getting through this housing affordability challenge, that the city is now in. so we are trying to set up an approach to these sites that is not only transparent to the public, but allows to us analyze and bring forward new opportunities to demonstrate strategies especially in this income level. but obviously we do want to support the mayor's office on housing moh pipeline of housing projects because of subsidies that allow these project those move forward, to find the sites that hit that sweet-spot and can be feasible and move forward and develop housing for people who really need it. so we're sitting up overall portfolio goals today. we would like to identify buildable sites totaling -- total housing units 4,000 by 2020 and say "buildable sites because some vagaries may push that out past 2020, but ultimately we want to identify those sites and be in construction with as many as possible. in addition, we would like to

see 50% of the units under this program be affordable to low and moderate income as defined by the way i just did. so low-income is below 60% moderate many income below 120% one we think that ultimately even though this exceeds the targets that we saw in proposition k, we think it's a valuable use of the asset of the city to try to sort of engineer change in the boder market, demonstrate opportunities and really figure out what he can do to sort of super housing construction in the areas that hasn't been as robust as the market rated sector. i wanted to reiterate the point earlier, through this analytical process, our work determines that a site is not a good fit for housing and the exampling that was brought up to us in a per pdr district, i think we see beneficial reuse opportunities as benefiting the city at-large and the city could coordinate with the owner agency to make that happen

obviously through community en[tkpwa-euplts/] and engagement with the policymakers. so we're not leaving aside everything that isn't housing, but at same time we want to be clear that sour focus and our driving energy towards how we pull together projects under this program. i want to move on to the review rite raw for sites. i think the housing working group that the mayor convene had had a lot of interesting ideas about how other cities have limited levels of success addressed this moderate income sector. one model that has been demonstrated in some cases and in particular in new york city a model that looks to create a mix of incomes all of low, moderate and market rate. and using the market rate to basically cross-subsidize the other below market rate units.

obviously and new york city demonstrated that you need other the tools coming out of process would be really prime tested on the level of control that include the new amendments to state law and infrastructure financing districts that allow some of the property tax revenues generated by the site to go back to the site to subsidize affordable housing. we think had a is an exciting opportunity and would like to think how we could actually implement that. similarly there was discussion about other public financing opportunities like a bond on a ballot. obviously we want to be in those conversations and using those public sites it is a good place to test those out. in addition, i think there is a movement to try to find what to me is the holy grail of the effort and that is a private financing source, what people call "patient capital." right now it's not out there, because

i think the way that would help finance moderate incomes would require repayment timelines and interest rates that frankly the market isn't funding now. so i think if we can find ways to stipulate that part of the market and sort of grow that muscle in our development community, we think that would be a great way for this public sites program to really show the way forward on how with my can sort of export these models to private developments. last thing i just wanted to highlight was because these public agency in many instances want to retain ownership of the property and ground-lease it for development that. is another way to avoid first costs in terms of land acquisition, perhaps push those costs out over time. again by lowering that first hurdle to get the housing produced. perhaps we can oasis additional affordability to these sites. so we're excited about having these levers, but we obviously need to get into the gritty gritty of what each site needs to be built and how the funding strategis can come forward and be implemented? for low-income housing, as i

said, the existing work that moh and the affordable housing developers and the city has done with the federal and state subsidies has shown the way to sort of what is the sweet spot, let's say for that type of development? the range ever site sizes ranges from 50-200 units of capacity, 45-85' in height to take advantage of lower construction costs and so sites that sort of fit that sweet spot we want to definitely prioritize for analysis with help of mohcd to understand if they are feasible and that the feasibility takes into account, the missions of these enterprise agencies require them to get the market or the market value/fair value for their assets. so that presents a challenge, but it's one that we hope we can surmount in a number of different places. the last bullet on this slide is important to us because of the importance we have laid on that sort of deep deficit in moderate income housing. upper

end of this 200-unit capacity could potentially lend itself or make feasible a model of that mixed income approach. so we want to take an analytical approach and don't want to be anything, but transparent in saying that we could pilot that and create that lesson-learned for the private market, especially. we would like to be able to do that in the near-term. realizing that we don't want that to compromise the site that maybe doesn't work for that, but does work for low-income housing. so that is going to be a balancing act that we're going to be very transparent about, but at this point in the left of information that we have, we want to be clear, those two priorities are sort of at the forefront of our program and how we select sites. a quick few word about the process we plan to go through. for each site we'll have a level of staff and consultants and we would really benefit everyone from knowing what it is this that we think the site can be? but we also need to get into the community meetings and

stakeholders feedback before getting into any specification proposal. a lot of people heard "public site," and thought we would have a big supply of land. that is not what we're communicating today of we really want to have -- what we really see as a successful neighborhood engagement in san francisco. because these early projects are going to really determine the success of the program. and we don't want to have a thing -- a situation where there is conflicts about what we're really trying to achieve citywide. in addition, once we solicited a developer partner, we'll move together with that partner and using the priorities developed for the community engagement, go through a site programming and sign process that would then feed into entitlement, hopefully approval and hopefully construction. so i'm not trying to point a bleak picture this. is the process that we think will be successful, but it's not going to be an immediate units on the street in six months, but we think because of the inez tenenbaumsites we identify as

tier 1 and rolling aprov to bringing more sites into the program as they seem to address these goals, we think we can grow the program quickly and build on early success as soon as we have them. i wanted to take an initial step towards identifying the first four sites under analysis. i guess i also wanted to highlight another site that is in a similar phase and try to bring it in as well. the four sites -- i'm sorry, the slide is hard to read, going from the northeast towards the southwest, 4th and folsom street, over the central subway station owned by sfmta. the 1950 mission project has been transsphered from the district to moh or in the process of doing so. that will be 100 affordable project. upper yard project, similarly sfmta is transferring that to moh and nearby the balboa resviewer's voice the portion owned by the san francisco public utilities commission that is currently used as a

surface parking lot. the additional site that i mentioned is seawall lot 22-1 and port and moh have been working together on that and would he like to bring that together in the same framework in materials of looking at the other portfolio criteria in terms of creating a cohesive portfolio. it hasn't been directly in our conversations but we think that we can again having a more cohesive conversation. a brief few words on next steps, also in your staff report. we're updating the owner agencies commissions going forward as we have sort of brought forward these specific tier 1 projects and additional site analysis especially on the ones that are potentially candidates for the mixed income model. site-specific community meetings in the balboa reservoir area. we're targeting mid to late january for the first of those.

additionally obviously updating the sfpuc commission on the process. during the summer we'll be refining the financial strategies and housing working groups and recommendation now that they are publish there had is a lost energy towards bringing those to reality and piggy-back on those. drafting proposals for those sites ripe for that in terms of soliciting a developer partner and also that ongoing additional site review to try to bring on a rolling basis additional site opportunities. by the end of 2015 we with like developers selected for those that we have solicited developers. that is a challenging timeline under the solicitation process, but we feelnat urgency of moving towards that level of the transaction, once we had the community engagement and automobile accidently obviously we want to continue to be transparent with updates to this commission and owner agencies and board of supervisors as they request. so that is our general work plan going forward. the planning department has set up a weekend for this program

and we'll continue to use that to push out information as well. so that concludes my comments today. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. we'll open for public comment first. john eberling. >> thank you, commissioners, director of the taco group. good afternoon. just a note, we do of course support the choo-choo presentation you are about to get. i want to note on public property for affordable housing, the first time this came up was balboa reservoir could be a great site and we discussed that with the city in 1985. it's been 30 years, and balboa is still an empty reservoir used for parking. so you have to appreciate that i always take these efforts -- this is the third go around on public

sites with some grain of salt. and i think this time you really have to do it. what we're presenting to you is just about south of market. and how we can -- there are two great sites in soma for affordable housing on public property. in order to achieve our prop k33% balance in soma, we're going to be to be extraordinarily aggressive in finding future sites for new affordable housing. and these are two great sites. the 4th and folsom subway station site was just sited. as can you see when you see context that it's within a wonderful senior neighborhood with dramatic amenities and shopping and perfect transit, this is the perfect site for senior housing. it's a small site, but somewhere, depending on the height from 60-120 efficiency studio units would fit on this site. you may know that federal funding for senior housing has dried up and there is not much in the pipeline, even though we're all away there is a time bomb -- a population time bomb of all of us aging

baby-boomers that need senior housing in the next 20 years. that is a real problem. south of the freeway the puc has a wonderful site as well. currently at downtown storage yard. the half of it, that is between the two alleys is an excellent site for affordable housing for families. it's less than half a block away from 4th street. it's a transit station. it's shopping, the receiveway and all of that. it's a perfect site. it's 44,000' which is plenty for up to 200 units. it's an excellent size. and in change for, that knowing that the puc would need feeding to relocate that yard, we would completely support a major upzoning of the north half of that property that the puc owns, so thatte this generate revenue from its sale to pay the cost of relocating the yard probably somewhere south of army street. their 40,000 feet could certainly sell for $20 million

or more if it were upzone in the manner to cover costs. soil really urge you to do this. we can't just do another 30 years of let's talk about. i trust the department is going to follow through in the zoning of south of market, but we would be prepared to put this on a ballot, if we had to zone for affordability. so please get the job done. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. i will call a couple more name and additional folks can line up on the screen side of the road. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon, commissioners, peter cohen and neighbor of our oasisings attended both workshops. so we had quite a bit of input here and what we heard and what we have been expressing is a clear priority for affordable housing. these are precious public sites. if there is any one resource that the voy has that we have

very, very little of is it's land. so using that to meet a critical public policy goal of affordable housing in our mind is a so-called no-brainer. i think the slide that you saw, the first slide from mike martin really tell it all and shows that we have met only 41 [p*-frs/] our low-income housing needs and 16% of our moderate-income housing and 100% of our market housing needs. so the priority for low and moderate makes sense, but if you add together what our housing element tells us, we're supposed to build 62% of all of our housing for low and moderate income households. the first concern that we have is why then is this somewhat arbitrary 50% goal in the portfolio as opposed to let meet our housing element? let's take it 60-62% of all the public site housing and it would meet our low and moderate housing needs particularly when he saw the slide saying how poorly we're performing in both of those categories? when you look at a neighborhood-level

and we have an even bigger problem. mission district, south of market, the central city, compared to other neighborhoods, we don't have an even distribution of affordable housing over the next five, six year ends. we have a real teenager of dearth of housing. and increasing our expectation. and so-called perfect sites for affordable housing should be prioritize and up to 200 units in capacity. we saw an overlap in those and what are called large sites starting at 100 sites that would be mixed you income. it would be make sense to draw a brightline and do single development affordable housing, assume ing it's feasible. secondly on the large sites

like balboa reservoir, that it be set for low-income affordable and use public funding to leverage it and the remainder is used for market cross-subsidizing moderate income that. would be a good slit and meet our housing element goals. lastly again on the portfolio, this is really at this point too early to say there is an arbitrary 50% goal or 60% goal or 20% goal. it really should be evaluated site by site, based on the perfect sites for affordable and mixed income, if they are large. we're encouraged by the effort, but the devil in the details really matters at this point. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is danny campbell and delegate of the san francisco building construction trades council and i'm here today because the affiliates of the

building trades council wanted to bring forward to you some ideas, some concepts to ponder when b this framework. the building trades is fully supportive of this framework. i want to make that clear right here. and we're really excited about the city wanting to utilize public parcels to build more workforce housing. our city's housing crisis must be addressed and this framework one is of the many actions that should be taken to keep middle-class families parts of san francisco. in this summary of community benefits that is in this document, we noticed that there is a few that aren't talked about and we wanted to bring it to your attention. that is good middle-class jobs for the construction workers that are ultimately building

these projects and career opportunities for local residents. the developers are going to purchase or lease these parcels at market rate will potentially have no obligation to use local construction workers, offer career opportunities to economically disadvantaged youth, through state approved construction programs -- apprenticeship programs or pay the workers go wages and benefits. the prevailing wages mandating the use of apprentices enrolled in state-approved programs is part of the development agreements of the former freebay parcels in hayes valley, as i'm sure some of you here know. only due to those requirements was the city assured hundreds of apprenticeship opportunities. cy was assured millions of dollars in construction wages that was captured by the local

residents and spent in the economy, which very important in the local economy. so the building trades council urge the city to take a step forward. it is a golden opportunity to create hope and opportunity for san franciscans. we're excited about this framework. i would like to leave with the commission, as well as the director and the secretary is a pledge that the building trades asked elected leaders to sign the sustainability communities pledge. and it talks about a lot of the community benefits that i just mentioned before. so i will leave this here for you. thank you for your time, have a great afternoon. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first of all, thank you to planning commission, planning department, sfmta and puc for

really meeting these public processes. they are really inclusive. my name is gabriel mendina with the mission economic development agency or meda. meda, we currently lead the commission promise neighborhood initiative; which is an initiative of the united states department of education, modeled after their children's zone to really bring connections in raising education levels in underperforming schools. one of the things that we heard in the processes is basically the need for affordable housing at these sites. i would definitely suggest that all of these public sites, the priority that the community basically put forward was that affordable housing was their top priority. so if the program name was changed to "public land for housing." i would actually say what the public spoke to was public land for affordable housing. specifically, i would talk to, like for example, for sites

that are up to 200 units, i would definitely say those need to be prioritized for 100% affordable housing. those you slights like 1950 mission that have been in the pipeline, actually, that with the process at the hearings and the school board, we're happy those are already engaged. i would say a lot of site analysis has been done prior to this process having been started. what we have as far as the mission for meda's clients about 3.3% of our clients can only afford market rate rent. that means that 85% of our clients, they are already paying 50% or more of their income on rent. meaning it's very difficult for them to stay and remain in the neighborhood. 77% of our clients feel that they are under threat of eviction. that is very serious, because really what we have seen is since 1992 we have had a dearth

of affordable housing bottle and really we have led in market rate housing of any neighborhood except for soma and downtown. so the mission actually produced a large amount of its fair share ever market rate housing. what we see in the pipeline, we see that we have a 1004 units of market rate units in the pipeline for our neighborhood, but we have zero units that are already approve in the pipeline. so what i would encourage is also that for the sites that are above 200 units, to encourage those like balboa reservoir to, encourage those for 50% affordable. i think that would be encouraged. because right now, as we have seen, we have lost 22% of our population, the latino population since 2000 and actually the additional unitss that we have had in our neighborhood, we have actually seen a decrease of population in the mission and lost 14% of

our families in the mission. from 42 to 28%. thank you. >> you thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, and thank you very much for allowing to us speak this afternoon. my name is carlos martinez and business representative for district 16. i just wanted to tough briefly on the much-needed opportunitis this framework can provide. namely for individuals looking for a fresh start. formally incarcerated, immediate opportunities to change their lives and provide for their families and the building trades has definitely welcomed them into our program. allowing them for a fresh start. we have always open to them, and it allows them to have a decent middle-class wage, as well as health care for their dependents. the same opportunity is also

made available for veterans, which have had their career prospects severely impacted due to repeated is deployments. again, excepting them into responsible apprenticeship programs allows them the opportunity to provide for their families with a decent wage and health care. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm joel cop yell with the electrical workers local 6. i'm seeing this as an opportunity to address a couple of issues that i have been hearing about a lot. throughout the city we have seen a lot of residential development and a lot of market rate residential development. and it seems like it's encouraging transint companies not to even keep these resident as full or occupied at all times. i am a product of this community. i grew up here and went to school here. you was lucky enough to get into an apprenticeship program, before i learned a lot and made a really good wage and starting

accruing some major benefits. i was only able to purchase a house here in the city partnering with my sister, who is also got a really good job as i nurse at ucsf. so we're here on behalf of the groups that are trying to take san francisco residents and give them a good-paying job and benefits that will enable them to stay here in san francisco. and not have to leave. so they are going to make good money here and they are going to be able to stay here and they are going to be able to spend their money here and we'll be able to provide training and hopefully be involved in building these middle-income units. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. josh -- executive director of civil rights non-profit brightline defense, but speaking today in the capacity of being a proud member of labor's unit local 26 1

standing in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the other building trade affiliates that have been here to talk about something that is really exciting at the building trades council now, which is the discussion that we had this week to come out and support this framework. we want to build this city and build our communities and put communitis to work. we want to create opportunities. with respect to trying to not reiterate what has already been said w with respect when the project goes forward to see prevailing wage and apprenticeship programs and access to residents and all that the building traded have done over time, which has really elevated over the past several years for our communities. one reasons that local hiring so successful in san francisco because of the folks in this room and the affiliates of building trades council. the only thing i wanted to add after listening to the another affiliates we know it's early in the process, but we feel it's never too early to put out there that each and every one

of you planning commissioners have been there for building trades and supportive and this is part of the process that something that you want to see union jobs for our communities too. when we do that, it's really important to see affordable housing helps to lead the way in doing that. and i think we're in a new era, where in the past there weren't kind of approaches saying that we want prevailing wage or community hiring apprenticeship on private development. the board of supervisors has made moves to actually test that with the support of the city attorney's office, which has been great and to see and hear the planning commission and director ram and the staff say and validate that you want to see union jobs and we want to see affordability across all communitis and all occupations and what folks do would just be a big win. we're going get there and oewd is working with us and work

with your staff and working families just to know and know where our friends are, and how we're working together on this. it always gives a big boost to what folks do on the ground and it's really hard work on the ground. you have been a big help over the years and look forward to workingwith you for many years to come. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is alexandra gold [pwha*-rpb/] a community planner with the tenderloin development corporation. so if we're going to continue to provide this resource of affordable housing in san francisco, we need more sites. sites with something that as we all know is definitely limited in our small city. we have a really fantastic opportunity here with these public sites to do something has been mentioned for the

public good. on that note i want to urge the city to increase the affordability for those sites. as was mentioned, they are looking at sort of a baseline of 50% affordability for a lot of these sites. while that is higher than the 33% required by probprop k, they with my it's an opportunity to increase our affordability numbers overall. if you look at pipeline for the affordable housing over next six years we're way below the 33% threshold. so we have an opportunity to bump up the numbers to meet our affordable housing requirements laid out by the general plan and to really fulfill this mandate that the voters approved to have more affordable housing in san francisco. in pharyn, if you look at the pipeline, there are a lot of neighborhoods in the central city that really aren't going to see a lot of growth and affordable housing at all. we know that the four that were assessed and discussed during the presentationer