olague. vice-president olague: i want to include the right to private action, the comments said before. i know he couldn't look into it and he can explain it. is that right? did i get that right -- in the event that we can't monitor. yeah. ok. and then, i think in the spirit of smart growth, which is something of encouraging -- that's why i was -- you know asked the staff to, you know, to encourage near transit corridors, but along those lines, to explore the relaxation of parking requirmentse is critical and many students don't own cars, they ride their bike. we should look atlanta making sure there are student bike

spaces and car share -- i don't know -- but maybe to look at these alternatives to owning cars -- president miguel: commissioner? >> i want to make it clear my opposition is because it does too much. this should be bifurcated. what the measure should do is, it should encourage the new construction and exempt that from affordable housing with recapture if it becomes converted away from student housing and of course, define that it has to be a certain percentage of students living in there and it should be silent on this whole conversion issue because that's a totally different subject that has to be addressed by separate legislation, because it is complicated and i'm a little --

we always demonize students as those not being deserving of housing as other people only because they are going to be in san francisco as students for a certain period of time, they have every right to housing as much as everybody else and they should be able to take advantage of the rent-controlled housing like other people do. i'm not concerned that they are here and someone else isn't who may be a lifetime resident and they may be lifetime residents but they bumping four, five students together. i'm in favor of building new student housing and i think we do have to address at a different time the conversion issue of existing housing. but right now, i don't see a difference between housing where students live and housing where other people live because they have just as much right to it as anybody else.

president miguel: commissioner olague. vice-president olague: we need to encourage the building or increasing the supply of student housing but not at the expense of the residents who currently live here. and i think residents -- current residents who live in lower-income housing have been under threat of eviction and displacement due to the pressures on the housing market. i don't want to encourage legislation that would increase those pressures on existing residents or those trying to remain in the city. >> i was continuing to read this example and from what the commissioner said, there might also want to look at the ancillary use possibilities like a classroom that may not strictly be allowable in the zone within which this might be built and maybe have some

flexibility along those lines. i don't know what those uses would be, but they are mentioning classrooms and that kind of thing here, so -- >> another example actually, new orleans, institutions have grouped together and with private developers built student housing. there is at least two examples of them out there. having as i said at the very beginning, i'm very pleased to see this stage. i appreciate the department's comments and amendments on it. i think they do work. i think it will encourage new student housing and i think

that's the goal we should be after. >> motion is on the floor with approval with staff recommendations and the additional modifications to include the right to private action, that the housing be on or near public transit and relax the parking requirement. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: no commissioner moore:a aye, aye. motion passes 4-1 with commissioner antonini voting no. we will take a break. i thank commissioner dufty. he had to leave and pick up his daughter and we wanted to accommodate his time.

>> amendments to the south of market use and family special use district. >> good evening, commissioners. steve wertheim department staff. before i give my presentation, i would like to allow a represent to give statements. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm speaking on behalf of supervisor daly who is is the sponsor of this legislation. just by way of background, the family zone was passed as part of the eastern neighborhoods plan and the goal of the youth and family zone was to expand the provision of portable housing in the area which is, i think the boundaries are on the map on the overhead. and it's intended to protect

and enhance the health of youth and families in existing and growing community in the area. the amendments that are before you today are intent with the amendments to make affordability requirements that are listed in the legislation in the original legislation consistent with the rest of the youth and family zone where tier c, which is increased afford ability from 15%, which is the baseline to 22% is applied to all of the areas bound by, generally by natoma to the north, harrison street to the south, fourth street to the west and seventh street to the west. this tier c provision already is included in the youth and family zone in the areas interior to those major streets and we respectfully ask for you to vote no on this approval as

described in the report. we are committed to working with the planning department and other department heads to fill the stated purposes of the youth and family zone. i think there is some concern that this legislation would dampen development in the area. that is not our intent. we understand the economic times that we're in and, of course, we're hopeful that these times will change and that the rules that are set when development starts again would pursue the affordability of the youth and family zone. one other thing that i wanted to point out is in the original legislation there was a request to have a report by the mayor's office of housing around neighborhood preference and allocation of affordable housing within six months of passing this legislation. we want to encourage that that report be done. it hasn't been done as of yet and in bringing forth this

amendment, we have spoken with the planning department staff. we understand their concerns. we want to continue to address some of those concerns. i have briefly spoken with doug schumaker of the mayor's office of housing and we will have a conversation with him, a more full conversation with him and the supervisor and our meeting with the redevelopment agency director which this area is a part of, actually was cancelled. it was intended to be yesterday, but i don't know if the giants parade or there was other things going on. so thanks very much. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you once again, steve wertheim from planning department staff. i think april introduced the concept of this legislation so i won't go through that again. i will just work through the maps so we have a better understanding of it and then we can take the map away.

this is generally natoma street, a little past seventh street, harrison street and fourth and that's the boundaries of the youth and family district, the special use district. the areas, so the red is the geography of the district. the area that you see surrounded by blue areas, so here and here and several areas, those are the parcels right now that already have the highest fee in this area, 22% affordable housing, 27% offsite. the rest of the special use district currently has baseline city standards of affordable housing 15% onsite and 20% offsite. the legislation would thus make the entire area in the youth and family special use district to have the 22% onsite requirement. so the proposed resolution is before the commission so it may

recommend approval or disapproval of the amendments. the department recommends that the commission recommend disapproval of the ordinance and adopt the draft resolution for that effect. there are two reasons for this recommendation. first, it would be premature to significantly alter the recently adopted plan. second, it is not clear that the proposed ordinance would have a positive affect on affordable housing or other community amenities in the youth and family s.u.d. the first reason is it's important to remember it was created as part of the eastern neighborhoods plan in december 2008. the goal of the eastern neighborhoods plan included accommodating a portion of the city's expected growth in complete neighborhoods served by quality transportation options, communities facilities and affordable housing. accomplishing these goals required creating a balanced plan that supported additional development which in turn would fund community amenities. the creation of this plan involved hundreds of community meetings and public hearings

over the course of a decade. these neighborhood plan is expected to establish the growth patterns in the eastern neighborhoods for the next 20 years with periodic evaluations. due to the economic downturn, there has not been a substantial amount of development in the eastern neighborhood since the plan's adoption. therefore, it's difficult to evaluate its effectiveness and proposed revisions based on this evaluation. however, the proposed legislation does represent a substantial revision to the eastern neighborhoods plan by increasing the affordable housing requirements from 15% to 22% onsite, it would place new economic burdens on developing affected parcels by requiring increased subsidies for affordable housing. this would affect the aforementioned balance established by the plan and the in the existing s.u.d. the department's position is such changes should not occur without the thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of the eastern neighborhoods plan which would be premature at this time.

therefore, the department recommendations disapproval of the proposed legislation as to such time as the plan can be thoroughly evaluated. in addition, it is unclear that the proposed legislation would provide a benefit to the people of the youth and family s.u.d. as part of completing neighborhoods, the plan has a new plan where new development would pay fees that would support amenities. additionally, the plan bestowed additionally, the plan bestowed potential development on parcels, it would have additional benefit. in the industrial areas, that additional benefit was in the form of higher affordable housing and the rest, the additional benefit was in the form of impact fees. within the special use district, it is assumed that 33% of the impact fees are going to go to the mayor's office of housing to support affordable housing, 33% would go to open space and transit street scrape improvements and

the remaining would go to child care and libraries. the additional affordable housing would add a substantial burden to the new development, many of which are already in the highest impact fee tiered area in the eastern developments. it would damper development by making it more expensive even within the eastern neighborhoods. without development, the city could not collect the impact fees to make the improvements which are anticipated to serve both new and existing residents. the additional affordable housing required by the proposed ordinance would be occupied by new residents earning 100% to 120% of the area immediatean income. funds contributed to the mayor's office of housing is used to support residents making less income from zero to 60% of the area mean income. the proposed ordinance could undermine funding for the most at risk populations. while the department is recommending disapproval, we are committed to continuing to work with supervisor daly's

office on ways to fulfill the stated use of the youth and family special use district to provide affordable housing. this includes working with the mayor's office of housing on analyzing affordable housing strategies within the s.u.d., developing implementation plans and strategies such as for such amenities such as open space and streetscape improvements in the area. they may seek to modify the ordinance to support businesss that are identified as pro youth and family and restricting formula retail by conditional use or moving conditional uses controls on some types of businesses. the department recommendations support of such modifications as we discussed and with the supervisor's office. thank you. president miguel: thank you. i have one speaker card on this , anjelica garbondi. >> good evening, commissioners,

my name is anjelica garbondi. thank you for supporting the youth and family zone in 2008 as part of the eastern neighborhood plan. as you know, the need to improve the s.u.d. is ongoing from open space, pedestrian safety, healthy development and housing affordability in a range of incomes. this legislation is one piece of insuring continuing to strive to meet the goals of the s.u.d. which was stated by supervisor daly's office. we are aware that not all of the goals of the s.u.d. will be achieved under the planning department. we look forward to also working with other departments like d.p.h., m.o.h., m.t.a. and etc. so hope you will vote no on this disapproval recommendation and help us move forward to strengthening the s.u.d. this will benefit the residents in the neighborhood because this is something that they

wanted, so i hope you will consider that. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed, commissioner olague. vice president olague: this is complicated because south of market, i mean, as anjelica and april and staff knows, they have been under so much pressure from development that there is a certain kind of urgency or nervousness around displacement of existing communities in that area. so i can understand where this is coming from. one time before when we were looking at it, we thought, well, maybe by i think when 900 follow some came up, there was a discussion, that's when sort of like when you pass these ordinances or you find out that there is limitations to its strength or whatever, there is no teeth and so then you try to find ways to make it more stronger so that you can sort

of reach certain goals of creating more affordable housing and stuff. i'm not sure that -- i can see where the staff is coming from. you want to make sure that it's a feasible ordinance that it's something that can actually deliver to the community what the community is demanding. so that's my concern is that -- i support the spirit of the legislation that would support moving it ahead. i'm not sure if has the support of the other commissioners because of the intention i think is fair. but i understand, too, that staff i think is supportive of the notion of the youth and family zone, but we want to make sure that it's something that is feasible that can actually occur. i think that we don't have a study for this and i'm not sure if it's legally defensible on some level.

i think there is something with the mayor's office of housing that can continue to be worked on so that we make it feasible so that we maximize the affordability that we can and jobs and that sort of thing. i imagine the youth and family zone is functioning in a lot of different layers. it's about jobs. it's about public safety. it's about creating a good neighborhood for youth and seniors and the whole family unit. i was going to ask is is there a chance of having more conversations rather than sending this over to the board at this stage, like trying to continue the conversation with staff and mo and everybody and then just continue to work on it? i think that everyone, anjelica there, she represents the community and other folks can join in, but i think it's critical that we do strengthen the legislation, but i want to

make sure that it's something that it's going to stand, that it's not something that we're just going to end up where we were before with nothing or not as much as we want and to really strengthen it. i think that now there is some interesting conversation going on around cultural districts. there is the ma mila town, commissioner sugaya has been working -- and i'm kind of keeping on top of it. there is stuff going on in japantown and that sort of thing. i'm wondering if we want to create these special use districts but we want to do it in a way that it's really going to deliver for the community. i don't want to just sort of like move this on and then get caught up in this thing where we're, you know, not coming up that is really going to work for the community so is there a chance of continuing it? i'm wondering, is there a chance to continue it so that we can keep it open for these, because staff is open, i'm sure doug schumaker from the mayor's

office on housing, everyone wants to make sure that the community that has been under so much pressure has something real, not just something that is rhetorical really. that's what i'm trying to get around. >> i think that the intent -- i don't know about the 90-day timeline of legislation to be reviewed at the planning commission, if we're reaching that timeline. i think the intent is to continue the conversation if it were to move forward at the board is to continue the conversation. i know that based on what anjelica said, there are other things that are still open and would continue to be modified. as far as the affordable housing piece of this youth and family zone, we can continue those conversations at the board. vice president olague: i'm wondering can we -- when is the 90 days up? >> the 90 days is up very shortly. i believe it's this week. so as far as how much

legislative time do we have to consider it, we're at the end of that legislative time. that can be extended by the supervisors' office to whatever length they feel is propose. vice president olague: our time is limited. >> unless we had a commitment from the supervisors office that they would give us an extension tonight, you should probably take action if you want to record the commission's position. otherwise without that, the supervisor could move forward without comment from the commission. vice president olague: it's critical that the conversations happen. whatever that means, i support the intent of it and the community's efforts to remain in the area, whatever that means. and if those conversations can't, if we can't be a part of it, but it's going to continue, i think i'm pretty happy knowing that it's going to continue and that our staff and everybody else is willing to make sure that this becomes something that's going to really deliver to the community. so that's my -- that's what i

want to put out there. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: it's a little bit confusing but i think i get it. the project sponsor is agreeing with staff on disapproval, is that what i heard, i believe? well, supervisors daly is a proponent of the measure. president miguel: they're disagreeing with staff's proposal. commissioner antonini: maybe i got that backwards. anyway, let me tell you my reasons for agreeing with staff and for all of the reasons that were already stated. i mean, by raising the bar so high, you will probably get rid of any hope that anything does get developed and therefore all of the fees and all of the things we need to make it a complete neighborhood won't happen because nothing will get filled. second of all, as was pointed out by staff, by merely making it higher, it could be for sale units that would be up to a higher income level. so when the fees get paid to

the mayor's office of housing, you have the discretion of using it as you feel where the need is great. so i think that's not good. it's better to have the discretion. when this item was heard by the commission, we voted to -- we supported the youth and family zone, but we just basically tried to take uses out of there that were not good uses. x-rated book stores and other things that we did not include on what we passed on to the board, the higher affordability level. it was changed at the board. this commission did not support that then. as we know, there is already a lot of affordable housing in that area partly as the settlement that happened years ago. i think what we need to do is increase the quality of life there by doing the things that the fees will provide rather than trying to put more affordable housing. our best successes have been

blending affordable housing in with market rate housing throughout the city and we're seeing a lot of those things happen where one building or there will be a lot of market rate and you'll see an affordable right with it, broadway and battery right around china basin on king street and there are many, many more that are going the same way. we just approved some, i believe, in the mission district. so i would support a nonapproval or disapproval of this for the reasons stated because i think we can do a lot better job as we work forward with some other legislation. it also is premature because we just past eastern neighborhoods not long ago and i think a revision at this point would not be in line. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yeah, a couple of things. first on the corner of folsom and fifth, there are two parcels i think we just approved a project on and have

we gotten -- and the other, across the alley. so it would be interesting to me if we could ask that developer what would happen if his project suddenly became subject to this particular provision 3 subject to this particular provision of increased housing. i don't know if you have already done that or not, but they seem to be fairly reasonable. i don't know, you know and it might be interesting to see as a developer who is in this area who is paying the highest tier at the moment, what their + at the moment, what their take is on this particular provision to see if they feel that it's at all within reason that they could afford to go ahead with that development or not. >> of course, i can't speak to how they feel about the higher affordability, but as commissioner olague mentioned, part of the impetus of this

legislation in moving forward was that the 900 folsom project and discovering that the tier c affordability that is applied to the interior parcels in the youth and family district were not applied to the external or the main streets. so in some ways, that was the impetus, but at the same time, honoring the fact that this commission has already passed or entitled that project, this is not meant to retroactively apply to any projects that have already been approved. this is more moving forward to forward the goals of the affordability that was set forth from the original youth and family zone. this was just to make it consistent that these affordability requirements would be applied towards all of the parcels knowing that we respect the fact that this commission moved forward with that project. commissioner sugaya: i didn't mean to apply that this was

retroactive. i was thinking, since we just recently approved that and to see if they had any opinion on what the affordability would be to them or other developers since we just did it, so to speak. it's just something in terms of maybe getting some feedback. that's all i meant. but i would have to agree with commissioner olague and somewhat with commissioner antonini with respect to i guess the danger of trying to continue to impose higher and higher impact fees and affordability levels on development. just to think that you're going to then get affordable housing. there has to be a limit and a tipping point somewhere that says, you know, the developer isn't going to do it. so then you're in this conundrum where the community may be seeking community benefits, affordable housing,

support for libraries, child care, open space, street improvements on the one hand, but, you know, it may not come to fruition because the levels that the city would impose. and i think that's kind of what the issue is up here -- well, among several of us anyway and how to find that kind of balance and i think somewhat the staff report is saying that we don't have enough experience yet to find out, figure out whether that is really working or not working. on the other hand, if it's really the case that you want to stifle development, i guess we can make the impact fees as high as we want to. i don't know, that doesn't seem to be the goal of the community either. so i think it's kind of like this, you know, vice president olague: a rock and a hard place. commissioner sugaya: yeah. i'm curious. i'm going to try to go back and