2014-001503

Introduction (M) Speaker – Rushed process without public hearing

240 sites, other questions, developer incentives needed/

More affordable housing, slow the process down

Lack of public outreach

Move the project along

More granular analysis

Smart solution

Do not delay

Incentivize on-site affordable housing

Logic behind delaying affordable housing for single-family homeowners

Guidelines Glenn Rodgers – Alarmed over the removal of setbacks

Affordability, make it work

Support

Support (M) Speaker – Build the housing

Relocation services

Clear application process, apply local program to the entire City

Due diligence, get it right (F) Speaker – Work for affordable housing

Ramifications of this program

Issues and concerns

New housing for middle income people Katherine Divencenzi – General plan amendments and how they relate to the area plan

Compliance with State law

More public outreach

Do not impose this legislation permanently

Liveability vs. design Eileen Bokan – On behalf of Mari Eliza (M) Speaker – Unintended collateral change

Positive element (F) Speaker – Time delayed in meetings

Support, continued to March

Continue to March (F) Speaker – Continue to Sprint 2016

Extend continuance to March '16

Petition signatures

Allow for full discussion

No notice, outreach

Affordable housin g crisis will take time

Extend continuance (F) Speaker – Continue, no public outreach

Continue for 3 months

Continue to move the process forward

Listen to today's presentation

No notices, postpone the discussion

No postponement, a vote by the residents of S.F.

Sate density program

Transparent process, 3-6 months continuance

AHBP Informational presentation

Still have concerns

(M) Speaker – Outreach, clarity

SPUR support (M) Speaker – Tenderloin does no need this program

Incent demolition, NC controls (M) Speaker – For middle income households

Viable solutions from opponents to the housing situation?

Study cases (M) Speaker – Outreach, displacement, rehab

Opposed, impacts to Chinatown, gentrification

Excited for the program

Many issues

(F) Speaker

Excellent work

Hard to keep up. Developer's wet dream, not a housing solution

THD opposition

(M) Speaker – Windows

Transit has not kept up with housing

State law mandates a density bonus program

Housing presentation

Unwieldly and unenforceable (F) Speaker – Pipeline development

More consideration

Ask City Attorney for an analysis of the law Alice Rogers

Define affordable housing

We need to create more housing, do not allow imperfect be the enemy of the good (M) Speaker – Support

Losing neighborhood character

State Law

Support

Impacts to historic resources

Current housing conditions (M) Speaker – Gentrification plan (M) Speaker – Opposition

Outreach

Current living conditions

Support

Outreach, notification

Support Deanna Kizon, Aide to Supervisor Tang – Support for continuance

546 emails in support (M) Speaker – Middle income housing (F) Speaker – CU permit that would not be needed

Opposition

Historic sites; legacy businesses

Support

Policy crisis

Support

Organized opposition

Organized opposition

Viable alternative

Corruption

Density bonus for everyone, affordable housing

Noe Valley

Rent control, small businesses

Learn mistakes from the past or be doomed to repeat them

Most valuable legislation

Support the AHBP

Support

Inadequate EIR

Breed amendment (F) Speaker – Middle income housing

No blanket eligibility (M) Speaker – Burroughs for SF

Thank for the Commission's courage

Flint Michigan, supply and demand

Middle income collapse (M) Speaker – Bait and switch

Opposed, task force minutes

Bridge Housing support

Inadequate planning process

Flawed plan, define middle class

Outreach with community

Affordable housing is not affordable

This program will not provide housing for those in need most

Buzzsaw of mistrust

Ill-conceived plan

Bad legislation, start again with community based plan

Developer bonus program

Profit

Opposed (F) Speaker – Displacement, real rent control

Opposed

Don't relinquish your authority

Probable outcomes

A map of value added in different parts of the city

GPA should be rejected

Provide housing for the whole middle income

Opposed

Opposed

This ain't it

Plan should be thrown out and replace with blank paper

SF Chamber support

Opposed

Piece meal approach

Why incentivizing market rate housing

Supervisor Breed's amendment language

State Law, Napa decision

What SF is becoming

Subsidized housing people are being pushed out

NIMBY homeowners

CEQA

Affordable housing = Sue Hestor – Send it on to the BoS + John Schwerk – Pass the program

Devil in the details + Yasserman – Support + Sonja Transs – Support + (M) Speaker – Support + Donald Dewsnup – Necessary program (F) Speaker – Honey bees, not the solution

Opposed = Steve Devincenzi – One modification

Community planning

Organized opposition (F) Speaker – Do not approve

Displacement = George Wooding – Forward with not recommendation

Opposed

Revise or restart

Shotgun approach

Not developed by multiple stakeholders, charrette (F) Speaker – Tenant displacement

Targeted too many lots

Opposed, charrette styled community plans (M) Speaker – Soft sites

Affordable for whom?

Seattle example = Lilly Wu – Close loopholes + Daniel Kemp – Support

"Affordable" forward it with no recommendation + Andy Thornly – Attractive alternative + (F) Speaker – Support + Laura Clark – Support + Tim Colen – Support + Corey Smith – Stop talking solutions, build solutions + Mark McDonald – Support

Opposition + Ben Woosley – Work toward solving the problem (F) Speaker – Soft sites, charrettes

More revision is needed = Dave Dippel – Test run = Paul Webber – Affordability, forward with no recommendation

Opposed

Opposed

Opposed + Elissa Kia – Support (SPUR) + Katherine – NIMBYism, build more

Loss of open space

No recommendation

Opposed

Clean integrity, negative response

Density

One size does not fit all + Sylvia Johnson – Building, court

Neighborhood businesses + (M) Speaker – More housing

Opposed

Proposed language

Proposed language