done analysis. it would be infeasible to built without subsudi from another source. it's a requirement at 110 percent ami to 26 affordable units and there's clean up items related to the amendments that changes the percentages that follow once you make this amendment. we're available for any questions, both the development team as well as staff. thank you. >> supervisor wiener. >> i have questions for staff so thank you for the presentation and running down the thurs. that was helpful. can you go back and tell me, in the plan as a whole and not just this project, how many

low and very low income units have been built or have been entitled? >> if you would look at page nine in your handout, this shows the requirement of very low and mission bay north and what has been built. and in blue, you have what has not been built. for very low, 98 units required and 98 built. for the low come, 35 units were required and 135 units were built. 32 has been built which leaves leaves the 80 remaining. >> so it's 32 and you're proposing the other 36. just

to be -- in terms of what will be built, it's about 233 low or very low and then it will be a total of 58 moderate, is that right? >> yeah. 32 plus 26, 58. >> in terms of the low and very low, the 98 and 135 is what has been built. how many low and low income units have been built if any? >> this is mission bay north. this is mission bay south. they have a different model of providing affordable housing where the developer donated affordable housing sites and the agency is building those site. there's 1100 to be built, but 150 is just about to open at 4th and channel, the mercy housing

project. there's about a thousand remaining to be built in mission bay south, but those will not be inclusionary except at the hotel site that came before the board last year where there will be a hotel site as well as 350 residential units and there's an inclusion requirement with that amendment. >> okay. in terms of this particular plan, it's 230 -- in terms of what has been built, it's 230 low income buildings and 58 moderate income buildings? >> yes. >> okay. so in terms of this particular project, i completely understand how it has to pencil out and when you have 80 out of the 100 and some odd units, it has to be bmr, i get that. but my understanding in terms of

history of this project, this is the final project in the plan area and it was required to be -- is required to be moderate income and it was initially, at least as i understand, contemplated as up to 120 percent of ami and 120 being moderate income and that would have produced 45 below market rate units at up to 120 percent ami. and now it's being proposed, it's up to 90 percent of ami which reduces the number of ami numbers to 50 units to 26 units. >> the initial was 80 at 110. and we looked at several scenarios who see what was the best. we built on very low income. we wanted to get the maximum amount of

moderate income since the plan was to have moderate. we recognize that when we went to our commission, we proposed a 45 out of 120 percent amendment and subsequent to that, we talked to supervisor stef and community advocates and there was a need to have deeper moderate affordability over the higher range of affordability. what you're seeing is the feasibility amount. >> you you want to do the maximum number of feasibility units, but we reduced that number but 50 percent going from 45 to 25 units because of pressure from one particular viewpoint on affordability to reduce that percentage from 120 to a lower amount? >> i think it was a pretty

robust discussion on -- >> i know this has been a long time ongoing discussion in this building and keep in mind that we all support building a lot of housing for folks who are low income, low income people are the most likely to become homeless, but we have a huge gaping hole in our housing policy in terms of moderate income people. people who don't qualify for the low housing that we built, but can't afford market housing. we get some from inclusionary ownership, you then that doesn't take into account the fact that there are a lot moderate people who aren't in the

positions to buy. there's nothing for them. so when we have some of these occasion projects that come through, it seems unfortunate because there are some people who may talk about moderate, but sometimes i'm not sure if they actually believe in moderate income housing, that we lose that. with that said, i understand and i think this will serve 70 to 90 percent of ami. there's a need this that category, but in terms of flexibility, it's a shame when we have these rare opportunities to build up to 120 and everyone agrees that's the range for moderate income and because of some frankly negotiations or pressure that comes from one side but not the other, it gets lopped down to 90 so instead of producing 45 units, we're producing 26

units. i have some challenges around that and i understand the position that you're in and i'm not -- i wanted to provide that perspective to the agency. >> supervisor cohen. sdwl >> thank you supervisor wiener. i know for a fact that working with ocii, they're aware and i argued the same position that you do and we have a couple of thousand more units that are due fall within this 90 percent to 110 ami range in the pipeline, but we need to get it built. it's slowly but surely coming. i have a question about the mission bay over bay. on two of your presentation, there's a public school to be built, is that on schedule.

>> we have to work with the school district to figure out a finance plan and we've been speaking to supervisor kim's staff to work with the school district to start building discussions. i think they're not ready to take on the site at this time without -- they're doing some analysis on the school capacity. there's feeling that there's under capacity in those other schools so they're doing some analysis and i think what we're planning to do is work with supervisor kim's staff to reach out to the school district and where they are on their analysis and when they'll be ready to start with the school site. >> i'm curious. this public school that was projected, is it a middle school or elementary school? >> it's a middle school. >> it's a science technology elementary school. my mistake. >> that's okay. >> i was wondering where we

were. people are moving all around. in the pa trel neighbor, one the concerns is there's no middle school that feeds for the dog patch neighborhood, but that's a conversation for the school board. >> i'm happy to address that question. we need to build a site. we're restricted by the size of the parcel. state code requires a certain number of square foot per student depending on whether you're an elementary or high school student. this allows us to build an elementary school because it's a small size because we looked at making it a high school. the community wanted to see a technological high school on this site. this

came from the bay view area. the second question is should we build a k-8 and we're constricted by state law on what we can do. what the school district has determined an elementary which we have a need for. i think that we have a need to build an elementary school based on the number of kids that we're seeing between zero and five in this part of the city. the school district decided to go ahead and rebuild willie brown middle school first. they felt they can take on a construction of a new school one at a time. they couldn't build them both at the same time. part has to do with the bond payments that was passed but i don't want to speak for the board. i think the hope is mission way will

then compliment that with an elementary school in the area. we have a number of high schools, balboa, so we have to think how can they compliment one another. it's a done deal by it's a question of what will it be built. >> we need to do analysis to figure out the timing for capital -- getting a capital budget together. they want to get data. they've been working with csc members on that as well. >> i want to appreciate supervisor cohen for bringing this up. >> willie brown the academy will open up in 2015 in the bay view area. thank you. >> any further questions colleagues? >> i just wanted to comment on

the discussion. i want to state the difficult position that i think ocii was in around this parcel. this site was originally flatted for 80 units all at 120 percent ami for homeowner ship. it was something like ssop, san francisco organized process fought for. the way that the development agreement was written, once the developer completed their object -- once they completed their obligation, there was nothing to force them to finish the site. they'll telling the land to inter grille who is in the fiscal position decades later trying to built something that pencils out for them and building 80

units at 110 ami didn't pan out. i asked a lot of questions and i believe that ocii did a thorough skrob -- job in the back of the envelope to reinsure that the project was not possible. so that is why we are in the situation that we are today. our current affordable housing policy and i know this is up for debate has us building rental units for a zero to 90 ami. we set this up high so we can build the most units possible. the way the framework is, 80 to 100 percent is use for homeowner ship. i know this is a policy debate and not the same we wanted to have this policy debate around this parcel. the developer needs to move forward and there's time issues to make sure they build. and that's why i'm proposing to move forward as described by ocii.

>> supervisor wiener. >> thank you and through the chair and thank you to supervisor kim for that background. as i understand and i think it's important to acknowledge that this was a choice. this doesn't has to be 90. it could have been 120. it did result in reduction and yes, no developer wants to get caught up in our broader debates in city hall for that project. they want to move forward and i get that. but i think it's extremely frustrating not just for me and not just for people in this room, but for many people in this city when they see that we take affordable housing so seriously in this city and they go in and say, i can't afford any housing. i want to apply for affordable housing. i'm not wealthy. i'm working class. guess what, i don't qualify for any

of the housing because at my income range or my being the other person, there's nothing or very little being built and so i think there is a lot of frustration out there in terms of almost total lack of housing at that range and i do think it's unfortunate that we assume that if you're in that 80 to 120 price range, you must be in that ownership. maybe someone is making 60 or $75,000 a year, they may not be in a position to own or want to own at a subsidized rate and they are renters and we have moderate income renters and that population is almost completely ignored by our housing policy unless you are fortunate enough to have a rent controlled unit that is what you need. if you have that, great. you're in a good situation. a lot of people don't have that

because they've had to move. they're newer to the city, or whatever. they have been evicted, whatever the situation and there's almost nothing for them in our housing policy. that is the frustration and a lot of other people have. i'll support this project. i think it's important to move this forward, but it's a continuing frustration. >> any further questions colleagues? okay. with that, let me ask, are there any more staff presentations? let me ask if there's members of the public who wish to speak to this item? please step up. >> president chiu and board of supervisors, thank you for introducing myself to you. my name is vicky and i'm a principal of the group and of the interval development and we're the developer of the

parcel also known as mp 43. it has been our pleasure to work with ocii, supervisor kim and her staff, community advocates as we have tried to proceed with this development and are excited and appreciative of the collaborative nature of those interactions so we look forward to hopefully getting the approval on the resolution before you so we can go forward to achieving financial closing starting construction and placing these units on the mark by the end of next year as our goal. further we look forward to working with your offices, your staff as we put together a market -- marking plan to make these units known to the constituents in need of housing that meets their income level. thank you for the ability to introduce myself to you and we

stand able to answer any additional questions. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good luck with this assessor. this amendment. good luck with this item and your 5th amendment. you can fly among the stars and make it work out right and we can fly, we can fly up, up and away in the 5th amendment so the successor of redevelopment agency. we can fly away again. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> again, tom gilbert, south

bridge apartments. 25 years it opened up and they were the first units on the -- the bay side village and dalance street and anything that's market rate, we get slaughtered. we don't have a neighborhood. we lose people. you can't take 40% rent increases in three years so i don't know about this property. i know -- what i'm sensing is it's the crumbs by a bad location. but a freeway. it's not going to be fine so we can adjust it. i'm going to say again that we need a cost, a rent control throughout this city because you don't get a neighborhood. you get neighbors that are coming in and the kids are six

and they have to move out because we don't have rent control. we don't have a healthy community and we get slaughtered. someone has to say we need rent control again. we'll have to send somebody to sacramento to say we want our city back. we want to make this the healthiest city we can. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon president chiu, and supervisors. my name is mrs. woods. i share the mission bay committee and has for many years. we have been trying to get this site built for a long time. it's a tough site. i think a lot of these people are going to have people on the freeway looking in their windows as they come off onto

the marcadaro. they supported the housing and we supported the 120 percent ami proposal. we weren't given an opportunity to reviews the proposal, but you we understand that it's a compromise and i think what it does reflect is the very great difficulty of building any kind of moderate income housing because there are no subsidies and as you move forward with your policy discussions, low income, very low income, there are places to go for money, and we know we need this moderate level of housing, but it's a balance. how do we get it without the subsidies that are given to the lower income

people ask that's how we get all the low income housing built. as you move forward with your discussions, please consider this. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item. seeing none. this hearing is now closed. and on the underline item at item 16, can we take a vote. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> yee. >> aye. >> avalos. >> aye. >> reed. >> aye. >> campos. >> aye speaker: chiu. aye. >> 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted and on the third special ordinary, madam

clerk call item 17-20. san francisco approving a parcel map for a division located at mission street. item 18, 19, and 20 are the motions associated with that item. >> supervisor kim. >> hopefully i'll provide relief to my colleagues today after last week's very long meeting. the parties have agreed to continue this hearing as open to a date starting on may 6th, 2014. the about appellant's want to appear the conditional approval of a second subdivision for this project, project number 7990 and it's to continue the items so both appeals can be heard at the same day on the same time. i would like to make a motion to continue to may 6th. kim has made a motion to

continue this item to may 6th. is there a seconded. seconded by yee. >> we would recommend that the board open the hearing, allow any public comment from anyone who may be here today who wants to speak today and continue the hearing as open without closing it. >> before we continue, let me open up to public comment in case anyone wants to make comment on the item today. >> there might be some day you'll find this parcel map is wrong, but to my only reign, i'll follow the sun. some day, you might find this parcel map is the one, but tomorrow may city reign, so we'll follow

the sun. >> thank you, anyone else for public comment for this item. seeing none, public item is closed. on a motion to continue, can we do -- >> there's no public comment today, but the hearing will remain open until the date of continuance. >> my apologies. so i'm not going to close the hearing. the hearing will remain open. >> that was my motion. my motion was to continue this hearing as open. >> let me rephrase it. we're going to keep this hearing open until the six of may. that should be the case without objection. with that, why don't we go to role call. >> supervisor farrell. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. >> so, with the housing affordability that has become

the discussion of the year here in san francisco, how affordable is this city for our existing residents and new residents. we want to introduce legislation today. it's great importance that has taken every week of our woerd discussions as we talk about legislation such as increasing relocation payments, figuring out ways to close a loophole at the state level and i want to acknowledge that our mayor is speaking and testified personally on behalf of informing the state. it was a piece of discussion in last week's sequa appeal and when we're talking about the loss of rent control here. creating and protecting affordable housing in this boom cycle of our local on policy is a question that our residents are demanding city hall should answer. we should have growth without displacing residents.

part of the answer is in the production of housing to meet the job growth. district 6 absorbed this construction, it begs the question of who are we building for. there's been a spectacular production of housing we have seen over the last six years, and just to produce the data of what this housing production has produced, what we have found is that between 2007 and 2013, we've produced 29,894 housing and we're reading 90 percent of our housing goal which is 31,000. of the units we have built, 23,382 have been for above moderate income individuals. those are making above 120 percent percent. we're meeting 189 percent of this need with a new construction we're seeing

in san francisco. meanwhile, we built 2,000. these are folks that are making below 50 percent. what we have learned from this current production, which has been unprecedented in our city is housing production alone isn't working to prevent the displacement of our resident or assuring the affordable for everyone. in the largest construction boom that we have seen as stated by john ram, we're learning without policy making the result is we are not building housing for everyone. district six is ground zero for new development and we're at risk at becoming a district and city that is building housing that is

unaffordable for san franciscans. we're trying to have market payment when we go out of line. it's one we have been reaching in district 6. keep in mind, a regional housing goal is 60 percent. 60 percent should be built for those making between zero and 120 percent ami. our legislation is proposing a floor. we would like to see a floor that meets our production which is 30 percent. these are the four main goals of the legislation that i'm choosing today. our first goal is to encourage a balance approach to the construction and approval of housing. affordable housing are limited.