. we pride ourselves on socially progressive values, which i love about san francisco. applicants that come up to speak, those that label themselves progressive, i hear views on growth that lie with conservative lines of thought. we know that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a real thing. so when conservative administrations say, we don't like that data, we'll go with our gut, we say, it's anti-intellectual. a -- is it conservative or

progressive? borders. we say that people should be able to come, live, work in america and we should accommodate them, but our housing dialogue is saying, we should only accommodate those who were born here or lived here for decades and we don't want to accommodate new people, herb cane, harvey milk, janis joplin, bruce bochy, transplants that came here and contributed to our city. we believe in autonomy and a woman over her own body and you should express yourself however you should. when families design houses that reflect their needs that are code-complaint, neighbors say, we don't like that, so why don't you change it to meet our idea of what your house should be and filed d.r.s and code complaint projects on everything from roof decks to doorknobs. every environmentalist said that the best way to conserve resources, stop traffic and stop the sprawl of the suburbs to

dense tie our urban cores. we say, we like it how it is. we say conservative administrations ignore the plight of youth and communities of color, which is true, but we're happy to let millennials paying 50% of their income to live in something like a walk-in closet. we won't upzone single-family neighborhoods on transit like glenn park or westportal and slow gentrification in our communities brown and black of color. i think we have a lot in common and we want what is best for our city, but i'm confused and saddened about how the most socially progressive city in america has become the most conservative city in america when it comes to jobs and

housing growth. i love what you do. i watch you every week. i'm excited to hear what you talk about today. thank you for letting me speak. >> president hillis: thank you. >> anecdotally, i took the train to san jose before the holiday and san carlos had apartments between the train tracks and el camino, but they had garage spaces and there they are, high transit density and planning for cars. i don't know how you deal with that. i was happy and lucky, i don't know if anyone saw it, but "the chronicle" printed my letter to the editor. i would like to read it into the record. "i wish mayor-elect london breed success in her endeavors for our city. there's another bureaucracy that should be dealt with as she takes office. one that has been overlooked in the the last 10 years and that's the bureaucracy that allows

evictions of long time residents, that turns a pair of flats into a high-end single-family home. a bureaucracy that allows extreme alterations of existing housing and remodels them to $4 million to even over $7 million homes. preservation of existing housing may be even more important than meeting a goal of 5,000 units a year in a city and nation in a world that has the extreme income inequality that we're living through. existing housing is affordable housing. let's have a bureaucracy that works to preserve the housing we have and then reach for loftier goals." i didn't want to use bureaucracy as a perjorative in there. last sunday in the real estate, two residences remodeled to one smart home in pac heights, but $6.45 million. the thing that was interesting to me was the plan in the packet

called a laundry room, but in the marketing, an office. so, you know, i don't know how you deal with that. and then glen park, something that you had in september '16, approved for a demo, but three neighbors filed a d.r. that just hit the market in april in glen park, rh-1. they were asking $7.7. they got $7.4 million. so that's kind of why i wrote that letter. i'm glad -- i thank the "the chronicle" and ms. cooper for printing it. just to show you on the overhead, that's the rear of that $7.4 million house in glen park. just $6.4, $7.4, pac heights,

glen park. one more thing interesting about the pac heights one -- it's zoned rm-1. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. mr. bus. >> afternoon, commissioners, steven bus. sorry i haven't been around for a couple of weeks, especially my apologies to commissioner richards. i wish i would have been here to answer your question about that nato green article. i'm still working on research to provide response to it. hopefully i will have that shortly. i want to talk about two prior things. first, when mr. david was talking about water usage, he said, makes sense that we useless in san francisco because we don't have lawns, things like that. and i want to highlight -- nearly 50% of water usage in

sprawling, outlying areas goes to outdoor usage. he's right, the reason we use so much less is partly because we don't have lawns and prioritize native plans that need very little active irrigation. the more people we fit into san francisco, the more the benefits become clear. instead of having 100 new lawns, you just have one building with one small side yard with the same little bit of plants. so you have more than a 50% reduction because each of those people is -- does that math work? i may have gotten that a little bit wrong, but it's a non-linear -- it's more than linear reduction in water use when you pack people into a city. so we should keep that in mind. from what ms. shudish said, she

said that existing housing is affordable housing. i respectfully disagree. if you look just in the mission, houses that have real little not been changed, maybe a new coat of paint, and new windows are selling for $1.5 million. it's not affordable housing. it doesn't matter that it's been there a long time. it only matters that we have a shortage. let's do everything we can to solve the shortage, because it doesn't matter what we have. it matters what we don't have. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> corey smith, san francisco housing action commission. i want to show this today, if i can get the overhead. as you can see, this is carbon footprint for bay area households on a number of factors, transportation, housing, food, goods and

services. vehicle fuel outweighs all the rest. we're at the point where 41% of the co2 emissions come from vehicle use. that's what's killing our planet. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please, ms. clarke. >> reporter: hi. i'm laura clarke. i want to reiterate some of my favorite parts of yesterday's inauguration speech. "we have people who come from all over the world that come to create, who are innovative, who look at san francisco and say, that's the place where i want to be. and we have failed. we have failed to build more housing to accommodate the increase in the number of job opportunities that have poured into san francisco, pushing residents who have been here all their lives out of the city they call home." and my favorite part, "the politics of no has plagued our city for far too long.

not in my block, not in my backyard. we have made mistakes in the past by not moving housing production forward all over this city. i plan to change the politics of no to the politics of yes. yes, we will build more housing." and my favorite of her tweet storm, "at the root of so many of our issues is our housing crisis, our unending systems of laws designed as if to say no to creating more homes and we've seen the results. it's time to say yes to more affordable housing, middle income housing and market rate housing." obviously, i was thrilled to hear all of those things. that will mean a lot of changes for the bureaucracy. everybody that i talk to who is part of the administration, who is figuring out -- i talked to very depressed reporters, who do not seem very hopeful that we'll be able to implement this bold vision. i, on the other hand, amex

treatmently hopeful that we'll be able to implement this bold vision, but it will take change in departments and departments that only vaguely touch housing, public works, other departments that sometimes deal with putting permits on the back burner. it will mean this body will have to change the way it thinks about housing. it means we'll have to move at a pace that will cause anxiety among many of you. and that's okay, because it will end the overwhelming housing insecurity. we need to move forward at a pace that i think none of you have yet considered yourselves prepared for and i'm very excited for the increase in pace that we're going to see and the bold vision that we can see and some of the neighborhoods that we have asked less of in the past. we can ask more of our outlying neighborhoods. they can do more to approve housing and you can do it

faster. single-family-home-only zoning should quickly become a thing of the past. it was designed to be exclusionary. you have the ability to take the first steps to end it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? >> can i share this document with commissioners? >> president hillis: yes. leave it there. >> would like to bring attention to the commission a property in corona heights, just so you can get information about the changes in the property in the last six years. 2426 ord street. it was a 24 -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: are you talking about 214? >> no. it was two-floor flats with two separate entries and in-law

unit. it became single-family. it was purchased for $1.9 million and sold for $4 million. went from 5 bedrooms to 6 to 8 bedrooms at 4, 530 square feet, above the requirements. one bedroom rented for $375. two two bedrooms, $1,200 per month. the mortgage is $22,000 a month. the property had a series of over-the-counter building permits and was sent one 311 notification. no planning commission hearings were healed. no corona heights moratoriums and no neighborhood opposition. some of the violations on the property were unit merger without application. loss of housing unit. demolition of interior walls and

floors. rebuilt the building. front yard encroachment. changes to building. misrepresentation on drawings. it may be considered to be a grandfathered violation, given the time frame. there are no permits to maximize or restore the density. there is no evaluation that it's tantamount to demolition and no 311 required. the only correction is new permit application to correct the drawings. and given the lack of input opposition i wanted to bring this to your attention so you're aware. the final page is the floorplan used to sell the property and highlighted red indicates the expansion of the property that

was done without permits. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners, president hillis. want to bring some more discussion about the oncoming wave of retail cannabis applications that the commission will be seeing. and my concern about the way the applications will be coming to this commission suggests that the planning department may want to take this bull by the horns before it starts to crash through the china shop. the office of cannabis has yet to issue its approved applicants. in many neighborhoods, as you know, there's a restriction of one retail cannabis merchant per

600-foot radius. and in many neighborhoods, competing applicants, which will not be coming to the planning department. only one will be coming to the planning department out of the 600-foot radius. that's being selected and something of a horserace by the office of cannabis. so the office of cannabis is making a choice based on a horserace which it really should be a beauty contest before this body. and the planning department, planning commission, if you do not have information on all the applicants within a certain business district that are competing for that spot, you are going to see the single applicant that's been approved presenting a conditional use application to you and you will have the other applicants, who you know nothing about, presenting arguments why the applicant before you should not be approved and the person in

second or third position should be moved forward. it's a complication that doesn't need to happen. i believe that the commission should be asking the office of cannabis to be forwarding all of the accepted applications that have been qualified with equity applicants. the planning commission could be deciding what is appropriate for each neighborhood commercial district in a comparative form and to do it in a judicious manner rather than having a cluster with the -- trying to knock down the applicant that was selected by the officer of cannabis. there's my two cents. i hope you consider this before the onslaught begins sometime this fall. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? all right. seeing none, we can move to the regular -- sorry, commissioner richards.

>> commissioner richards: he has a point. we should have the office of cannabis come and let us know the process. >> president hillis: that is on the advanced calendar. >> commissioner richards: great. and, two, to clarify on the water, if we use 40 gallons a day per person and they cut us to 30 with population increase down to 20, we need to increase the water supply or have conservati conservation. it was about planning for future growth based on reduced water supply. >> president hillis: all right, jonas. >> clerk: regular calendar forks item 8, 2018-006177pcamap. i've just been informed by staff that we cannot take up this matter because the environmental

review division has not been able to review the matter and we're requesting a continuance for two weeks to july 26. >> president hillis: okay. >> and if i could, monica mohan, supervisor tang's office is here, hoping to speak on the item. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and president hillis. i'm monica mohan, legislative aide of katy tang. we were informed 30 minutes ago that environmental review staff needed more time to complete their review of this zoning. we're a little frustrated. we've introduced this item quite a while ago. it's the second time it's been scheduled for planning. it's a perfect site for housing. there are five completely underdeveloped sites including a parking lot and two -- some vacancies. the project owner and architect

are here. they've agreed to keep the flower shop that's there to provide commercial space with roll-up door, so they can keep their street presence. we're hoping that the project sponsor uses home-sf to provide much needed affordable housing and middle-income housing to the district. the one thing i wanted to comment on now and i will comment on it in two weeks is we don't agree with the staff recommendation on the legislative setback. the legislative setbacks are inconsistent on the west side of the city, even on 19th avenue. it's 6, 9, 6, 3, 3. we don't believe that removing the setback will impact the pedestrian environment. we believe the architect can design a project that makes the pedestrian environment on 19th enjoyable and walkable. there isn't really consistency to the legislative setbacks. we want it say that we disagree with that point.

if you have any questions about the design or outreach, the project sponsor and architect are here and i'm hoping that they can be here july 26 when the item is scheduledheard again. >> president hillis: you are okay with it -- >> we are not okay with it, but we understand it has to happen. >> president hillis: any public comment -- we're hearing now just the item, whether we should continue it or not. we're not taking up the item for it. >> so you won't actually take comments to the substance of it? >> president hillis: correct. we cannot. >> i agree with the continuance. there are a number of issues, some of which i've addressed with the assessor's office. clarification about the -- the maps do not match configuration. current zoning is inconsistent. and a number of issues that seem to be related. the lot has no address. >> commissioner richards: we're

only taking up the matter for 21 wants. >> i agree with the continuance. there are a number of issues. >> president hillis: all right, ms. clarke. >> i don't agree with the continuance, though i understand that i will completely lose. i think that this is an example of there being a lack of harmonization in the code. the setbacks are arbitrary. we'll need to clean this up and make universal rules that apply everywhere so planners are not faced with bizarre, legislation that is not compatible. long-term to avoid these total-owned goals in california, we'll need to harmonize our planning code and create rules. >> commissioner richards: speak to the continuance, thank you. >> president hillis: any other comment? seeing none, commissioner

richards. >> commissioner richards: move to continue to july 26. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to continue this matter to july 26 -- [roll call] so moved. motion passes unanimously 5-0. places us on item 9, for 2018-006287pca, affordable housing projects on undeveloped lots in the sali districts, planning keyed amendment. >> good afternoon. i believe that bobby lopez from supervisor kim's office is here to speak on the item. >> president hillis: ms. lopez, welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. before you, item 9 is the affordable housing projects and underdeveloped lots in sali districts. we can agree and i think you hear this every thursday

afternoon that housing is a priority for our residence, and the kind of housing that fits our working people in our middle class. we're hoping it's a continuation of supervisor kim's work with the community to figure out different tools we can use to unlock the potential for more sites. we think it's fairly straightforward. before you is amending our code to allow for affordable housing to be a principally permitted use on sali sites. one of the things we're hearing during the central soma negotiations is not just the importance of getting the funds to do affordable housing construction but land banking. this legislation doesn't necessarily mean that the 24 sites will be available automatically for affordable housing, but allows the owners to consider it an option of the site usage. the other component i want to name is that there is no displacement in the legislation. we're talking about sites that

have no structures or the only structure being related to parking, parking accessory use. and so this is a great opportunity. we're talking potentially up to 24 lots that have been identified by the planning department and i'm sure planning staff will go over that. and i want to also end saying that the planning staff report made three recommendations. all three recommendations are accepted by the supervisor and instructed city attorney to move forward on drafting. so i'm happy to go over if there are any questions. i want to thank our partners and other organizations, particularly tipping point and accelerator fund. i hope you give the opportunity for them to say a few words as well as to how we came to this legislation, you know, looking at one site and realizing it's a district-wide issue that we can work on. thank you so much. any questions? >> president hillis: we may, but let's get through the item and we'll take public comment, but we may have questions after.

thank you. >> okay, commissioners. so the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code and zoning map to permit affordable housing on undeveloped lots including service parking lots in the sali district. any housing projects must be 100% affordable and no structure with existing housing is eligible. the staff has received two phone calls in support of the legislation with department's recommended modifications. we recommend that the commission approved it with three recommendations. recommendation one, retain the original heightened bulk district. [please stand by]

>> legislation is meant to protect any established buildings but excludes accessory structures used to support surface parking lot. habitable is not defined in the planning code, but the housing code. to cut it shorter, the term does not cover what we intend it to cover so we suggest the term where it exists in the ordinance should be replaced with clarified language, lots with structures are not eligible for this unless accessory to a surface parking lot use, such as a guard station or kiosk.

and to clarify that surface parking lots eligible for 100% affordable housing projects may be permitted or unpermitted. of the 24 eligible lots, only four are solidly permitted. we understand the permit history clearly and it's defined as commercial parking lots, with no other habitable structure on-site. to avoid complications with the unpermitted parking lots, it should be whether it was established with the benefit of a permit. so, with the incorporation of staff recommended modification, the proposed ordinance strikes a balance between preserving light industrial and arts uses and meeting the need for new affordable housing. protects vulnerable use, allowing only 100% affordable housing projects on undeveloped sites and surface parking lots. hundreds of affordable housing

units on land that is not utilized. >> president hillis: open up for public comment. one speaker card. miss hayward. >> miss hayward has given me bumping rights because i do want to acknowledge that sophie hayward was very instrumental in the concept and designing of this legislation, so i want to make sure she gets the last word. how about that? but commissioners, good afternoon, peter cone with the housing organizations and we are here to support this fully. i think bobby lopez from supervisor kim's office summarized nicely, very simple piece of legislation. at a time when we need to find more affordable housing opportunities, we have to get real creative and need a lot of money and also need land. coming up with a creative tool

to create more housing site opportunities is super. maybe we could do this elsewhere and staff recommendations seem to be find and tailored nicely, we ask for your support and thanks supervisor kim for taking the lead on this. >> president hillis: thanks. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the commission. sophie hayward, i'm here today on behalf of the tipping point community and the san francisco accelerator, housing accelerator fund. together the two nonprofits are piloting a model to build much needed supportive housing for homeless individuals using private philanthropic dollars rather than city gap financing. both tipping point and the accelerator fund are supportive of the proposed legislation, based on our experience over the last year, trying to secure a site on which to build affordable housing. so, put simply, now that i'm no longer in the public sector,

i've learned what all of you already know, which is to buy land in san francisco is incredibly expensive, and there is huge competition in just negotiating any purchase. the goal of this legislation is simple, to open up a specific class of sites in the sali zoning district, to the possibility of becoming affordable housing now or in the future, without competing with market rate developers. none of the sites covered in the proposed legislation would displace an existing p.d.r. use and in fact, no guarantee that any of these sites will become affordable housing. we are simply hoping to allow affordable housing as a use if the site conditions permit. the proposed legislation does not preclude any p.d.r. use or other use but the change will add a new permitted use, affordable housing. i'm sure you get the point by now. as with any land deal, each site has its own quirks and issues to sort out, not all the sites will

be feasible. i'm hopeful, though, that with this change tipping point or another funder or another will be able to use the surface parking lots in the sali. i would like to thank you supervisor kim and miss lopez, and if it passes, keep you all posted on our progress and our hunt for a site. >> this seems like perfectly good legislation and i don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply to places outside of sali districts. in fact, maybe model legislation that could be applied to all surface parking lots across the entire city. i see no reason why we shouldn't broaden where this applies and

more affordable housing. especially looking later at one of the housing reports that shows the clustering of affordable housing in the eastern neighborhoods and not much in the south and west. if we apply this legislation to places that are "residential" to allow more residency, we could see more affordable housing built everywhere in the city. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. >> cory smith, san francisco housing action coalition. i think going with what everybody else has said. whether or not there's an opportunity for permit lease, supportive housing or temporary homeless housing through local union built safe modular housing that everybody is on board with and happy with. i hope we will get there one day. expanding for those that need it. >> president hillis: thanks. additional public comments? close public comment.

commissioner. >> amazingly creative piece of legislation. 24 sites, which offer the possibility again, the issues is permitted use. i have shot off a couple of critical questions, have the sites been examined for buildability, i don't think the issue today. only thing i hope we will do is should these sites be near alleys, that we protect our alleys as livable neighborhood streets and while we do want to approve this type of housing, we do want to also protect the alleys which make the housing units livable. i'm in full support and i'm delighted to hear about the partnership about the many people who came together, this is the way to do great legislation. thank you. >> i make a motion to recommend with approvals. >> second. >> modifications. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: so, i want to state for the record i

used to work for tipping point community and have consulted with the city attorney and as safe as possible, i'm going to recuse myself from the vote. >> we have to make a motion to recuse you, may be kind of late at this point, given that you have sat through the hearing. we can do it, if the city attorney advises. is it all right if we take that up now? do we have a motion to recuse commissioner johnson? >> move to recuse commissioner johnson. >> second. >> and then all right, take that item up now. ok. so -- we'll call the vote on the recusal. >> right. >> go ahead. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner johnson. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners. commissioner johnson, you are harbor recused.

commissioner richards. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. excuse me, with modifications, on that motion -- [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners. passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 10, 2018-007346pca, permit review procedures for ncds in d4 and d11. >> diego sanchez. i'll be presenting an ordinance proposing to amend the planning code to create a two-year pilot program removing public notice on planning commission review for the commercial district, ncds, and 4 and 11.

also proposes to modify zoning controls for certain uses in the supervisor districts as well. before i begin the presentation, provide supervisors tang and safai the legislative sponsors with time to present to you. >> thank you very much, planning commissioners, good afternoon, i promise this is the last of my appearances before you before recess, i think. so, this is actually one of my most favorite piece of legislation, i think, that i have introduced so far, since becoming a supervisor and really centers around trying to help our small businesses in san francisco. for so many years i have heard even as an aide working in the office people have so many barriers to opening up their business, whether it has to do with the notifications, different agencies, different places they have to go, you name it. the high rents. and so one of the things that we wanted to do was to really break down what it is that they had to

go through. i could not figure out how to do this until my legislative aide helped me figure out how we could do it legislatively. what you have before you today is actually a pilot program, we hope that it will take effect for two years in districts 4 and 11, where both districts, i think i could speak for supervisor safai, here as well, that we really want attract more businesses to the commercial corridors. it's very hard, our districts are further from the center of the city. we have less foot traffic and so these businesses don't always do very well out there, and so to the extent that we can offer incentives to locate in the neighborhoods, we would love to do so. centers around the change of use notification process and the beauty of the legislation, it can be custom tailored for every district. so, when we have permitted uses going from one permitted use to another permitted use, so,