we need units to enter that program. when the economy is slow and new units aren't being added through the mayor's office of housing something like this is really an interesting approach, particularly in a neighborhood that does not have a lot of -- that has a lack of economic diversity. >> commissioner hillis. >> if i can ask a question of staff. the issue of this -- establishing these units as bmr didn't come up in your report. is this something that came up after? >> we did discuss the rent control thing and try to keep them affordable. i'm going to defer to the city attorney, though. there has to be some sort of nexus if you make that requirement. and i don't think we could find that at the staff level. >> fine. [speaker not understood]. has anybody talked about it? are they open to it, administering additional bmr units? i would imagine they are. has that been discussed at all? it is highly unusual, this kind of approach. >> we haven't had any conversation, staff hasn't. >> did you want to follow-up? >> commissioner

units. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is close. commissioner moore. >> i would like to say for the record that the planning commission does not have any in flames who moves into a two-bedroom unit. we can ask the developer why the units are smaller but we cannot basically prescribed the size of the units. is that a correct statement mr. --? >> acting zoning demonstrator. it is a correct statement in as much of the planning commission cannot through deed restriction or any mechanism regulate the person that moves into particular dwelling unit. >> that includes the size of the units? we do have minimums, but we do not have maximums. we are still operating within prescribed limits of unit sizes. nothing in this project is below code, is that correct? >> the project is before you, seeking your conditional use authorization; as such, you have the opportunity to determine if the project is or is not necessary or desirable for the neighborhoo

but i think the ability to sell inclusionary units is easier than renting inclusionary units. is that correct, ms. stacey? >> president fong, kate stacey, city attorney's office. commissioner antonini, if the planning commission didn't require these units be rental, then the costa hawkins -- and it was entirely up to the developer, then we don't -- costa hawkins only applies to requirements that units are rental. what remains is that the nexus showing would need to be made. this is only a two-unit building. so, our planning code section 415 doesn't comply. we only have the findings and the study for units that are five units or more, i think, are the requirements of section 415. so, i think in order for this -- for the planning commission to be able to impose this condition, we'd want to determine that this nexus existed and that it was roughly proportional. in this situation there may be other ways of defining portionality. one may be, just by way of example, definitely apportion alpha silt. i think that's a situation the staff would need to work with project sponsor on estab

, type of units, and square footage of the units. we are reviewing one project and my firm, project in san jose. there was a matrix showing the number of units and types, and square footage. these are too gross; these were by unit types. some of the two-bedroom units were bigger than others according to mr. pollock. i am supportive. i don't have anything else to add to the rest of the commissioners comments. make a motion to approve with conditions and adopt findings. >> second. >> i know there has been some mention in the documentation here. the ability to do on-site housing because of -- we might have disposes of an artist hearing. generally speaking, the project has to have additional allowances from the city to qualify where rental rates are restricted, that is my understanding of the law; and not sure what this project is getting that allows it to have rental housing units on-site. >> planning staff, there is a cost agreement with this project, included with the original condition material that went out for the september 6th hea

to put it unit on each floor, equal size units, not possible. talking about mostly criteria 3, the most important one. ask the applicant in the guidelines, look at all the dwellings within 150 feet; see in this case they are sick family. several ways to count. on a sandborn map, using a mailbox survey, 3r reports, or the planning information website. four very different things come up. public is getting confused; i have had several cases during the last year, one of which i'm putting up on the last year, another one i did based on mary woods' staff approving based on a mailbox survye within the last two years. she found in both cases the third criteria was met. your staff report says it cannot count the legal number of dwelling units. but it says count the number of units, not legal. if you ask them, did you get issued 3r reports for the billing department? the answer is no. their website shows one number of legal units and the dbi shows one. their website shows two. o the only way to do it is 3r report, cost 6000. perhaps you want to go in that

unit. i'm not a real estate professional and though i went to college, i had to reason to believe there was anything about this unit that made it different or made the lease terms that we were about to enter into different than any other lease that i signed. this apartment, while quirky and charming is like many of the apartments we see anywhere across the city in any neighborhood, part of the fabric of the city that we all know. so in may, 2012, the ownership of the building that i rent in was changed and the owners, at that time the new owners inspected the entire building including my unit and despite the fact they are real estate professionals they at no time voiced any concern about my safety and continued to accept my rent on-going. in july of this year, i requested a repair that i had been promised many months before hand. it was the second time i made this request for a very simple and basic bit of maintenance and they said they would get on that. they had known about it, they said

units are larger than the largest unit designed by the developers of this building. in the time that i have been here at my apartment, there have been only one or two people that have occupied the one-bedroom units. when an apartment unit is empty, families to come in and view the apartment but they are too small for a thriving family environment. mdna strongly supportsand encouragesdevelopers to build a more diverse and thriving family oriented housing. we understand there is a housing crisis in the city. there is a baby boom taking lacing our neighborhoodher family unit let's placei hope that you will help us achieve this. i can very much. >> good afternoon commissioners members there was not much to say; we love the project and what it did to the streetscape, at the ground level. will love the design and we notice the on-site bmrs and the .5% parking ratio and strongly endorsed the project. but that is not the point, is it? here we are in a situation where the city spent a decade developing the market/octavia plan saying these are the rules that we want to follow.

and demolish those units. so, we're minimizing the off-site relocation. >> thanks. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i'm also really happy to support this legislation. i think that san francisco is leading the way to correct all of the wrongs of hope 6 -- maybe not all of them, but i think in particular you hear horror stories across the country about whole communities were broken up because of the hope 6 process. so, i wanted to ask either staff or a representative from supervisor olague's office. at the time the report had been written and sent to us there was a recommendation for, i think it was, not to make -- not to make a recommendation, but dominica today talked about the changes that had been made to the legislation. so, i don't mean to put you on the spot, but does staff feel like we can make a recommendation today? is that what you were waiting for for those particular changes? >> i think the department thinks the concept of the legislation is great. the reason we said not to make a recommendation be

units. we are again trying to mime eyes the off sit relocation. >> it's good to know that. >> we can do that where we have room. we can't always do that, but hunters view and alice griffith give us the opportunity to do so. and, you know, obviously the dense ithv of potrero as well as sunnydale is lower so we have the opportunity to keep most of the residents on-site as we build. * density the big question is the source of the funding. we will move as fast as we have funds to build. and, you know, so, that's always the biggest issue. but for now alice and hunters view are moving along. >> and then i guess the current location, it's sounds like those projects are okay. do we relocate them in county or do people have a choice -- do we try to find them housing within san francisco? how does that work? >> i can't speak for the past in terms of the other -- because the city has done hope 6 projects in the past. and i think that what the developers did was to offer the vouchers because those were

them, eliminating kitchens, turning into a single-family unit; it has been a single unit since 1990; it meets our needs very well for people who want to stay in san francisco and have the need to have enough space for families. i don't feel it is functionally able to be a two unit building without the injection of much cash, building of a second ingress and egress, separation of halls, addition of the kitchen, it is not appropriate to ask these people to do these things. we should allow them to legalize the merger and welcome them to the city and we hope that they will be permanent residents. >> commissioner -- >> i want to ask, there seems to be a discrepancy about information of the planning counter, there is ways for counting item 3, sandborn maps. can you talk about the guidance? if there is one standard of practice, for what we tell people. there should be consistency. >> what i cannot speak for what was said at the counter. >> i did speak to the zoning administrator. >> we have two systems, one property information database, one the property information that; we use property in

we have a lot of sites that are 100 units or a few sites, 100 units with 20 of the units being direct access to housing with the rest of the units being straight-on affordable housing, which is a very nice mix. 990 polk street up at 9th and geary, owned and operated by tndc is roughly 100 or 110 units with 50 or 60 -- and these are all seniors, people over 55, actually -- of them being daas. so you have formerly homeless seniors, people who have been in laguna honda living with other folks who may still qualify for affordable housing so have more means, but also have aging issues and other service needs that the building addresses. so when we do services in these buildings it's not just exclusively to direct access to housing tenants. the access points, just to give you an idea who gets in and where we are looking for people, access into direct access to housing is through acute and psychiatric hospital, long-term care, so laguna honda and other places, intensive case management programs that work in the community, our primary care clinics, our sobering and respite center and our fabu

united island versus united kingdom. that's still unresolved. we still don't know what the answer is to that. and yet we managed to bring peace. with this situation, you know, we do say that we know the solution. which is two states, the secure state of israel, state of palestine. yet we can't seem to get there. now i think personally, we can get there. but i think we are over this next period it is maybe more difficult once you have everything happening, including here. but i think-- . >> rose: you mean the elections. >> yeah. it's-- you know, it would be odd if we were able to take a major new initiative right at this moment. however, i do think that it is possible to put together a credible negotiation, provided alongside that negotiation, and this is my sort of fixation having dealt with this now for a few years, you've got also to make the changes on the ground that support the political process. so if you carry on in a situation where the facts on the ground are working against a political solution t will never work. so i believe it is pos

it's one thing to add a couple hundred units a year, if you are losing units at the same time, we'll never get on top of this problem. again i want to thank supervisor chiu and all of you for taking it and i hope you support it and send it on to the full board with your support. thank you. >> hi. maim name is tommy with the housing rights committee of san francisco. i have been an affordable housing advocate here in san francisco for about 15 years. 15 long, hard years. advocating for affordable housing is not the easiest thing in the world to do. here in san francisco, it seems to me though that this legislation is a no-brainer. i mean, it's really a no-brainer. i can't believe it's such a huge no-brainer. that we have a piece of legislation that i think most reasonable people would agree with. brad paul was just citing some statistics on how much people are making by hotelization of rent-controlled apartments and you know $13,000 a month? gee, can i get into that racket? i would like to have a little bit of that myself. $13,000 a month, i could live really well, considering what i

there are small units. there are big units. there is collaborative-style housing. there is -- there are all sorts of different ways even within the market approach that housing can be more expensive or less expensive, different kinds of housing. there might be attractive to different kinds of people that we want to have in the city. collaborative housing for artists, or to help our seniors stay here. even if it's not technically formerly affordable housing. so when we look at meeting our housing needs and housing affordability, i think it's important to take into account the broad approach. from what i see here, this takes into account a piece of it, but not all of it. so i have a few questions for the author and the first in terms of a choice of these income categories up to 120. not doing anything above there and not distinguishing the different kinds of housing in the market-rate world. why that choice was made? >> well, again -- >> through the chair? >> yes, and it would be good to also hear from planning staff a little bit about this. but i think in the city w

in 2002 and ten units or more. 2006 dropped to less than five and then 1/20 of the five unit buildinghat was the analysis done at the time so i don't think there was any justification back in 2006 for reducing the inclusionary to five units. as a result one project has moved forward since 2006. there was two really good years of economic housing boom here from 2006 to when leavein brothers collapsed and no projects submitted at that time so the downturn didn't effect. it was the legislation of the five to nine units. personally i build three buildings in this range of five to nine units between 2005 and 2009 and since then i didn't look for anything because i couldn't get finance to build the projects again and as far as that goes all of the contractors live locally in san francisco bar a couple. we go to local restaurants and coffee shops and delis and all of that. for the smaller project you have 15 people on the job site for one year. probably over 6200 work hours in one project and that is gone right now. that whole segment has been eliminated with this legislation so i do support

to the united nations. >> the united states has created no aggression against cuba. >> this was fertile ground for soviet integration. u.s. aerial reconnaissance photos showed approximately 40 soviet offensive nuclear weapons being set up and manned by an estimated 22,000 soviet troops. >> in 1962 there was a missile soviet gap. the soviet union could not afford to build new ones. the solution was to put short range and medium range missiles right in our backyard. the whole world literally was watching to see what president john kennedy would do. >> had kennedy done what the joint chiefs of staff wanted to do which was to invade, that there would have immediately been a nuclear war and it would have started on so called tactical level. at that point in the fall of 1962 them -- then certainly would have spread to all right out nuclear war. >> reporter: president kennedy went on television to announce to the world that america was holding the soviet union on whatever might happen in cuba. >> within the past week unmistakable evidence has accomplished the fact that a series of offensive mi

use to be considered as rental units. you know, 55 laguna, the project i worked foreperson seven and a halfs and we sat with open houses and debated whether that should be 100% affordable low-income senior housing or not or mixed-use housing? recently those project sponsors came back and wanted to maybe sacrifice some of the middle-income affordable housing for the financing of the senior housing? so that is -- these debates are endless. so i think again it would help to have just, you know, more holistic approach to this whole thing. i don't think we have the appropriate analyses sometimes or least i didn't feel that way when we were approving project-by-project things. and i think there is always room to include more information. and so i don't think the conversation ends today. >> thank you, supervisor campos? >> thank you, you know, i have been on this board for four years now. and one of the things that i am very proud of is that when it comes to land use decision-making that we have actually moved into the direction

we study a 100 unit project. the scale is not close. we should have studied the five to nine units. we didn't. we studied the 100 units, the smallest project and to continue my speech supervisors. with this flawed analysis and lead to one success in the city since the policy's conception in 2006 and i repeat this failed policy has one successful project. thank you supervisors. >> supervisors, mayor lee and the members of the supervisor recognized to replace lost gqnresources for this and continuous and reliable revenue stream and stimulus for depressed local housing industry. the mayor had a big working group of the stakeholders. the group of industry specialists were called upon based on experience and industry sector expertise and builders represented by members of the council of community housing and of the residential builders association. they represented the local medium and small builders. in short it was a representative group of stakeholders. despite conflicting priorities they came together with a common cause and all impacted with prolongd and severe economic depression i