this relates to ms. hester's point and land development and is our c/h- strategy and helps to determine where growth should and could happen and they're looking at in terms of growth and not just in san francisco but regionally we look at these risks. >> i think they're looking at sea level rise, climate change and strategy and how we plan better. okay. that is really helpful. thank you. >> thank you. any additional questions or comments? so i motion is on the floor mr. chairman. >> so it's moved -- colleagues, can we accept this without objection? thank you. ms. miller, copy could you please call item three. >> item three is for production

policy scpls disbloals this is an item that supervisor and campus has brought and since it's been called let me open it up for public comment. is anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none public comment is closed so colleague can we move this or continue to the call of the chair, -- i am trying to remember -- >> [inaudible] >> so we will continue this item without objection. thank you. mis miller, please call the last item. >> item four is for the planning code and the requirements for the afforable housing program apply to ten units or more and nine units that didn't receive a first construction document. >> thank you and we were expecting two of the sponsors besides the mayor and

supervisor wiener but president chiu and others were here planning give opening remarks. i am wonder figure we could wait until they arrive unless supervisor wiener wants to make some opening remarks. >> sure. thanks mr. chairman and perhaps we could hear from the mayor's office as well. this legislation is a result of the extensive broad base negotiations around the housing trust fund. the bulk of that proposal of course is on the ballot as a charter amendment, and there is -- or this is one of the items -- perhaps the only one at this point but one of the items that has to be done legislatively so this legislation is companion legislation to the charter amendment. part of a negotiation, actually a key part of it, so i think it's a very

worthy piece of legislation to support. >> thank you. maybe we could move to olson lee, the director of mayor and housing. >> good afternoon supervisors. as supervisor wiener presented this is about the housing trust fund. it's about the larger package of the charter amendment and is before the voters in november as well as both legislative changes that need to occur subject to the passage of the charter amendment as well as administrative changes that are needed to implement the broad housing trust fund program, and the importance of the housing trust fund -- i think our other hearings have discussed. the various aspects of the housing

trust fund, but just for the general public to repeat what the overall housing trust fund is about? it's about stimulating all sorts of residential development, specifically replacing the loss of redevelopment funding for afforable housing and in this process continuing the good work of the city on producing afforable housing for all types of populations that we have done over the past 20 years. dan adams of my staff will go into greater detail about this specific legislation, and again how it is a crucial part of the larger housing trust fund. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. lee. so why don't we go to president david chu before the presentation by your staff. >> was supervisor cohen on the

mic? >> i was but -- >> great. >> i can yield to you mr. president. >> thank you. first of allcology leagues i want to thank you for considering this legislation as i think you understand the context of this. this was a policy change that came out of the hard work of the working group and i want to thank them for not only the work they did on the measure we will be considering on the november ballot but as well as considering trailing legislation i think this is the first piece that this committee and our board will be considering. i know it wasn't easy for our housing advocates, and policy makers and developers to develop the consensus when needed when there was so much at stake and i want to say that the unity the afforable housing community is behind this proposal. the legislation before you today and support by the mayor, myself and supervisor kim, who just joined

us and amend the code for the incluary housing program from five to ten units and exempt five to nine from these requirements and i think one thing that is important for folks to understand was that five to nine units or added to the inclusionary program in 2006 and the thinking at the time was to further our city's goals and meet the afforable housing objectives. what we have seen since then, and i hope that we hear from city staff on this, we have seen a decline in application for this development, but we have seen hardly any development occur in this category in the five years since the policy was put into place, so the thinking during the discussions around the afforable housing trust fund was to go back to what we had originally had as the city policy before 2006, and again i want to thank city staff working through this as well as the

planning commission and planning staff for their consideration as well. i do want to mention they have a number of amendments they would like to propose to the legislation that we have in front of us based on conversations we had in the last couple of weeks. colleague i will circulate that to you in the next 30 seconds but to be brief about it. first of all we wanted to change the effective date of the legislation so that the board can in the future if we needed to reevaluate and potentially amend the program as it relates to this five to nine exemption, and secondly we also want to require that the planning department evaluate this exemption three years from now after it takes place, so that we can assess the impact on our housing policies and whether we're effective at sustaining five to nine production in the context of meeting our other housing goals so i will be the amendments probably after public comment but i will circulate

them shortly and thanks all the players and mayor's office and planning department and the stakeholders worked with the board. >> thank you supervisor. supervisor kim has joined us. >> thank you chair mar. actually the supervisor covered most of the points and i would emphasize this came out of extensive conversations with large-small developers, affordable housing rights and activists and the mayor's office and this is one of the trailing piece of legislation that is falling and in particular as we think about development in san francisco it's important to think how we balance development between large and small developers, and small developers tend to be san francisco residentings, locally based and this is of course an area that we would like to encourage and

support. i also think that we have seen over the last couple of years, which i think president chu said and there is nine items after the inclusionary unit was included for that, and we are hoping to see over the next few years with this amendment within three years how this amendment actually does incentivize that production and how it relates to the balance of development throughout san francisco, so i am happy to co-sponsor this today. it was mentioned the amendments that our office is already supportive of, particularly changing the effective date of the legislation to january 15 and i think that is important as we do a look back on this issue three years down the line. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. just wanted to publicly acknowledge they do believe that the amendments that supervisor chu are proposing certainly strike

an appropriate balance between this and monitoring it and it's not contradictory of the city's production goals and like supervisor kim was speaking of, and i have been thinking a lot about this particular piece of legislation and to be honest i was uncomfortable and i didn't know how it would impact the southeastern neighborhoods and the strong desire to develop in that area, but looking at this and district ten i found there are few that would meet the size, zoning and financial requirements for the five to nine development, so i am definitely going to be supporting this today and i don't believe we're moving the inclusionary requirement for the five to nine will impact the afforable housing in the city or compromise the neighborhoods

and i will be mentioning this today. thank you mr. mar. >> thank you and i just wanted to thank everyone for building a big tent of support around the housing trust fund prop c as well and also the different builders and others to really come up with good ways to montheory while also stimulate up housing with the smaller projects as well, so i wanted to thank everyone for coming together on this one. so let me turn it back over to olson lee of the mayor's office on housing. >> okay. at this time dan adams from the mayor's office of housing will do the presentation on the legislation, and he will try to address many of the questions that were raised by the supervisors and demonstrate the need to pass this legislation. dan. >> thank you. i'm going to give

a very brief presentation which really serves to under score the very pertinent and comments that have been already put fort. i do have a four point. you have copies being distributed to you. there you go. simply put we're returning the threshold for the inclusionary requirement before it was 2006. it's a simple piece of legislation that just reverts us to our former standard and we're going to talk through about what we have seen or not seen over the last six years since the legislation was enacted and also -- i mean or furthermore one of the things as you have all noted since that time we have been engaged in this trust fund proposal that and legislation is a part of that overall package. as we have already pointed out the housing trust fund includes the charter amendment on the november ballot and also a

number of piece of legislation. this was it is first piece of legislation that would come before you for consideration outside of the charter amendment. we will be coming back to discuss a city wide buy up program as well as flexibility in the administering the requirements and legislation that will prompt the mayor's office for periodic reports and this the first of a package of legislative pieces. so today i'm going to talk about this -- what we call the five to nine legislation. one of the concerns that was behind the original adjustment to the requirement was a risk of subdividing parcels in order to sort of gain the system and avoid the inclusionary requirement. we will talk about that. we will talk about the

bmr production and other production and the potential to serve our in fill housing goals as well as commercial development goals. so first just talking about the risk of parcels subdivision. we feel like this concern that we haven't seen and sarah from the planning department can speak to the trend over housing over time. we haven't seen a lot of production of projects that have unit count or two below the threshold so we haven't seen this phenomenon be problematic but there are provisions in the code that allows the planning department to consider a multi-phase, multi-parcel as part of a project and not beholden to the requirements of the inclusionary program. when they come into to subdivide the parcel the planner that takes

that in has notice of special restriction. this would require the future development, be it multiple parcels, to attend to the requirements of the inclusionary program and to record that at that time and it's tracked in the planning department case tracking system so when the project -- later date if a project comes in for entitlement, approval and will say they know or apply the inclusionary options at that time so there is a tracking system in place. >> supervisor kim. >> that was actually one of the concerns i had as the legislation was moving through the process over the summertime, so i was hoping you could explain again why it is in some

cases planning do one of those and what is the difference? it seems either way it's going to get recorded but if they can't do a notice of special requirement could that take place and if that is an added layer of protection and one of the concerns is developers will separate them and build several residents and i know this is something planning has been working on and can you explain that and why it's not all done in all cases? >> yes, i can explain in detail and an apt question and we have that in place because the board recognize this is is a concern. the way that we would -- in any case that we catch it when a subdivision comes before us it would fall before the threshold we always attach the notice of special restriction, so it isn't a question of when we would or wouldn't. the reason we mention the second which is when an

actual project application comes in is we have a bake up. we have a. >> >> back up. we have a fails safe. and mistakes every so do often occur we have a backup system and reviewing the project we look at all cases filed recently and see a lot subdivision had been filed and occurred and therefore because the definition is for all phases of the project we could include the requirements without that. it's not a question of which you choose. it's we have a backup if the first doesn't occur. >> thank you. >> thank you for that question. thank you. so this next slide is sort to scale the issue. while five to nine we feel is important segment of the how longing production that happens in the city and talk about the housing goals. it is a small percentage of the production

over the last ten years and represents 3% of the units produced in the city and that gives you a sense of the scale of the issue. in terms of production since the change in the inclusionary requirement while it is difficult to ascribe a precise or exact role to that legislation given that we experienced large declines in the housing market over the last half decade. we have seen a considerable decline for applications of this size of development. this grass shows a rather precipitous decline in applications and you can see from 2001 until 2011 where 2006 moving forward we see quite a significant drop off in the number of applications. this

is compared to the overall pipeline . the red bars are numbers of units. you see a spike in 2007 and a drop off in 2008. this correlates much more closely to the overall crash in the market as opposed to the reduction in five to nine. we have seen similar reductions in other small scale developments but we see acute decline in applications in the five to nine level. now, what is certainly true is that five to nine unit buildings do not represent a significant -- that you see

predominant in south of market or mission bay so the smaller five to nine developments is a kind of development, a product that can be produced throughout the city, and thereby help meet our in fill housing goals. this is from the housing development that speaks to this neighborhood's sensitivity issue and infrastructure and apply these projects throughout the city indeed and this map which is a map of five to nine completed projects since 2001 you see quite a broad distribution across the city which is something that we ideally like to encourage moving forward. in addition a number of these projects are located on

commercial corridors. there is ones on mission and terra baland when the initial analysis of vacant parcels that can along the districts and encouraging five to nine unit production but reducing the inclusionary requirement there is economic potential in this adjustment to the current standards. so in conclusion five to nine unit buildings are a small but important part of the residential fabric. we feel they can meet the in housing goals and limited economic goals. five to nine buildings do not represent significant bmr production for the city and there are tools in place to prevent for lot subdivision. so that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any

questions. >> i see no questions. thanks mr. adams. i will turn it back over to mr. chiu. >> thank you. let's go to speaker cards and we have two cards and let's start with the first two and if others wish to follow if you could line up on the right hand side of the board chamber. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am it meeba moss. i am spur and i wanted to come in and speak on behalf of this piece of legislation and many of you have talked about why this is so critical to the housing trust fund package and one of the stakeholders that has been a part of that process from the beginning i want to under score the importance of this piece of legislation as well the

additional pieces of legislation that will be coming before you in the months to come. this was a consensus measure of the we were proud we were able to work with the community stakeholders and all of the members of the work working group that we responded to the housing crisis we're are experiencing in san francisco as well as ways to stimulate, market rate production housing as well and this is just the very beginning of what we hope to be a very successful measure, certainly in november, but also really contributing to increasing housing production in san francisco, so i ask the committee put it forth with a positive endorsement and we will be back. thank you very much. >> thank you. let's hear from our next speaker. i'm an attorney and here to express

my support for raising the threshold and you have heard so many good reasons already, and more to come. i just limit my comment to the fact that there aren't -- very few if any jurisdictions of san francisco's size that have such a low threshold for inclusionary housing and this would bring this city back in line with other jurisdictions of comparable size. thanks very much. >> good afternoon supervisors. ferdinanda with the council on community organizations. thank you very much for bringing this piece of legislation forward. we were part of the working group that developed the housing trust fund along with other folks who are here in the audience. my colleague is bringing up copies of a letter

they think the city may have forwarded to you all that was on community organizations to the planning commission when this was heard before them basically expressing our support for the measure and raising history around the measure and around why in 2006 the measure -- the inclusionary ordinance was changed and it was largely a piece of legislation sponsored by supervisor mok goldric and closing loopholes and one mr. adams spoke about and division of subproperties and second the concern that developers might not be building to the allowable zoning and wasting the resources to up zone our properties. as dan adams said earlier this is not necessarily respond to concerns about not needing numbers of bmr

units but rather the community's desires to keep integrated neighborhoods with mixed use buildings. there are different ways to deal with this. the nsr's around subdivisions is one way. i will contradict the attorney from earlier. some cities have lower thresholds like san francisco. san diego goes down to two units and above to kickoff an inclusionary, but use that with sort of a graduated fee structure. that doesn't mean at two units you have to build 1bmr, but there's were largely theoretical problems. back in 2006 i believe there were two examples and one in district ten and nine and raised concerns from community members. as dan adams pointed it's not a large number but the amendment introduced earlier today allows the board

to review and see if the theoretical problems do become loopholes that maybe abused by them. we believe this is an appropriate solution to 2006 that resulted in changing the inclusionary threshold so with that history and context i want to say we support this legislation. thank you supervisors. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. tim colin on behalf of the housing coalition. we were pleased too to be in the stakeholder discussion on this and we want to commend in particular the work that the mayor did in bringing a very large tent -- creating a tent with a diversity of stakeholders. it's rare. it doesn't happen often enough and the discussions were productive and open and went along ways to create this. i want to commend in particular the mayor's

office housing, the terrific work they have done. this is a good policy. what it has in effect a shaking of hands across the whole spectrum. this is a sensible idea. if san francisco will every address the housing challenges it faces, serious ones, we will have to construct higher levels of housing of this type. it's the housing that we and appropriate with neighborhoods and fits in well and we have to create the conditions which builders want to build this and we believe this is a great step in the right direction and hope that you move it forward. thank you. >> good afternoon members of the board. i want thank the folks in line for giving me cuts. i wanted to follow up with my colleague. i am peter and he

made reference to a letter. we submitted this back in mid-august so i have copies of it here. i know we sent it to you and we have been supportive of this legislation and broad strokes from the beginning. that hasn't changed. the technical issues we worked with the city staff on that and at least with the three year report back it gives us time to see if there are unintended consequences and those are smart mearments and we are supportive again of your careful work here board members and i will leave these up on the rail if you like. thanks. >> next speaker. >> supervisors good afternoon. richie hart, residential business association and myself and my fellow members will speak and give a history and the