>> you are now on item 17, an intent to initiate department- sponsored planning code administrative code, and zoning map amendments related to the eastern neighborhood. >> ms. rodgers, planning staff, here to present this item. this is an initiation only. we will not be talking about the substance of the ordinance, but picking a date to consider the ordinance and potential adoption. departments that is recommending july 21 for the adoption hearing. that is the ordinance before you. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. i did receive a call, for what it is worth, and an e-mail from a member of the public who is interested, and who was

wondering if there is a possibility that we will be looking at other aspects of the eastern neighborhoods plan for cleanup. he was wondering if there would be other opportunities where we might be able to look at some of the issues they're raised in western south of market. >> we can follow up on that. "we have done with the ordinance before you is we have a comprehensive list of things we would like to examine for the eastern neighborhoods. we have a timeframe where some of them needed to come before you. the ordinance before you are items that are simple fact -- simple fixes or things we get a handle on inexpedient -- in an

expedient manner. president olague: whenever there is time to look at them. >> i will ask the staff to check in with the western samoa -- soma task force. president olague: i will also check in to start looking at some of the suggestions he had. i am good with the date of july 21. >> that is correct. commissioner moore: i have one question. i have one question with respect to page 3, second bullet point. you are saying that several individual properties were incorrectly zoned and stand out from the properties that surround them. there is no map for us to see that. were those properties which were initial -- which were originally holding back? i do recall we had several properties who had issue with rezoning as we did it.

there were lots of discussions on the type of new zoning categories. i would just like for my own edification like to know which parcel, if you know by any chance. we do have a map. it is pretty sketchy, the parcels we are talking about resuming. -- rezoning. that is because there were turned into condos. it is divided into how many condos are created and the original block number disappears, in effect. we had rezoned the block, and when the -- we had rezoned the lot and when the condos were created, the owners did not get the information. when the underlying parcel disappeared, we lost the rezoning, in effect. commissioner moore: that happens a lot across the city,

particularly in build up neighborhoods that have existing zoning, apartment buildings with a single owner. there might be 70 people owning a portion of that property. if that is the case, i am fine with it. >> yes. commissioner antonini: move to initiate. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor for initiation. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. you are now on item no. 8 team. case 2,011.0105 c, amending the planning code to add two alternative market and octavia plan areas.

>> good afternoon. i am from the department's staff. i am here to talk on this item. i am also joined by a representative from the mayor's office of housing and a member of supervisor weiner's office. i believe we talked about this briefly last week, but what is before us this legislation was introduced by supervisor dufty in january 2011. is it now sponsored by supervisor weiner, his predecessor. it is to provide a land dedication alternative in the market octavia plan area for those who pay the affordable housing fee for doing an off site project. i wanted to provide a map of the plan area so we knew where in the city we were talking about. there is a program very similar to this program in the eastern neighborhood plan area as well.

we are really focusing on places where they are imagining a lot of development, and highlighting those programs in those areas. the market octavia plan area is a little bit different than eastern neighborhood. the parcels are smaller. most of the development project we seen moving forward will have been including just the principal project. the eastern neighborhood land dedication process imagines one parcel would be split. part of the parcel would be the housing project and part would be the principal project, the market right project. in market octavia, we imagine something very different. i want to spend a little bit of time talking about the process we have gone through to get to this legislation and how the program will work. after the legislation was introduced, the mayor's office of housing convened a task force or working group on the legislation, which included representatives from the

community, affordable housing advocates, project sponsors which have projects in the plan area, and city staff, including those who are here with me today. based on the work of that committee, a number of recommendations and amendments were made to the original legislation that was introduced. those changes are in the legislation that is before you. that is what i will be talking about when i am doing an overview of the legislation. also, the market octavia cbd past a resolution of support. the department is recommending approval of this ordinance with the proposed changes in the legislation. generally, the program would work a lot like an approval for a community improvement program, although we would be relying on the expertise of the mayor's office of housing to make sure the proposal meets the guidelines the program outlined.

the project sponsor would submit an application to the mayor's office. the mayor's office would review the proposal and make sure it meets the requirements of the program. they would work with the community advisory committee and other stakeholders in that process. it would be brought before the planning commission. they would have 90 days to approve or reject the proposal. as i said, it is different than eastern neighborhoods, because we contemplate it will be a separate per so we are talking about in most cases, although it is not required to be. the project sponsor that is using this as an alternative would have to be within the market octavia plant area. the designated site would have to be within a half mile radius of the original project if it is within the plant area, or a quarter mile if the dedicated land is outside of the plant area. i can walk that through with you in more detail if you would

like. there is a little bit of leeway in the final discussion of whether to expand those boundaries a little bit, upon the advice of the mayor's office of housing. the last interesting requirement is the percentages. if you include inclusionary units on your side, you provide 15%. if you provide of sight, you provide 20%. we would like to have 40% of development capacity. you are just providing the land, so we would like a larger number of units potentially produced. i think finally there is one clarifying point we have not made. we have not made it in this ordinance and i would like to discuss it with all of you. we want to be really clear that this land, the units developed on the land in future would be affordable to households either turning the incomes required by section 414 or lower income households, depending on what

kind of funding package could be put together. with that, i am here for questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. i do not know if either of you would like to add anything. for the sake of procedure, is the public, and? obviously not. no one is here other than staff. obviously, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: is there guidance you or the mayor's office is giving toward prospective sites? question two. since we are operating within prevailing zoning districts, is there a target size or target number by which we make the most out of the limited resources to build on these sites, maximum efficiency without asking for zoning changes? like if it is an r-3 or r-4, we

are not going to be building a super tall to make the most efficient building. i am trying to figure out what parameters you are setting for an economically viable site with the right zoning and the right number of units. that is a critical thing because you can take any small site and would only be able to build one unit. >> i think the points you are mentioning are important. that is why we feel relying on the mayor's office of housing to review any of the proposed sites -- they really have to feel comfortable they could develop a project on that side. most of the sites we will be looking at will be in the market matif planned area -- market octavia planned area. there are a number of parcels. in addition to that, one of the benefits of a land dedication program, from the city's perspective, is taking

advantage of the project sponsors capacity to operate in the land market in a different way than the city care. -- kim. i do not believe the mayor's office of housing will be picking out parcels. but in terms of evaluation, the will be looking at long-term development potential. commissioner antonini: it is a very important question. the most critical thing is that the site would have to accommodate the appropriate number of units, right? that is one of the basic, fundamental criteria, right? we are not just going to accept any site. but more than that, there is a much more fine-tuned analysis that has to happen by the mayor's office of housing to see if the site really can accommodate and efficient building. generally, within existing zoning. we cannot guarantee there would never be a zoning request change, but it would be highly

unusual, i think. perhaps you can speak to that. i think the most important thing is they have to look at it and make sure they can build in the site. commissioner moore: i am going to stick my foot in my mouth. i am going to do it. i am going to say something. mr. warren today presented a very interesting concept of the final site, when we normally proceed -- perceive as being single family. perhaps we are asking, foot in my mouth, the aia for help with the mayor's office to develop some prototype buildings of eight to 12 units in order to get a dimensional fix with in the prevailing sawning of market octavia to test a sight to see if it is a candidate site. it is having a way to know which side you should pay more attention to. with having this kit of parts,

which is like a prototype of one or another kind, you would be more targeting the pursuit of acquiring the site. the site -- having the site does not help you, unless you know what you can put on the site. basically chasing butterflies. but perhaps there is someone in the aia, a qualified housing architect who could help you and set something out with out a certain amount of marching around. commissioner antonini: looking to see if there are sites that have a fair number of commonalities, or whether they are different and a protest would not work. it would be useful to understand if there are sites that could accommodate a prototype approach. >> sure. commissioner antonini: at the end, you talked a little bit about income tests.

this should be flexible, if possible. the mayor's office of housing is doing the 40%. the source of the land is building a market rate for the 60% of the land. in turn, that is satisfying their inclusion their requirement. that is what the idea is. it is a different way to satisfy it. >> yes. the 60% versus 40% is the number of units. commissioner antonini: ok. i think by flexibility on the 40%, this may give you the opportunity to address something we never built. that is workforce housing. it might give you the opportunity to reach the middle income group above the 120th percentile but below the 180th percentile that is priced out of san francisco, that cannot afford market rate but is making too much. i think that should always be --

this would be something the mayor's office would have to decide. we could do it on a case by case basis and not get too specific. i have a proposal that is a variant on that. what i am bringing up to date is not this proposal, but a different proposal where a project sponsor still has the project. they do 60/40 in number of units. then they are allowed -- the reason they are able to do the 40% is that the ami is higher. right now, it is 80/20 or a 85/15 depending on the situation. there may be long run problems with how this would work as far as home ownership. i think it is a concept we have to explore. it is different than what you are talking about today. the project sponsor still does the entire thing, whether they do it off site or on site. it is a vehicle to address the group we never build housing

for in san francisco because of economic obstacles. commissioner sugaya: could you explain a little bit more the dedicated site is suitable for housing? and then it says the dedicated site equals 40% of the total developable areas of the principal sites. if you can accommodate 40% of the required units on a piece of a dedicated land, what difference does it make that it is less than 40% of the principal site? >> that is a good question. i think there are two different ways we wanted to look get it. one of the reasons we used the site area as well as the number of units we could produce is as you get into the narrower, color construction types, the units become more expensive to construct. we wanted to make the project as

comparable as possible. that is why we had 2 the road different thresholds. commissioner sugaya: -- why we had two different thresholds. commissioner sugaya: it seems like market octavia is fairly well developed. i do not know how much vacant land, for example, there would be. i suppose it does not have to be vacant land. they could buy something that is developed and end up may be demolishing it or adding to it in some fashion. i do not know if mr. cohen is here. i don't know how much possibility exists within the parameters you are setting forth here within the area, within half a mile, within a quarter of a mile boundary. what the potential is for finding land that can be dedicated. >> i brought this map along,

which is a map we used in our discussion. you can look at it quickly. it shows a quarter mile buffer. in red is the quarter mile buffer. that would give you a sense of exactly what boundary we are considering. the market octavia plan environmental impact report shows the development capacity for almost 6000 new housing units. the think it is the ongoing question of will it be market rate, will it be affordable. the think the capacity on the site -- one of the goals of this program is to secure some of that land while there is the capacity to do so. but i think your point is right. this is not a program we are going to see every project sponsor move forward with. it is only going to work in a few instances. but we are happy to move forward any program that gets affordable units in the plant area. commissioner sugaya: if there is

dedicated land that is sufficient size, i assume this is going to be developed by a nonprofit housing developer. they can actually create more units on there, if the funding is available. >> that is right. the thresholds are minimums. if there is more capacity or other ways to be creative. commissioner sugaya: would it be possible for a market rate developer to jv or partner with a non-profit developer and develop both the required 40% and market rate on one side? >> i will defer, but i believe the mayor's office would be open to any marked -- and the model that produced the units in an affordable way. president olague: thank you. mr. cohen, you just walked in. do you have anything to add? another commissioner -- i know

that commissioner sugaya was looking over at you. >> thank you. i got here so quickly. i was hustling over here. the concern that was the back story to this is that we are seeing an increasing pattern of fraud? sponsors -- and increasing pattern of project sponsors feeing out of their obligations. this is in respective of the project -- of the palmer decision. it is driving a number of things, including the peak, which is temporary. there is not an interest in encouraging fee-outs or land dedications. we wanted to find something in between, on site, which is the upper market community's

priority, and the opposite, which is nothing. i worked with affordable housing advocates with a great pipeline of money. that is not what the program is necessarily designed to do. the land dedication ordinance provides something in the middle which captures the inclusion republication in some other form if a project sponsor for whatever reason does not want to do on-site next income housing. geography does matter. it is about getting the possibility of affordable units into the local neighborhoods. if they are not going to provide it on sight, this is a piece of land that has been dedicated for that purpose in future development. that is an important context here. we can get into the nuances of what can be done with that plan. i think it is important to know we still want to see on site

development. the community has almost no affordable housing development. we see on site inclusionary as the primary way to maintain income diversity in our community. thank you. commissioner moore: i would like to suggest that we do not put too many constraints on the site size, and particularly not necessarily say 40% of the other side area. i think the construction methods would help build something easier. not only low-rise wood construction produces affordable housing. there are other in between construction methods given in the code. it has changed. it used to be more restrictive than it is now. i think we should leave it up to skilled architects to build a

medium rise building without restricting that the side needs to be 40% of the other side. we have skilled architects in affordable housing in this town. they can do something with a reasonable size which is not just one size, not to a restricted dimension or size. >> just to clarify, i do not think you are proposing that the size of the s.e.c. has to be 40%. the actual acreage of the site has to be 40%? >> there are two thresholds. it is the number of units and the lot size. commissioner antonini: i thought the 40% was only the number of units. commissioner moore: she would also say there would be certain construction limitations. i think that is the wrong complain to put on yourself. complain to put on yourself.