doesn't really add anything to

>> thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance we. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the owners of the upper plaza. i want to let you know you don't have a staff report for this matter in your packages.

we agree with the staff for this continuance. hopefully matters will be resolved before december and we won't come back before you. i don't think it's possible to be heard today or rejected today there is nothing in your package just after you vote for the proposed continuance. >> thank you. do you want to explain why it is being requested to be continued? >> i really can't. >> ok. we can ask staff. is there any additional public comment on this item? >> i'm from the venice quarter coalition. we would like to see this item continued. there are discussions between parties working on getting -- renovating the cinema and making it more viable and vital. i think it needs more consideration. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? seeing none, we will close

public comment. commissioners? >> move to continue item one on the calendar and consider continuance of 13 a and b. at this time. >> second. >> so we aren't continuing -- you don't want to continue 13 a and b. at this point? the project sponsor and the d.r. requester requested three weeks. >> i affirmatively said continuing. i support continuance and make a move that we do. >> second to that motion. thank you for clarifying. >> this is for clarification, items 13 a and b. are proposed for continuance to november 8th . >> correct. >> very good. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue item one to december 20th and items 13 to november 8th. on that motion. [roll call]

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. >> also continue item 13 b. for the variance to november 8th as well. thank you. that places us under commission matters. i jumped to his consideration of adoption draft minutes for october 4th close and regular hearings. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for october 4th. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously. item three as commissioner comments and questions. >> i have one brief question. in our packet there were two

pages compliance of land dedication and use and neighborhood but not referencing any originator or why we are getting it and i was wondering if that was an error or if there is any message to it that we should be aware of. >> do you know? i'm not sure. >> we can look into it. i don't have it in my packet. >> sing nothing further, we can move onto department matters. item four is director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners one announcement today. in the realm of interesting code enforcement cases, i heard on npr this morning that the famous church in barcelona which has been under construction for 130 years has never had a break -- building permit. the mayor of bristol -- barcelona announced an agreement with the church that they will grant them a building permit in return for 36 million euros

which will be used for street improvements to accommodate all the traffic. i think it is spain's number 1 tourist attraction. code enforcement does occasionally work. [laughter] >> that is the end of my comments for today. thank you. >> item five is reviewing past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals in the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon commissioners. based on this land use agenda on fire damage and liquor stores in the commercial district, do you hold this item on october 4th of this year and recommended approval with clinical modifications. supervisor peskin did include those modifications in the final ordinance. at the land use hearing, the supervisors her testimony from two members of the public who were in favor of the ordinance. they recommended the ordinance

to the full board. the land land-use committee also heard the variance -- of various audiences for the central soma plan which were continued from the october 1st land-use committee. the planning commission heard the amendments for the plan on september 21st and voted unanimously to approve them amendments. during the public hearing, there were seven public commentors covering a range of topics including a call for proactive land banking for future affordable housing sites and other neighborhood stabilization policies, desire that designed for a post and buildings in the area be culturally appropriate and accessible to youth, family and seniors, a request to prohibit market rate market units and s.r.o. and a desire for more greening and living walls. at the start of the hearing, supervisor kim signal she intended to introduce minor amendments and continue the hearing. with those minor amendments, the committee voted to continue the items one week to october 22nd

at the full board this week, the various landmark in article 11 amendments related to the central soma plan all passed their first read. the board heard the india basin appeal. there were two appeals to the india basin plan. one filed by a local business in the area and by green action. the appellant contends that the city should not adopt a statement of overriding consideration since the project would result in significant air quality impacts. the planning commission improperly -- they have not undergone comprehensive testing for remediation of hazardous materials. it excluded nonare limited english proficient communities. the e.i.r. is inadequate and is -- its conclusions are incorrect it should be recirculated due to the information that was presented and the e.i.r. did not consider the project impacts. during the hearing, members of the public expressed health related concerns over

air-quality and hazardous materials. they also claimed the public notification process excluded nonare limited english-speaking communities. the board asked a few questions related to air quality and they asked the city attorney to clarify whether a two week continuance was adequate of a period to review new information that the planning department presented in response to the response to the comments to the air district. the board was satisfied with the department and the city responses and with the adequacy of the e.i.r. they voted 10-12 rejects the appeal with supervisor fewer disagreeing. the various audiences would create the india basin area. supervisor cohen introduced amendments to the affordable housing plan that included a just as some of the a.m.i. levels downward at inquiring 65% of on-site mac affordable be it rental. the board adopted these amendments and passed the package of legislation on first read. the board considered supervisor peskin's north beach liquor store ordinance which passed its first read. that concludes my comments.

>> thank you can't very much. >> on behalf of the zoning administrator and the board of appeals met last night. i did not hear any appeals of the planning department decisions, the planning department did provide the board of appeals with an informational presentation on the draft residential roof deck policy as requested by the commission. support provided valuable feedback which the department will incorporate into the draft policy for future discussion with the commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here to share with you one item from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. if i can get the overhead, please. the commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the board of supervisors to designate 524 union street historically known as the paper doll. the property is significant and eligible for local designation as one of the earliest lgbtq bars and restaurants associated with early communities in san

francisco. it is also significant for its association with the owner who became one of the people on the front lines in the fight of lgbtq civil rights in san francisco in the 1950s. there's a great article in the bay area reporter. if you would like more history on it or we are happy to share the landmark designation with you as well. both the owner and the supervisor are in support and we anticipate a hearing at the full board very soon. that concludes my presentation. unless you have any comments. >> thank you. any questions or comments? seeing none, we can move to the next item. >> very good. that will place us under general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respected agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item his needs -- met in the meeting. i have the one speaker card. >> it seems like others would like to speak too.

do you want to speak? sure. you can be next. or go ahead. >> i just want -- i was just wondering if planning has had any kind of update on the situation with the academy of art university. we wrote a letter on october 25 th, 2017. as you know, on van ness there are four properties. i think a little interesting about the properties on van ness is they are all institutional. there are two car museums, there's a concordia argonaut club and there is saint bridges church. and then feathering off of van ness at russian hill, union score -- union square, tenderloin, are numerous other residential properties. i believe there is -- it is possible that the department can ask for an update from legal,

from the district attorney's office so we know what is going on? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a handout, please. >> my name is jerry. the whole foods at 355 *-asterisk proposal is scheduled to come back before the commission. i believe i have a recommendation that will free up the entire 20,000 square feet on the second floor for housing. i have been a financial executive with large chain stores, small specialty stores and three different format grocery stores. the average whole foods 365 store is 30,000 square feet. this includes selling square feet and nonselling square feet. nonselling square feet includes the employee break room, administrative offices, shipping and receiving dock, restrooms,

and stock space for retail inventory and store supplies. the property owner and whole foods are proposing a 40,000 square-foot store that is 10,000 square feet larger than the ten existing whole foods 365 stores in the united states. this makes no sense. especially when you add in the 20,000 square-foot parking structure which the s.f. business times says is capable of accommodating 70 cars. it appears that 20,000 square feet on the first floor and a portion of the parking structure would provide the 30,000 square feet of selling and nonselling square feet the whole foods 365 store model requires. this would allow for 20,000 square feet of housing on the second floor of the existing story. thank you, very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners again, i'm requesting the department include a housing accountability act analysis in every housing proposal going forward to. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a 23-year-old san francisco native. i grew up in north beach. i lived, worked and went to school in north beach and no more than a mile out from the district. i am approaching you on cannabis retail. being that i grew up in north beach, i lived there for about 11 years. i would like to start my own business there. specifically regarding cannabis. basically the way that the process works, from the o.c., the office of cannabis, they

choose their applicants and based on a first-come first serve basis and so there is another applicant that submitted their application a couple of minutes before me. i would just like to have a chance to pitch my business idea in front of the hearing and at the same time that they do. that is all. >> president hillis: thank you any additional general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners jeremy paul. thank you for informing us of the issue. i will be on the form -- on the phone to them this afternoon. i have been resolving code enforcement issues like this tenaciously for years. i would like to spend some more time in barcelona. [laughter] >> seriously, i would like to talk a bit about the code enforcement matter that really

works for this department and i'm sorry that commissioner richards isn't here because i don't want to speak about him behind his back, but when i first got to know dennis richards, was in a code enforcement matter up in his neighborhood. it was the castro district entertainment venue. it was a bad neighborhood. code enforcement and the neighborhood and i worked to create conditions that would resolve the neighborhood impacts they changed their sound system, they started walking the neighborhood, they started doing a, b., and c. and all these different things. i worked with dennis as part of the neighborhood association with conditions to monitor their use. frankly, even though we were technically complying with each one of those metrics, there was still eight -- they were still a bad neighbor. nothing that i could do for my client could make can him be a better club operator.

so dennis and i worked through to the point that the planning commission revokes their conditional use. it took about four months to get to that point where this club owner shut down. they paid a lot of fines. the reason i am bringing this up is that there is a good club owner that was before this commission a month ago and the community that was behind him, the employees and vendors and everyone around that came to you and the commission responded really positively. it is a penthouse club. the department has been opposed to this application. when the owner was out of the country in palestine for a funeral, i asked for a continuance in the planning. the planning staff got up and argued against that continuance. thank you for having granting it earlier in the summer. then when we had our hearing,

the staff recommendation was against. they are going to ask for another continuance for resolution of this. i will meet with the community around the penthouse club. the people that came to you. i will meet with them later tomorrow. i will need to tell them to change their holiday plans because they were hoping that they are late our program would be in test mode come holiday season. it could have happened if it was a decision next weekend. and i would like to have that opportunity to have that decision next thursday and have you hear that. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioner mel garr? >> thank you.

>> for a few meetings now, we have had public comment request housing accountability act reports with that project. i think that's fine. from my perspective, i would like to, along with the housing accountability act reports have some kind of report based on the good work that the equity team presented at the last meeting. because i want to be on the record as saying that i don't think density is neutral. i think it's different. density applied in the mission versus the marina. it has different impacts and it's a different way of looking at the social build an environment and at the economic fabric of the corridor. so i think that in finding a nuanced balance between density and equity and community benefits to community -- communities who have long been

redlined and disinvest it, we need to look at both. i wanted to add that to the request. i think the department has done some really great work around gentrification patterns and the things that are going on over time in san francisco neighborhoods. i think we should put it to use. thank you. >> thanks. >> that will place us under the regular calendar five and six. an amendment to the inclusionary housing ordinance. this is a finding code amendment >> good afternoon commissioners. before you today is a proposed ordinance to amend the inclusionary affordable housing program to extend the permitting timeline for projects with lower legacy inclusionary rates. i have distributed projects for your reference. this list has changed lately

since the packets were published last week. the list is a living document and it reflects recent entitlements, project changes and site permit issuances. before i proceed with my presentation, i would like to introduce someone from air's breed office. she will provide an overview. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. on the project minister at the office of economic and workforce development. the agent before you is an ordinance introduced by mayor breed to amend inclusionary housing ordinance of the planning code. the ordinance modifies the date by which grandfather projects must obtain a site permit in order to secure the grandfathered inclusionary rates as you may know, in june 2016, voters passed prop c. which allowed the city to increase the inclusionary rates on private development. the board amended the ordinance

to allow projects that had filed their environmental application prior to january 12th 2016 to grandfather their rates but gave them until december 7th of this year to secure their site permit. that date was set with the intent to provide grandfather projects 30 months to secure their site permit. however, not all projects were entitled at the same time. meaning that 30 month timeclock had started despite not having the most basic development approval. thus creating an inequity and inability to reach the key milestone. while many projects originally grandfathered have been able to secure their site permit, there are still 30 for projects that have yet to secure this major entitlements. and the looming december 7th deadline puts thousands of housing units at risk. four of these projects representing almost 500 units were entitled by this commission within the last 30 days. another for projects, totaling

well over 1,000 units, are still waiting for entitlement. it goes without saying that this is near impossible for these projects to secure the site permits in less than two months. this legislation levels the playing field and ensures that projects like these get the same amount of time that other projects before them have had. commissioners, you don't typically see these projects after they leave this hearing room. achieving site permit entitlement is a major milestone , but by no means is that a clear path to construction. and in very rare cases, projects have secured their site permit an 8-10 months, but it is far more common for this process to take well over two years and up to three. i haven't stopped just tasked with assisting project sponsors through this process and i can tell you firsthand that there are countless hurdles in the way of sponsors acting in good faith to build these units of housing. i'm sure you have heard this phrase, death by a thousand paper cuts.

and researching paper cuts, i have found that many are deep incisions requiring surgical manoeuvring to keep these projects alive. mayor breed has issued her recent executive directive and while departments are working diligently to streamline our post- entitlement process, that work has only begun and we won't see that by december 7th. all this legislation does is level the playing field and offer the same 30 month timeframe to get through complex processes. we know this commission wants to see house and get built. especially ones that you have been entitled. however, without this legislation, we risk losing over 4,000 units, more than 600 of which are permanently affordable we hope this commission will join it mayor breed in her effort to preserve these units and approve this ordinance. we look forward to continuing this dialogue at land use committee. thank you for your time and consideration of this amendment. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you.

just to briefly reiterate the inclusionary program has been updated three times in the last three years. san francisco voters voted to more than double the on-site mac inclusionary right in late 2015. in the summer of 2016, they approved in an art dish and ordinance to amend it to incorporate the higher rates into the inclusionary program and establish the grandfathered rates for any projects that had filed a complete application between january 1st, 2013 and january 12, 2016. these projects are required to obtain a site permit by december 7th. or else they will be subject to the higher inclusionary rate. currently we have identified, -- 34 projects that would be affected by this exploration deadline. since last week, to have obtained their site permit. so we have 32 projects which could be impacted by this. these projects include 4,294

units including 627 permanently affordable units. in 2017, inclusionary rate for adjusted and additional a.m.i. tiers were added and that is when they use it or lose it provision was added to the projects which required the project to obtain their first site permit within 30 months of entitlements. this requirement was not applied to grandfather projects. by applying the same deadline to these projects, the ordinance will put all the projects on a level playing field instead of penalizing projects where it -- which were entitled more recently and afforded less time to obtain post entitlement approvals. we have not received any public comment on this item but we recommend that the planning commission approved the proposed ordinance and adopt the draft resolution as the ordinance would facilitate the permitting and construction of over 4,000 units, including over 600 permanently affordable units. the ordinance would benefit housing producers were diligently pursuing site permits but we are mitigating factors that meet the deadline very difficult to achieve. it would provide an equitable

use approach for post entitlement review. that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm from morris aggregates. i can provide you a little case study in this. this commission approved our project at eight '07 -- at 807 franklin on august 30th. those five years after we started the process and thank you, very much. there are 55 new units that are coming on board. due to prop c. deadline and for the permit approval, had we opted to do the b.m.r. on site

and did not get approved by december 7th, we would lose our grandfathered status. we decided to do the in lieu fee which we brought to you at the time. this is a calculated decision because we couldn't guarantee we could get the site permit by december 7th despite the fact the project sponsor, many of you commissioners were urging us to do on site. we have done what we can. we are currently in parallel review with d.b.i. and s.f. fire department. we call our planners daily, pushing on the planning side. we secured recently relief mitigation measures that needed to be required in place by december 7th. we are working very hard on this to preserve that option to go with the on site b.m.r. i urge the commission to approve this legislation and bring some reasonableness to this.

i think it is well understood that many projects just don't pencil under the new b.m.r. requirements. so it's important to many, many developers. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a business representative for local 38 plumbers and pipefitters in san francisco. i stand before in support of the ordinance. will help save the 4,000 units including 600 b.m.r. we want to see these units get built and we worry that if these projects don't get grandfathered in, they will not pencil out and they will not be built. i stand in support of the mayor. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i'm here with urban roads. this issue came onto our radar about a year ago when the city

attorney made the interpretation , the formal interpretation that this was a firm hard deadline. no real ins and outs to it so we had to turn on hyper drive on a lot of these projects. fortunately, the parallel processing that the city has implemented in the last year has helped a lot of these projects that we have been moving permits through the building department permit at the same time that we moving through the planning department process. through no fault of anyone, we are working hard to. this a number of these projects that are impossible to get a site permit by december 7th. i have personally got three projects that have not even made it to the planning commission yet and only one of them will even be in front of the commission before december 7th for obvious reasons, these projects -- you cannot make that deadline like that. obviously, is a fairness issue. i understand the idea of putting a static date in there to get project sponsors moving, but this is not applying to everyone equally.

one thing i will mention is that even with this legislation passed, there is still a 30 month deadline that you need to get your site permit issued within which is shorter than the typical timeline that is into the planning code and which the commission grants projects, which is 36 months. that is actually -- technically, that is 36 months to get planning approval on your site permit. it is longer than 36 months. even with this legislation, these projects are under a tighter deadline. i encourage you to support the legislation and thank you his. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the president of the local 261. i am here to urge you to support and approve this amendment. it would keep a lot of people working and a lot of bit of families able to put food on the table. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is andrew and i'm speaking a behalf of crescent heights. we urge the planning commission to demand approval of the housing ordinance. we have two projects that would be impacted by the legislation. 524 howard, a 334 unit mixed-use project with 50 affordable units provided on site was approved by the commission on november 3rd , 2016 and has been seeking final permit since that time. while we would have much preferred to be under construction under this project, arc challenges have been constructibility issues including reaching agreement with the transbay joint power authority on the installation of a bridge to salesforce park. van ness, the former honda dealership at the corner of market and van ness is proposed to be a 984 unit mixed-use

development with affordable units provided on site that initially filed as environmental application in 2015. we have been working diligently through the entitlement process since then, but just achieve the publication of our draft e.i.r. yesterday, october 17th. together, these projects hope to route provide more than 1300 new units of housing in the city. the unique uncertainty created by persistently changing rules and regulations significantly undermines the feasibility of our projects and others like them. we urge the commission to adopt the proposed legislation that will allow us to deliver these projects as promised and as quickly as possible. thank you. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. mr smith. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. i'm speaking in support of the legislation here today. you stated earlier we are talking about more than 4,000 homes that would potentially get

wiped away if this does not pass with all that's been coming out of the mayor's office, we are excited about street lining and making sure that the approval process happens faster. randy pointed out to meet, isn't it counterintuitive that we are extending this the other direction for some of these projects? at the end of the day, this was not the builders themselves. they are not the reason that these are taking so long. the process gets into it and everything kind of continuously gets kicked down and kicked down the road. it is an unfortunate aspect of what we are doing. the fix to maintain these units to make sure that they do get built seems to make a lot of sense from our perspective. the goal is to get more housing built at all levels of affordability. it is a step in the right direction and then we need to make sure that it happens. and then, just kind of at the back level, just really needs to be said that this is literally thousands of homes. we need to be a city that is building housing and there can

be tweaks and adjustments to make sure that everybody is on board with moving forward, but we really feel like it would be a giant mistake to not pass this legislation. at the same time, we need to make sure house and gets built faster in the future. >> president hillis: thank you >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm speaking in support of this legislation. i wanted to raise a couple of reasons why the projects get delayed at no fault of the project sponsor. number 1, you are all familiar. they like the time it takes for an e.i.r. to be prepared and for responses and comments to be prepared and for the certification action to be prepared, for example. i'm working on a project that submitted its application in 2013. if the e.i.r. darcy e.i.r. was not certified until later this year. that is now on appeal. there is no way the site permit could be issued or very unlikely

by december 7th. it will not be heard until november. this is a project with on-site affordable housing and it is a benefit to the city and a benefit to the commission to have a fully entitled project not lose its ability to be built secondly, getting a site permit is not an easy issue. there are a lot of agencies that way and others often times conflicts between the agencies that need to be resolved. there is a fire department, there is d.p.w., there is m.t.a. , archaeological testing programs that need to be approved by planning, weather conditions, and other mitigations have to be into the -- implicated. it is not a simple task. typically, a couple of years ago people would plan on a year to get a site permit after their entitlements. 6-9 months of working drawings and another 6-9 months to get a site permit. you are talking about two years as a typical timeframe. there is simply no way for a project that was untitled this year to get a site permit by

december 7th unless extraordinary measures were taken. no fault of the project sponsor. they are not in the habit of delaying their own projects. there is processes that are required. the second point i would make is that it is not just a benefit to project sponsors for this legislation to move forward. it is a real asset of the city to have entitle housing projects there are 4,000 units of housing that the city desperately needs and over 600 are of which are going to be e.i.r. units and they will not be delivered. in most cases these projects will die. is a real asset to the city picked some assets to the people of low income who have asked -- access to those units. is important we look at this as a civic good and as an asset for the city to be preserved to move forward with this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. and bruce from townes and dorfman partners speaking in favor of this legislation. for the past five years, since 2013, we have been in venture with the fifth church of christ scientist to redevelop their property at 450 o'farrell. we appeared before you in september where the full e.i.r. dress -- with a fee -- full e.i.r. and it was approved. we have subsequently been appealed. we are proposing -- it actually works out to 60% of our units be affordable. they are inclusionary and on-site. a further delay or further increase in that it is only going to further add to the burdens on this project and impact its feasibility. i strongly encourage you to allow an extension at the time to pull the site permits.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here to speak about civic duty and the community spoke loud and clear through a ballot measure that they wanted to see more affordable housing gets built. and if we keep kicking the can down the road, it is not a use it or lose it. we have to create a deadline. i came to before you several months ago with a project that i don't believe would have come forward if we had not had a use it or lose it. they had not been in planning since 2004 with without site. as you know, we are working in the mission with an outdated eastern neighborhood e.i.r. and we have overbuilt market rate housing in the mission. we keep fighting project by project to bring community benefit and if we don't have

those community benefits, we don't have any mitigation. and we don't have accurate data and so the mission area plan, the mitigations that are recommended have not been sufficient and we keep fighting project by project. this needs to end. we need to get this affordability. these project sponsors have known that this was coming down the pipeline for a long time and we really need an accurate use it or lose it. we also don't need to entitle project so they can go on the market. this argument that they need -- that we need to extend this so they can get their entitlements. otherwise these things will not be built. we are already looking on multiple projects that have been entitled that are sitting on the market and they are not built. i really don't see that as a valid argument. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners it was great last week to see the smile on the director's face when the staffers representing the community stabilization and anti- displacement plan. it is great to see these things come to the forefront and discussions about gentrification , market rate distillation. we are getting the tools we need to move community interests forward. as you might remember it in some of my previous comments, i am a b.m.r. winner. i was the last one drawn and one of -- in one of the drawings. if there had been fewer affordable units, i would not have received that. in the last couple of years, i've met so many people who have been on the list trying to get housing through the inclusionary housing permits. we need these tools. one thing i want to bring up with a lot of the market rate housing, especially in the mission, there is a development at 600 south van ness that the developer has actually chosen to keep 40% of the units off the market. there is a website, almost 40%

of the units have been up there for almost three months. they are going for $5,500 each. they are always empty and they're held off as 30 day rentals. we are not feeling the housing. we are not putting people in the housing. the inclusionary component of this is very important. a lot of times you guys are saying you are handcuffed for getting more inclusionary and there's only so much you can do. the developers, the rules, this is a time where you can't be handcuffed. you need to have these rules and we need to keep the higher number of affordable percentages in place. some of these developments that were spoken about, some of them are bought and sold multiple times. they have been redesigned and been traded as speculation. this time we have stopped rewarding the speculation and get some real projects that actually bring community benefit to the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners

i'm with the mission economic development agency, i want to touch on something that -- what is the value of these units? unlike speaking of tools and unlike the federal reserve, we don't have a central buffering mechanism for this overheated economy and housing market. we rely very heavily on what are the levels of affordability? what are these other equity mitigations we are able to bring into the picture? not only do we rely on them, they work. they are a great example. looking at what we are looking at in this scenario, especially with the mission having such a large pipeline, and i know we spoke about it many times before , but looking at what the planning department itself used to refer to as the foreseeable future pipeline of projects, which is, at this point, a full 400 units over the highest

forecast of the eastern neighborhood and mission area plan. we rely on the use mitigations to buffer things in neighborhoods like the mission and i think that we are a full two years out from this vote. san francisco voters are overwhelmingly approving these new numbers. and i think that one thing i would like to hear more discussion on is there certainly is some policy in place advocates for additional density and building more housing. we have been hearing about that but i do think it is important to note there are other studies showing something recent like the federal reserve study that said that highly desirable neighborhoods have a high level of amenities cannot build their way out. it showed something something like for every five% more units you get a .5 decrease in rent. i'm sure we all saw that. there are problems in neighborhoods like the mission

that are highly desirable and that is why those affordable units, every last one we fight for and they are important to us i want to show, if i could have the overhead? i just did a quick attempt to look at the city's numbers that were provided by the department. roughly, not taking into account all sorts of things that these projects have. the perception that they will go back and reduce some state density. if you look at the picture overall, just doing a quick rough take on it, we lose about 62 units of affordable housing. i have a few questions of this. we hope you keep that in mind and we think two years has been a sizable amount of time to implement this.

>> any additional public comment on this item? can we have the overhead, please there you go. >> i'm here to represent the mission of eviction. as you know, i don't need to tell you that all the stats, we have been finding judge affect -- fighting gentrification since 1996 when we first -- verse at the.com boom. since the second boom of tech, we have lost 10,000 people who

have been evicted from the mission. 10,000 evicted. 8,000 of those are latinos. we are ground zero in the mission and we have been here, and none of us get paid to be here. this is an afternoon meeting. people have to work. a lot of our people have to work two or three jobs. they can't be here. i'm representing an army of people. over 15,000 people who are a member of this. please pay attention to what i'm about to say. a lot of these developers that are asking to be grandfathered in, we negotiated with them community benefits. and a few -- if you pass this legislation today, we will lose out on those community benefits that we negotiated, that some of you, from the staff and from the

planning department and some of you commissioners were involved in to try and make peace between us and developers. let me tell you a bit more about the mission. we have had more development as a neighborhood of developers coming into our values than any other neighborhood except the south of market because you have downtown and all that. but you don't have pacific heights. the sunset. ocean view, castro, the presidio , nob hill, north beach, none of those neighborhoods have been affected like we have. it is unfair. it is totally unfair what is being proposed today. you do it in the rest of the neighborhoods, because i am looking at the schedule here and it is not nob hill. it is not pacific heights. it is no other neighborhoods. it is the mission and south of market.

i am asking you today, if you need to pass this, exempts the mission. the sale of our homes, i got this in the mail today. check this out. this home at 438 chavez street is a prime fixer upper that just got sold for $1,750,000. a fixer upper. if you look at the rest of all the homes that have been sold around the area, they are over $2 million. who can afford to million dollars? >> thank you. >> i'm sure none of you can afford $2 million. i'm not done. >> thank you. [indiscernible] >> your time is up.

[indiscernible] >> thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. rich made some great points about how a lot of districts have been left off the hook of our housing production. the west side, the southside have relayed really not done their fair share. i don't think that means that we should change the rules in the middle of our parenting process for this collection of developers -- in the middle of the permitting process for this collection of developers. if we change the rules right now , we know those projects will not to get built and we will lose the little bit of b.m.r. and regular apartments that we

have in our current pipeline. we already know that the pipeline is dying. you all will be getting additional reports on this. we all know that the housing authority -- i have been told not to curse, they are really messed up right now and funding is drying up at the federal, local and state level. hopefully we passed proposition one that will be a 4 billion-dollar bond for affordable housing but we need to be really careful about not killing the golden goose. if we raise our inclusionary rates too hi, 20% of zero is zero. we get nothing. we already know that these projects will not be built if we raise the inclusionary rate on them. i spoke with the developer this morning who said i am not coming out there, these people don't listen to us and i am pouring concrete right now. he said that that is all right,

i'm already discussing building a parking garage instead of the housing, because i am already not sure that i can handle the fees and i am already not sure that the 13 and a half% we negotiated will actually work. he is in conversations already to discuss turning it into a parking garage. that is both affordable and regular apartments that we will lose. you probably already. if we raise the inclusionary beyond what is feasible, if we change it up every ten minutes, we don't have any consistency to the system, we will get less housing because that is what we are already doing. we are already getting less housing and getting less money for subsidized affordable. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i just really do need to point

out that if we really follow through and followed out the logic of the previous speaker, to be nice about it and decided that we cannot have any hard deadlines for increased inclusionary, the ultimate logic of that is that we will not be imposing any increased inclusionary at all. there will be a limited amount of developable land developable land in the city. that is a truth and that is the reality. in order to have a policy, there absolutely must be a hard and fast deadline. will this kill some projects, we may be equally as it is, that perhaps is not as much of a loss as you are being told and seeing that if according to the city

numbers, this town has overproduced market rate housing by about 215% in the period between 2015 and the second quarter of this year. that is according to the official arena report. that is likely to be the second and third fourth homes and likely to remain vacant. it is not going to serve at the kind of pace that we need to solve our height -- housing crisis anyone who is being pushed out of the city. and we should, therefore, wave -- wave the city's needs for housing for people against the possibility that we may lose some of those units and we should find a better system for producing the housing that is needed.

so honestly, i can go on and on. there are other statistics. this ordinance is not really necessary and beneficial for the popular benefits. i would strongly urge you to reject it. thank thank you. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> thank you. it is good to have this in front of us today. i wanted to commend ed lee on what he did to expedite the process streamlining and get more housing built and i also want to commend --

>> they said that folks have the option of paying their in lieu fee before the december 7th deadline. is that ok? >> the december 7 deadline applies only to projects that are using the on-site mac right or the off-site -- on-site rate and the off-site rate. if you want to go from the entitled option to the fee, you have to come back to the planning commission for another approval or just come back for that review to modify your method of a compliance. >> president hillis: -- >> so if the approval that a developer would seek would be only to that portion, is it possible, of some of the