so, we developed an analysis of the major development sites to help attach some numbers to the policies. but there are a number of assumptions that went into the analysis. so, i'll just go over those briefly. first of all, there are 18 properties that are zoned in a way that has a height and has the ability to be a major development. only 13 of those would be considered to be soft sites. we also assume that the residential square foot development on the site would be 75% of the total lot area of the floor because there is a 25% rear yard requirement. and also there will be no residential underground floor. that would be primarily commercial and/or parking. we assume that the average dwelling unit size is 800 square feet. that coincides with the square footage that triggers new eastern neighborhoods impact fees when a new residential district in eastern

neighborhoods is expanded. it also is [speaker not understood] to somewhat generally smaller unit sizes in soma. again, this analysis uses full impact rates as if it was going from vacant to new construction. it is important to note that with impact fees we also do change of use rates. so, if you're going from pdr or commercial to residential, for the amount of square footage you're replacing you only pay the difference in those fees. for this analysis we just used the full, the full rate. [speaker not understood] all affordable units are to be provided on-site. and that the cost of the on-site affordable units are based on the mayor's office of housing in-lieu fees per unit. and a dwelling unit mix of 40% two-bedroom 40% 1 bedroom and 20% studio. and lastly, the numbers that you have are based on an overall development projection 75%. so, based on last week's

outcome, we looked at three different scenarios. the first scenario was a development at the base height. so, just a development that doesn't take advantage of the extra height. so, the new tier structure simply would not apply. it would just be the same base, eastern neighborhoods tier structure. scenario 2 with the original proposal under western soma for a project that did develop to its maximum height, so that would be tier 1 residential impact fee, tier b affordable housing, and scenario 3 is the amendment that was adopted, which is tier 2 impact fee and tier a for affordable housing. so, an increase in impact fees, but a slight reduction in affordable housing. >> just before you go into the comparison of the scenarios, i was just hoping that you'd talk a little bit about how you price the on-site affordable

units based on the low in-lieu fees and what a more accurate costing of that would be. so, i know that -- i mean, that is the in lieu fee that we have currently, but i think it's general common knowledge that that in lieu fee doesn't actually provide, you know, based on the number of units that's not as accurate, i think. ~ supervisor chu. i'm hoping you'll speak to that. >> right. we use that because it was the most formal set fee that we have based on unit size by bedroom available in the time that we had as one of the limits of this analysis in the time frame that we had. there are some -- there is some information that could be developed over time with further analysis, but with the timetable that we had, that was the best rate to use since it's the actual rate that mo uses to calculate the difference between an affordable and a market rate unit. it's one of the assumptions that, you know, could be looked into further if we have more

time. >> and that per unit cost is roughly how much for the in lieu, based on just the in lieu fee? >> sure. per unit? off the top of my head i cannot remember exactly. i might have that here. but, you know, obviously it's lower at the studio to -- it ranges from 2 bedroom. i believe it's 3 24, thousand dollars. i believe a studio is in the $70,000 range. it scales from there. i can't remember the numbers in between, but we could, i'm sure, pull that up and get that for you. >> i think it would be averaged around 270,000 per unit with the in lieu fee cost. >> i can give you that full break out if you like. >> okay. >> for a studio, left off $100,000 there, excuse me. studio in lieu fee is 179.9 thousand dollars. studio is 248.2$2,000 and

[speaker not understood]. >> and generally the number that i think the mayor's office of housing and what i've also heard from a lot of our advocates is that in a city like san francisco, the cost -- so, the average cost based on the in lieu fee is 259,000 per unit. but the actual cost of really building these affordable units is probably closer to 450,000 so that's a pretty big differential when we're talking about what the net value or net benefit of this would be. >> yeah, the other challenge we were facing with this as well and another reason why we tried to keep this as simple as possible is because while we definitely promote on-site affordable housing, we can't require developers to do that. so, even though this analysis assumes all 13 of these properties are going to do an on-site scenario, at whatever tier they are in the analysis, if a site chose to do off-site, they would provide more because the percentage requirement is higher. and, so, the cost would be

higher if they chose to do that. but we don't -- you know, it's very difficult to work that into the analysis at this time frame. so, that's why we went with essentially the most simple and straightforward information we had available. >> thank you. >> sure. so, if we look at the numbers again specifically, the first comparison is between a base height development and the original plan scenario. and if you just look at the totals overall, essentially we took the cost -- we tried to calculate the cost of providing the affordable housing and also the cost of the residential impact fees. we excluded the commercial impact fees entirely since they're not subject to this conversation. they're not proposed to change. and based on that, we found a difference globally of about $26 million or about 34% increase in development costs. now, of course, the scenario

two, the plan version there is also an increase in square footage and units. that's just a pure cost difference. that also results in an additional 341 units, 110 of those would be affordable assuming all on-site, and a reduction in residential impact fees about 2.5 million, specifically the transit streetscape and public ground portion would be a reduction in around [speaker not understood]. the second comparison is, again, the base height scenario with the amended scenario from last week. >> looking at the total residential impact fees, you mentioned before that the total infrastructure needs in that area are about $92 million. so, the $42 million that you're talking about, where is that number from? >> the $42 million is the -- is the total projected residential

and commercial fee collection over 25 years of the plan. >> yeah. >> that's basically the 25-year life of the plan and all of those buckets we're projecting around 92 million need and 42 million that we'll actually collect. >> so, of that 42 we're saying that's somewhere between, you know, 14.7 and 12.2, which are the residential effect fee numbers is coming -- that's the portion the impact fee is coming from, residential contribution? >> residential, yes. the commercial development associated with these sites and the rest of the plan area is completely excluded from this analysis. >> okay. were these numbers available to the community during the discussion around western soma? >> these numbers specifically? >> yes. >> this analysis was not produced in this manner that i'm aware of when this concept was dealt with. there were other people who worked on the plan at that time when i was not working on it and may have a better idea what level of detail they went into from those discussions. so, i can't say exactly. i'm not aware of an analysis at

this level on this specific issue. >> okay. the reason i ask is i think we had a discussion last week about if fees are going to go up, what's the appropriate breakdown between housing and other needs. and from my perspective, you might think it's very telling that if the total amount of fees going up are 26 million and that comprises of an increase of 28.5 million on the housing side and a decrease of 2-1/2 million on the residential impact side if that's accurate, that's the mix that i think we're trying to kind of grapple with and figure out what the appropriate balance is. thanks. >> sure. and, so, going back to the second comparison of the base height development and the amended fee structure from last week, it's a little bit less. again, you get same number of units, but you get 82

affordable units impact fees would go up about 3.6 million, specifically the transit streetscape and public ground portion would go up 1.5 or 18%. and you get a total increase of 25 million which is 32%. perhaps more importantly comparing the two scenarios from last week, you take out the base height scenario and assume that they're going to develop to maximum height, to compare the western soma plan version to the amended version last week, you do get a reduction of 28 affordable units, an increase in 6.1 million in residential impact fees, but the total -- the total cost to development between the two scenarios is approximately 1 million which represents 1%, which is, you know, i'm sure within the margin of error of the analysis.

so, statistically speaking the two plans are almost identical in terms of their overall costs based on the assumption that went into the model. and that concludes the analysis, the major development sites. i'm obviously available for any other questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. teague. supervisor kim, did you have any other comments? >> no, no further comments. open it up for public comment. >> okay. so, public comment at this point. we do have -- would you like to call public comment? supervisor kim will call public comment. public comment will be two minutes at 30 seconds. you will receive a soft bell and then a louder bell when the two minutes is up. ~ >> thank you, thank you chair wiener. i will call the first 10 speakers on my speaker list card. i have andrew greg, cheryl carney, [speaker not understood], theresa de lollis and cathy gavez. let me call four more names.

jim nikko, bing ross ham, angela chu, and miguel herrera. thank you. andrew greg on behalf of [speaker not understood]. ray and i and ray's preservation consultant tim kelly have demonstrated the information for the [speaker not understood] warehouse district is inaccurate and incomplete. this covey advice rate future projects put forth by ray in the muo zoning of this plan area. section 80 39b1 of the west soma ordinance speaks to processing standards use for historic buildings and muo. if this is not the form for remedy of clear-cut facts about properties in west soma, what is? we've been in the hpc. their decision is not appealable to the board nor to the board of appeals.

and certainly runs counter to the department's stated objectives of clear and transparrottv process and saving people time and money. so, with that i'd love to hear from the department at some point in the near future about what the remedy and what the proper fora for action to remedy inaccurate and incomplete facts from the historic preservation perspective. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. greg. [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. all right. david [speaker not understood]. i'm here with the western soma plan as part of thumb tack, this is a private citizen. one of the reasons i really like this plan is that the plan that helps build complete

neighborhoods that really serve a lot of needs. part of complete neighborhoods is putting affordable housing in the mix. this plan amends the eastern neighborhood plan which had provisions for housing and the impact fees that were determined kind of were derived from that eastern neighborhood plan. it was kind of a [speaker not understood] behind those impact fees. i'm here to challenge supervisor wiener's amendment that would take that money and give it to transportation. not that i'm against transportation, but to do it at the backs of affordable housing i think is wrong. i think transportation should be funded, but through other sources or through greater total residential impact fees that cover both transportation and affordable housing. so, i beg you, don't undermine this eight-year plan that had a lot of community development with an amendment that may tank

it. and don't undermine affordable housing at the expense of transportation. let's do everything. why can't we have a city with transportation, affordable housing, one that serves everybody needs? thank you for listening. >> thank you, mr. lewis. bruce alison core magazine. i am one of the lucky ones that got one of those affordable units. and this, please don't cut any more. i also work for a group that finds unorthodox ways of finding housing. i rather have people find housing for the city than the unorthodox ways that may be dangerous. and if you want to go for transportation, supervisor wiener, triading a few more dollars onto the cost as supervisor kim recommended.

thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. alison. as soon as a speaker finishes, you may just come straight up. i thought someone else was ahead of me. >> you don't have to go through any certain order. cathy gilbertson, and i'd like to address supervisor wiener's amendment. and i'm against it totally. i'm against your amendment. i used to be -- i used to reside in your district. i'm homeless and i have been since march 28th last year. putting more money on transit does not help find housing. we need the housing. we use the transportation if we had the housing. i don't have housing -- i walk a lot instead of taking public transit. i do take public transit, but i

walk more. and it's necessary for the people to have it all. jobs, housing and transit. it's very necessary. and i really feel that the high impact fees would help a great deal. it needs to happen in order to bring the city into focus of what's going on now and have everyone work together instead of pulling in separate directions like we're doing right now, housing, transit, jobs. it doesn't work. it has to work together. that's it. >> thank you, ms. [speaker not understood]. actually i should probably have said this a little earlier. we should direct the comments to the entire land use committee in general. thank you. okay, thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. jim meko and i am chair of the western soma citizens planning

task force. we would not have district elections today if it were not for the activism and the outrage of the south of market community. the impacts of displacement and gentrification [speaker not understood] the market stronger than any other neighborhood in the city back in the 1990s. in fact, between 1990 and 2005 we went from just a little under 10,000 dwelling units to over 17,000 dwelling units. that's just over a 15-year period of time. and of those additional dwelling units, none were affordable. there was no affordability at all. our plan that's before you is based on the vision and values that were adopted by the task force and by community consensus. and the goal was to integrate

appropriate land use, transportation, and design opportunities into an equitable, evolving and complete neighborhood. and the keyword there is equitable. please respect this community and adopt western soma community plan with an equitable share of affordable housing. thank you. >> thank you, mr. meko. hello, supervisors. my name is theresa de lollis. i'm a parent and i'm really taking this personally, supervisors wiener and chu. my family is going, going, going through the force around possible eviction. you're talking about families here. i would also like -- for affordable housing to be redefined because we have big families in the south of market.

i support the soma western community plan, but as i was actually reading those, there's only up to two bedrooms. so, what about, you know, bigger families, right? if you want to increase, you know, transportation impact fees, please note, don't touch our affordable housing impact fees. it's really important for us community. we worked hard for this, you know. in our direct as a parent, i don't want any x rated or rated r night life. we want district 6 to be a family friendly district. this is our home. this is our community. this is our backyard. you know, we aren't the type of people maybe you want us out of the city because we are loud, poor, low-income, homeless, battered wives and children and colored ones. we are long-term tenants, families, colored and poor families. i believe some of you don't want us in this city, but we are here to stay. and you -- because we are not the right type of neighbor,

please. i'm really angry, angry at the fact that you have 12 legislators -- legislatures under your belt and not one of them is protecting families, people of color, our community to stay here in this community, to stay here in this city. ~ committed and i want to you please, don't mess it up. we worked hard for this. god and our community worked hard for this. don't mess it up for us. >> thank you, ms. de lollis. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm angela chu from chinatown community development center. i'm an organizer, tac on cdc. [speaker not understood] i would like to say i have a lot of respect for a community that come together and plans for the future.

i think the western soma plan is [speaker not understood] so [speaker not understood] and get a lot of support. at this point all our communities are looking to have it go ahead and finish. like the other [speaker not understood], i still think transportation and housing can go hand in hand. and housing is such a big need because we have seen gentrification, displacement happening right now in our city. so, please consider that. and please support the western soma plan. thank you. >> thank you, ms. chu. hi, cory thompson [speaker not understood]

[speaking in native language] good afternoon, supervisors. i'm [speaker not understood]. one of the families living in chinatown s-r-o buildings. [speaking through interpreter] living in s-r-o buildings, you know, our room is less than the size of what normal apartment building rest rooms would be.

in planning and budgeting for our city, please take in consideration the very low-income family and people that need housing. thank you. please [speaker not understood] on housing. >> thank you, mr. tan. good afternoon, supervisors. how are you doing today? anyway, my name is [speaker not understood] working for the [speaker not understood] homelessness. first, [speaker not understood] on homelessness, we support [speaker not understood] and the legislation [speaker not understood]. so, i want to say i oppose your legislation, mr. wiener, for

different reasons. number one, that is because you're going to take the money from the s-r-o housing, low-income housing that we have from prop c. and second, because we got money for transportation for [speaker not understood]. i don't want to take money from these two programs what we get last year from the [speaker not understood] housing for the families. i would like you to find other ways, different ways that you can find the money through supporting these projects working right now. because for us it's really important to provide and build housing, low-income housing for families first before we think about to build and [speaker not understood] the city. if you weren't doing this, we would [speaker not understood] more homeless family in the city. second thing, [speaker not understood] investigate and see what is going on in the city, we have 500 homeless families living in s-r-o in the city of san francisco. we have 500 families, 250 in

shelters in place. and 250 families [speaker not understood]. so it's 500 and we don't know how many more families, homeless exist in the city. i would [speaker not understood] the purpose to funding and looking more money to build housing to ending the homelessness in san francisco. and for [speaker not understood] and south of market, please think about it twice when i want to displace people in houses or raise the rent. we don't support that. we support family [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. thank you. i'm going to call the next 10 speaker cards to come up after mr. harney. i have tokuk wong,al an darer br liner, gilbert crizwell,

tony robles. [speaker not understood]. mellie [speaker not understood], and marty [speaker not understood]. ~ good afternoon. my name is alexandra berliner and i am a community outreach worker for [speaker not understood] in the city. and the work in the south of market and i'm also youth of this community, and i oppose this plan that you are proposing because as a youth i always wanted to live in the city. i've grown up in the city my whole life and going to school and trying to get a job so i can afford to pay for housing is hard enough to do. and i can't go to school all by myself and still look for housing if i can't work at the same time.

and i've watched my friends over and over the years have to move out of the city and live in other communities in the east bay and cheaper communities because they can't live in the city they grew up in. they can't afford to live here. and i don't want to live the rest of my life thinking that i can't live in the city i was born in. i was raised in the city. this is our city. and if we can't afford to live in our city, how are we supposed to call it our city? and transportation is fine enough, it's good. we have the perfect transportation here. my parents have been working for the city their whole life and transportation is fine. we need affordable housing. we need to be able to live here. i want to be able to raise my family in this city. i don't want to have to move to oakland or to move to richmond to raise my family. i want to be here in my city where i was born and raised. so, thank you. >> thank you, ms. berliner. good evening, supervisors. my name is fernando [speaker

not understood]. i'd like to a first of all we fully support the integrity of the community based process in western soma including the innovative housing, the height bonus system that was developed. we reject a reduction in the affordable housing height bonus that the integral to stabilizing the community and we look forward to working with you and seeing you all working together to reach solutions and meet them for structure needs of the community. i'd like to make a couple comments about the presentation that was just made from planning department. one was it's i think it was alluded to the eastern neighborhoods process where sites receive up zoning, there is a tier 1 of fees that remain stable from the base to the height bonus. and here somehow we ended up with an inverse equation where the base height has a tier 2 and then in writing legislation that attempted to keep it stable, we suddenly