Both nc t to apply the lot restrictions and the one Additional Planning Commission modifications for the fillmore street to rezone two properties nc one, two rto the recommend go administrations we are recommended at the hearing one speaker who seemed to be adverse to my change. In the fillmore because of the areas troubled history with the redevelopment history the questions were based on lot area and supervisor wiener express his support and the racked density controls the Committee Voted Unanimously to with a positive recommendation this weeks board of supervisors was scald for the commissioner richards i supported the rezone and theres a car wash there one acre its been sold and development there project sponsor will double the units from 3 avoiding to plus housing no Affordable Housing fees that Large Development has to pay; is that correct. Nothing particular mr. To the ordinance no. A cynical person wow. Is where he a windfall Public Policy dictates there are impacts and that concerns me i think we have to be more careful when we see how big the parcels are. This is the only really large thats not true across the way there is the last thats the only block on the stretch with the 50 foot wide. We need to consider that. They do have there be subject to the explore. Well, the explore applies. No Community Benefits any other fees. Im not sure of the fees the question you asked if this particular ordinance has from my understanding it is subject to Affordable Housing requirement and any fees. But the idea is citywide. Yes. Thank you. I dont believe we have a report from the Zoning Administrator regarding the board of appeals the Historic PreservationCommission Hearing did meet yesterday and they reviewed and commented on the terminal expansion project and approved the certify for the Bank Rehabilitation on jones street and initiated landmarking of 90 through 92 be Second Street the earthquake surviving building after the full commissions adjourned or adjourned the Historic Preservation commission and convened and considered the preservation element specifically how to incorporate and recognize currently assets as well as Historic Properties as well into that element commissioners, if theres nothing further we can move on to general Public Comment this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. There are no speaker cards. Thank you, commissioners jim south of market earlier this year i spent time up here talking about a zoning adjustment that adds another 5 feet to whatever the current zoning allows this was introduced in market octavia as commissioner richards mentioned and the central selma we were insured the extra feet will produce a grabber ground floor and higher ceilings in a bigger proposition of the building director ram told the commission but as it always the case with development in San Francisco developers have found a loophole rather than adding the 5 feet to the ground floor this commission as director ram said it gets absorbed into the overall configuration of the building so this we can squeeze in an extra floor floor to ceiling heights are reduced to 8 feet and the residential ground floor residential units are supposed to be in response 3 feet above ground in the residential guidelines 363, 6th street an 80 feet building this is only 6th street pardon me they deserve good urban design the architect on the staff take into account this project and said they should remorseful one floor they were overruled this is the first of 40 projects by the real text group youll be setting persistent for them in two weeks, michael the king of loopholes has a 5 project coming in at 12 and harrison street what concerns me the most their dumping those projects in your lap as if this was business as usual this is baitandswitch they lied to us and expected you to be their neighbor it gets ugly when with you try to do the whiz ray this project deserves a developer should be required to present an alternative that lives up to the intent of the code if you have a doubt looking john rams remarks mr. Ram this is a sham. Good afternoon commissioners peter cohen i want to pick up on the gentlemans comments i found out about this in the last day eventually a lack of clarity or to represent interpret this policy i was involved for 12 years in planning frankly for a third of the entire city through o from the market octavia and central selma and selma you had fillmore street in 2012 that expended the 5 foot bump in every single case eventually the conversation was about the ground floor retail it was about the urbanization of our city and understanding that grabber ceiling height is 0 eloquently said is an important part how we build our future it was not about the building of ground floor about the 5 foot bump the developers my exist the units to hear that might be happening is troubling i hope is it so no more than a rumor but i suggest you shut it down it shouldnt be a discussion i want to take a moment to circle back to something commissioner richards pouted in the Previous Report about the the integer did care it was exposed in the Business Times theres a large hundred and 58 minute project for divisadero it is a big big project what was interesting the rezoning of that corridor and it tremendously increased the capacity weve done take office from the existing 8 hundred foot density control you get maybe hundred and 40 units if you sketch those those developers assume legislation that hadnt even passed in proposing a project that ties to take advantage that is more than a doubling of capacity in the zoning that is troubling honestly after a decade of planning in every single case it was about capturing the upper market director ram it was 8 a square foot and other parts of city a explore fee the staff is xroep an increase of density control yet here we have a situation density was effectively given away hopefully it is not a mistake and wont happen ot a mistake and wont happen wont happen a mistake and wont happen again. Any other general Public Comment general Public Comment id like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. Proceedings. And when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. Commissioners, we left off on our regular calendar item 9 case applying explore housing to Group Housing a planning code amendment. Good afternoon Planning Department the item before you is an ordinance by commissioner avalos and supervisor jane kim supervisor kim to talk about the explore requirements apply to Group Housing projects ill discuss this in the first part of the presentation the second part ill discuss supervisor christensens proposal in a letter dated just that 11 to the commission to make outlet amendments to certain types of affordable units in ct districts april sands will be here later on to go over this ask supervisor avalos and supervisor kims proposal and another colleague from mo cd to answer questions first to talk about the commissioner avalos and supervisor kims ordinance currently there is a conflicting language in the planning code wards to the explore Group Housing project the color requirements apply to all housing requirements specifically Group Housing, however, another section of the planning code the explore requirements apply to buildings with that 10 or more units since Group Housing is measured by hours not unit so it is not having the explore Group Housing grounding Group Housing projects were supportive for housing and homeless shelters those would so been exempt hundred affordable units from the inclusion requirements recently the Group Housing project the department has received for reviewing mandatory private by the time suits is limited cooking families similar to market rate buildings highlighted the explore program this ordinance proposes that the explore requirement apply to projects not received theyre First Construction permit before may 2015 and staff spofrts this recommendation it catches all the Group Housing in the pipeline staff supports the recommendations of this ordinance to clarify the code language and in that regards staff also has modifications recommended administrations to this ordinance first the quality of life Group Housing definition has evolved in the past decade but i main definition of bedrooms cant have cooking facilities an interpretation of the planning code in 2005 lout limited cooking facilities the planning code if maintain any quality of life requirements specific to Group Housing common areas are not required to the Department Requests that and Group Housing to exempt from exposure as well as rear yard if the decks are small and the quality of life requirements should apply to all types of residential buildings in order to insure a third standard of living for san franciscans staff recommends the exposure employ to 3 bedrooms similar to in the executive order cod for smaller accessory building requirement and staff recommends conducting studies with the Group Housing definition in pawar with the Current Trends and needs for this type of hows and more specifically determine the Group Housing the invocation modification to incentivize the downsize inclusionary efforts to household that are Single Person or two person household and those are the household that are under size in the city and region staff recommends that obesity inclusionary units in the group hours programs not count towards the group intensity and this will enhance the financial visibility in the city that are density controlled and lastly the staff proposed a small adjustment to the proposed housing for the inclusionary unit so a bedroom that is larger f for more density well be pricing at higher level similar to studio that most cities use as a housing ill go over high presentation and hand over to april the sectioning second part of the presentation regarding supervisor christensens letter proposing amendments to section 24 f of the planning code this was adapted as part of the downtown area plan in in creating Affordable Housing by having an fdr bonus for a hundred and 50 percent of ami for 20 units projects have uses their onsite inclusionary units to receive this bonus and their what is required in section hundred 24 f but more recently two projects have additional affordable units beyond the inclusionary furnt units and in one project the inclusionary units it was a studio that rented for 26 hundred which was a rate facility so the promoted amendments adjust those provisions to for the affordability for middleincome housing this was the reason for this section of the code and they would make those units affordable for their lifetime instead of only 20 years theyll make the rent units hundred 20 percent of ami rather than overflow room and require the bonus to be towards the bedrooms so that it will serve the middleincome larger household size and it will subject all those bonus unit to the inclusionary procedures in terms of pricing and the cost of the hawkins exemption agreement interest staff supports those recommendations and recommendations a small modifications to clarify those bonus unit will still be subject to infrastructure and any other infrastructure impact fees that concludes my presentation. Im going to turn it over to april to get over himself. Good afternoon commissioner my name is april legislative aide for supervisor kim supervisor kim a cosponsor of the legislation before you today applying the inclusionary requirement to the Group Housing promotions that was sponsored and drafted by commissioner avalos im here to express her support for the amendments related to the inclusionary housing requirements to Group Housing and he think that ill be brief because my colleague had a thorough report but the code clarifies the inclusionary definition so weve seen Group Housing voiding housing type preliminary for subsidized Affordable Housing well seeing an increasing number of small unit burglary micro or sro and now Group Housing so we felt like this is a new timely need to clarify the application of inclusionary housing to Group Housing because there was a project before the commission 1178 fulsome street and one pending in the tenderloin both are in our district we certainly recognize the need for this type of hours and hows and it maybe less expensive than a studio when you look at the square feet rental cost we did a little bit of calculating a comparison of one studios versus the cubits for examples youll seeing a higher per square feet rental cost this application of inclusionary housing is an important part of the affordability off those types of units theres a lot of discussion whether or not those routines i unions are affordable by design swell have longterm affordability of those units. Ill say we have in agreement with the staff for recommendations applying explore requirement and pricing of 75 percent of the studio price providing an incentive for providing those units on site and providing a Group Housing definition as a it relates to supervisor christensen amendment weve ccd on a letter from june 11th not seen the proposed amendments we understand theyre being drafted by the City Attorneys Office the two referenced promotions as it represents to 124 f are in our district so well continue to work with the Mayors Office of housing on what it seems like largely clean up we want to see that prior to giving me our Office Position to the commissioners thank you. We may have questions for you. Okay. Thank you. Okay opening it up for Public Comment diane evans mary steve robert son mike, kim m peter cohen and alexander gold win. Good afternoon commissioners im doing everything i can is mike from the academy one hundred on golden gate avenue with the Catholic School im the cochair with jackie with the hospitality for the masses coalition im here to support the amendment to clarify the legislation to insure that inclusionary requirements are applied to Group Housing projects it is important in our city right now as so many forces con vs. Vergo all of us hold each other maturing accountable for being Good Neighbors otherwise were at risk of erode the sense of belonging to our citys character and indeed as mentioned in the meeting we may be at risk of losing our soul as a city i think some im supportive of this particular legislation as far as the as far as the supervisor christensen amendment it is a needed clarification maybe appropriate but it seems unrelated to Group Housing im not sure if it is vetted enough to be vote on today thank you very much. Good afternoon commissioners im kim im a resident here in San Francisco i first came to the city victim 6 Domestic Violence and homeless and ended up in the shelter system here in San Francisco i found a in the shelters systems a hopcy a thing they call help it not sufficient having worked for over 20 years as a booking bookstore keeper i was able to get help and place to live in Affordable Housing if not for that i would either be homeless or dead i was suicidal im asking you pass this inclusionary housing for all hows in San Francisco let the 10 minimal units be a room period no matter whether it holds a stove or Community Rooms i also respectfully request you consider a thirty percent commitment from and i know thats a high number i think 12 percent is also low what is Affordability Housing unit all can afford i know about the ami by one of you mention change and what reality is not always what is written on paper so reelsly ami didnt work being on disability i need low rent and settle for smaller place that is mine and one that makes 80,000 i can live on the spaim same block all see need San Francisco is a leader in fighting for equality and marriage rights for all you all helped do that im here to demand you continue this good work and keep San Francisco the port that Everyone Wants to visit and diversity is real let companies that. 0 invest in the people and beautify our city not come here and make a buck off of us make a city is zero percent homeless and where families can afford to live not just the rich all thank you for your time clapping. good afternoon commissioners my name is Alexander Goldman a Community Planner with the Tenderloin Community corporation it will be hard to follow up on kims eloquence im here to represent our organization and many of the constituents in the tenderloin and ask you to support supervisor avalos and supervisor kims ordinances to include Group Housing we didnt think that wealthier people want to live if; however are the hoishgz this is a all of a sudden housing of people making up to hundred percent of ami are wells fargo to pay for it is important that the vendors that are building this type of hosing hows are including us in the mix we hope youll agree this ordinance should be applicable to Group Housing in the tenderloin we have a lot of parking lot small and narrow and developers radio icing those for new projects in case it if make sense to build the full sized unit theres a project youre familiar with at tucker and las vegas worst and another project weve learned about potentially on turk street by mosser and i minimal well see more and more of those promotions their profitable and gastrothing to build on parking lot we want to make sure that the development in the tenderloin is done