right just because of its size to come in and say this is an inconvenient requirement, and we would like to be let out of it, although i really appreciate the board's willingness to take up this issue, and it is a really important issue. thank you. >chair maxwell: all right, we have james tracy from community housing and others. >> supervisors, i am a professor in run a community economic development clinic, and the students are working as legal counsel and advisers to the neighborhood coalition. i want to make just a couple of quick legal point. first, as an example, the cpsc -- cpmc are looking at an exemption by creating a special medical district, so at this juncture, they are going for it with a conditional use

requirement that would trigger some of these larger policy constraints that are behind this particular resolution, so it is the view of the good neighbor coalition that this should go through the ordinary conditional use that process. second, just a point of clarification to with the planning director said, the reduction it is permitted, if you make a contribution for affordable housing, it is not an automatic 50%. it cannot be more than 50%. attributed to affordable housing. it is very important to keep that point in mind. and second, in terms of what is also in the legislation, there is another provision that is often overlooked, but this one requires very importantly that the planning commission go to

the board. there should be no significant compromise, and i am quoting this, the overall objective of that is substantial increments on van ness ave. it is clear given the current san francisco is in need, given the financial climate, that this is absolutely critical that every developer along van ness contributes substantially to meeting the housing requirement for van ness ave. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the point of this resolution is fairly simple. there should be a substantial increase in public benefit. this is a good public policy that we would be very cautious wet.

when the need for affordable housing is so profound. many years ago, when my uncle lived in the tenderloin, there was an issue of hotels starting to move in. the moment was a crucial moment in city history, where the arrival of those photos could have led to displacement, but instead, it was a moment where things to the tenderloin neighborhood development corp., it became an engine for jobs and housing development, and what we have before us today is really the beginning of a conversation to find out the fate of cathedral hills, to find out if that will be the same type of engine for human betterment or whether it is displacement to be continued. thank you.

>> good afternoon. i am also with the good neighbor coalition. we have been working with residents as well as community- based organizations in the tenderloin and central city, and we have been doing a lot of outreach and education about the van ness area plan, special with residents in our community, and we have found a lot of folks are wondering about the issues that have not been looked at and have basically been ignored, and the folks in our community are watching it very closely. we want to know that housing will be billed out of this play and. for the most part, folks are concerned about the increased number of jobs in the immediate area to the hospital and the impact on affordable housing in an already low-income neighborhood, where housing is already a distress situation. as well as the impacts that

traffic will have on the neighborhood, which could have been mitigated through creating affordable housing. the folks in the community are watching the outcome of the van ness area plan very closely, note and we hope that the 38 -- very close the, and we hope that the three to one is looked at very closely. -- very closely. >> members of the land use community, and i am a council for a community organization, and we join with our allies in the good neighbors coalition in supporting this resolution. three things i think are important to be stressed. one, with any policy in san francisco, large developments

should seek to include housing for a portion of its work force in federal possible, and second, then major developers or developers of major projects should seek to mitigate their housing in packs, especially in tax on low and moderate income households in providing affordable housing. i want to stress what the professor made clear. cpmc is proposing a conditional use for the portion of its development plan. it is proposing a totally complete exception. it is proposing a rezoning. so the conversation above them a 50% reduction as a conditional use is something already taken

off of the table by cpmc, which leaves those of us on the community side perplexed, and clearly, it is the city's way of doing business in housing development to do area plants. those area plants, market octavia and van ness calm mixed use development, building housing and in plymouth opportunities, those requirements are at the federal and state level, and here we have a major area coming into an area plan and seemingly, but pay no attention to long-established policy.

these are meaningful opportunities in the development of the construction. this includes health care facilities. so thank you very much. in considering this measure. we strongly urge your support. supervisor chiu: 80. >> good afternoon. my name is jeffrey nelson, the head of planning for a medical center. i just want to say that we take this very seriously, as well, and we're under no illusion that we would not be creating new benefits, including housing, and i want to provide a little bit of context as to why some people would have come into conclusions that this was overlooked. hospitals do not have the luxury of having zones. there are special uses

everywhere in the city. they are conditional uses. they're all at the discretion of the commission, and we always have to shote our ability. the language that is proposed for the special use district has the allowance for hospitals for a conditional use, and no one is trying to get out from under that. why is there not a discussion of a three to one housing requirement? there are multiple housing requirements in the sweep of the projects, including st. luke's. one is the three to one issue. we wanted to basically start a dialogue, and we sat down of to a couple of years ago and i

think we stand ready. i just want to say that we remain committed. in 2006, we were heading down a road. we heard loud and clear that the community benefit broadly understood, and requested access was to keep to a certain level financially. we are going to do that.

to the extent that this goes forward, not try to predetermine the outcome, because cpmc can come to the table with many, many different.things. supervisor chiu: if i could ask a question of you? am i hearing from you that if we cannot find other ways, you would fill this requirement that we are talking about, which i understand is $2 -- note 2 million square feet of residential. >> no, we are not a housing developer. we basically came to the site, knowing that we needed to try to parlay some of this, such as health care delivery, but there

is no proposal to build 2 million square feet of affordable housing at this point. supervisor chiu: and i think the other thing is that i am obviously acutely aware that you will be doing something that will provide a benefit to the city, note and you are saying that you are providing a community benefit, and it should be a community benefit. i am not sure if an analogy holds water for me, so i just wanted to put that out there. >> i apologize for that conclusion. it was just evidence at different times over multiple years that the issue of the day -- in 2008, it was the continuation of inpatient services.

supervisor chiu: let me ask you one other thing. when did you purchase the parcels on this site? >> some of be purchased in 2004. the commercial and residential properties across van ness ave down geary, would purchase of those over multiple years. supervisor chiu: the requirement that we're talking about, legislated in the 1980's, and it was amended in the 1990's. you are well aware of them. >> we are well aware of them. this is the week holdman korea arrive at some sort of solution and deal with those in our community. pausupervisor chiu: ok, so at ts time, there are no dda's?

ok. chair maxwell: any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to ask the director to come. >> f8u, supervisor. i just wanted to clarify one thing. it is roughly 2 million square feet, and that is for housing. based on the inclusionary requirements. it is still a very big number, and i just wanted to clarify that about the van ness corridor to they come in with that, i do not have any other comments. we clearly understand that the community is asking for the requirement to be met, and we are analyzing and still do not know because of this grows worse

is selling at issue. we have to do a very detailed analysis to understand that " -- because this is a gross vs. solly.net -- gross versus net. there will be several months of work before our analysis will be completed. i would look out over the next five or six months, at least. chair maxwell: so the first part of next year? >> the first quarter of next year. we will probably know. just to be clear, while there is a conditional use, what the

hospital has proposed is a new notsud. chair maxwell: what would that look like? >> the way it is currently being proposed, it allows more flexibility, basically, for the reduction. it would allow more flexibility in how the requirement is met. chair maxwell: ok, so it would actually change the whole intent of the legislation note from 1980 to 1998 -- of the legislation from 1980 to 1990 oa. >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: your say the analysis will not be part of the eir.

it will be separate from that. >> i probably was not very clear about this. 2 million square feet or so of housing as part of that package. if this board chose not to grant the exception as proposed renew sud, then we would have to look anew at the environmental review, because we would have to look at housing. we would have to look at the impacts of however many units of housing as part of the eir. supervisor chiu: hopefully, this sends a strong enough signal, in a think if we can find a way to wrap up these issues, it would be very helpful. chair maxwell: i also think that as we look at how hospitals and how all of this is shaping up,

it is not just about hospitals for the common good. it is hospitals for profit in many ways. i am not saying anyone in particular, notso i think theres a lot of things that citizens of san francisco will be looking at. it is not just the tenderloin community. they are looking at everything we do, and looking at the laws and the exceptions, san francisco really knows our need for housing.

supervisor mar? supervisor chiu: this meets a need that cannot be reasonably met elsewhere in the area. there are other hospitals campuses throughout the city better meeting an important need. the rationale that i have been given for this project is a need to consolidate cpmc campuses, and i am not sure if you think is that rises to the level of something that cannot be reasonably met elsewhere, if you understand where i am going. >> a couple of thoughts on that. this is certainly been the trend of the consolidated services, primarily because of the cost of

technology i say that is that seems to be a national trend. of course, other hospitals that are being built that are not in the van ness corridor do not have this housing requirements. clearly, they chose it well after the requirements korean, just as mr. nelson note suggested. i just throw this out there for your consideration. supervisor chiu: other jurisdictions consolidating, that is partially dictated by health care economics, and the think from a san francisco perspective, something my colleagues have expressed an interest in is thinking about the right distribution of health care and health care access the rock the city. what is good as far as the needs we have as a city.

i know there has not been the health care access and equity that we need to really understand here. that is probably not going to be in the eir. >> no. supervisor chiu: ok, so i just wanted to put that out there as another consideration. chair maxwell: and you are right about the other hospitals. we can change that. we can change that. thank you. any other questions? all right, supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i do have one very small amendment i would like to make to this resolution, both due to this conversation in the conversation office has had with stakeholders to provide a little bit of flexibility to those for a solution. what i would like to propose is that on the second page of the resolution that we referred to the importance of ensuring the

new development projects should substantially advance the underlying housing production goals, so other words, rather than locking us into a very precise way of producing the housing, that as long as we know we are making headway in achieving levels that are substantial, and we have continued to hear that word mentioned in discussion in the public comment that that is what we are trying to achieve, so just to add the word "substantially" into that. chair maxwell: all right, then, colleagues, on the amendment. so moved. the legislation as amended. madam clerk, i would like to go back to item number three. clerk somera: to provide a minor encroachment waiver. chair maxwell: thank you.

is there is someone from supervisor daly's office. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is april, and i am with supervisor daly's office. this is basically an amendment to the public works could to waive the public encroachment fee for affordable housing projects -- to the public works code. this is for some that have subbasements and for the subbasements, an annual fee could look like 10,000 dollars per year annually, and this would come out of some other budget. we sought to introduce something that would exempt this minor encroachment fee for new affordable housing developments.

chair maxwell: 100% affordable housing developments? >> 100% affordable housing developments, yes. chair maxwell: we are looking at $10,000, $25,000, something like that? >> per year. chair maxwell: all right, thank you. cognos, any comments or questions? -- colleagues, any comments or questions? >> mid-afternoon, again, supervisors. the department thinks this is a good thing to do. we do not have that many, because we do not track projects according to their affordability generally. this does specify 100%. it would be easy to determine which properties meet the guidelines. thank you. chair maxwell: all right, public

comment? >> good afternoon. supervisor daly initiated this legislation at our request. a lot of the old hotels and even a lot of new housing that is affordable have basements, and we did bills from the city for encroachment permit. -- we get bills. the money from this really comes from one of two places. it comes from tenants' rents, or in those that are 100% homeless housing that the city subsidizes, it really comes out of government budgets, so approving this legislation from our perspective in point will relieve the pressure on us to increase rents, because some of those are in the tenderloin, and it will affect people in the tenderloin. thank you. chair maxwell: thank you.

>> my name is michael young, and i and with the chinatown community development center. we are also in support of this legislation. i want to quickly reiterate what he had to say. the organization has worked with many affordable units over the past 30 years or so, and we believe that if this e was imposed, it would impact our building, as well. -- if this fee was imposed. the fis would really come out of the city coffers or from out of their rents -- the fees. we hope that this board supports this legislation. >> i am speaking on behalf of the legislation. thank you to supervisor daly

>> there is no such thing in santa skull as affordable housing land. we don't get affordable 2 by 4's, we don't get affordable services from electricians or carpenters. we pay market rate for the materials and for the commercial financing. the magic in san francisco is not passing on the cost. the cost of development to the end user. that means that someone has to pick up that difference. the san francisco model is about 25,000 affordable units in the last 25 years of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco stands up and makes

that commitment. so that the magic of the marketplace doesn't work and affordable housing in san francisco, we have to have direct subsidies. those direct subsidies has to come in a variety of ways, whenever possible, they would otherwise be paid for by the city. we need all the contract requirements, we pay wages, we provide health care for our work force. we do all of the contract requirements that you require for the for-profit developers. in these matters, we do. it is part of the great process and providing housing to be able to be afforded by low-income people in san francisco.

you rarely have an opportunity to do that, today you have an opportunity to do that. i would urge you to do it. supervisor maxwell: any public comment? public comment is closed. thank you very much. is there any further business before this committee? >> there are no further items. supervisor maxwell: this meeting is adjourned.