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 presentation, there is a possibility that these sites could provide us the opportunity to build much-needed affordable housing in areas of the city, like soma, and the central city and in chinatown. additionally, we think that we should increase affordability of some of the sites. we think that sites that large

enough to accommodate 200 units should be affordable, should be 100% affordable and that the sites that are larger than 200 units we can look at a more mixed income housing. we think that will help balance our housing in san francisco and meet the affordability mandate set out bit general plan as well acid prop k and really create a service for the public in san francisco. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. whitney jones the director of the housing development form chinatown ucu. first i want to thank the city staff who are moving this process forward. thank you, guys. many city sites have been held by agencies for years without a process for moving them forward to meet overall city needs. so this process of starting to move these sites are consider

uses for these sites is a great one. we support the chao choo-choo paper presented to you earlier earlier and highlight a couple of points that i think you have heard a couple of times already. a couple of simple points with my heard at the public meetings, the emphasis was on affordable and middle-income housing. we think with that emphasis to set a great emphasis on affordable and that sites that offer the opportunity to develop 100-200 units should also be prioritized for affordable housing and should be 0-200 should be prioritized for affordable housing. with those simple tweaks to what has been presented to you, we think

it's a great program and we look forward to working with it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> commissioners, joseph schmitt board president of the south of market community network. it should be a simple exercise to look at how to use the public sites. in terms of the fact these are depreciated assets and host have been in the land portfolio for decades and the reason why they have been in the city's land portfolio is there were projections around the city's growth and the infrastructure needs have more around that growth. the way that we manage our infrastructure is different now that what was projected decades ago and that the biggest infrastructure need of the city right now is around affordable housing, which is what choo-choo has presented to you. using a depreciated asset in order to support affordable housing makes economic sense and also makes economic sense to use those depreciated seats

to support small business and to support locally-held business because they can't afford to move into market rate developments that are being developed in county right now. so to use these public assets to create any amount of market rate housing, 50% or even less, makes absolutely no sense, basically what you are do is subsidizing market rate development and to look at windfalls from selling these sites only propagates a bunch of problems. you don't like alt one-time windfalls of selling public sites as you way to be a stop good measure for supplementing the general fund, it's basically subsidizing market development. i want to emphasize the crossover of the potential for when affordable housing sites are developed, they are developed using prevailing wages and so the labor force is sometimes union, but always prevailing wage and that

closing the gap between wages and affordability of housing, which is major costs for people people in the city is a huge item to consider. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, just to summarize a couple of things that we have had heard -- heard this from the project earlier the one on potrero hill and that was a mixed-use is really nice -- mixed income is really nice, and was walking around new york city last week and see a lot of mixed-use and there is retail on the first floor and people living upstairs. then we get to some of the government projects where they put all low-income housing in one spot and all of a sudden there is no mixed-use. so mixed-use is nice unit's something that is nice for the neighbors who live nearby. if they just have a single -- or a residential project coming in, it's not as appealing if they have a residential project that has the grocery store, the

hair solon, organic food store, it's appealing. the other thing we heard was bring transit to the route -- to the development. we could bring transit and there is probably already transit going on in the spaces, but we could bring [tpr-pbts/] in before they develop them on or the path to development. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> very interesting discussion. we had a lot of speakers asking for higher levels of affordability, but i don't know if they saw jerry mcguire, show me the money, you know? basically the problem is it has to pence you ill out for somebody to housing at a lower price and still the cost of construction are very high and we have heard prevailing wages

and such and given the process in san francisco, we have to harken back to the days of old and use private development in a way to make it happen. in the '20s we had the russos and others who bottle a variety of housing in san francisco. we had more landed in those days, but it wasn't all high income housing. you had places like forest hill and st. francis woods, which was expensive and then you had merced manor and the middle00 and probably lower income -- lower-middle-income and rowhouses and sunset and you had housing for all income groups in those days. it could be done again if we do this the right way. i think that the idea of cross subsidization with market rate makes sense because then you can build lower income housing that takes a huge subsidy to be able to provide it for people

at a very low-cost. because when you are getting very little out of buyer or the renter. so it only makes sense that you are going to have to make it work. a concept that i have introduced in the past and i think it would fit a site that wasn't even mentioned yet, but it may be one for the future. it's on your map. the puc land on 7thth avenue and health department around laguna honda, a huge site that would be perfect for the situation that you built family housing with another bedrooms, you know? the kind of housing that people about children would want to have. and what you would do is that you would have the developer would have to sell these at a prescribed price, instead of the $1.4, $1.2 million, it would have to be more than $750,000 and it prioritizing it might be public safety workers first or city employees or

teachers, things like had a would get top priority and there would be restrictions on this type of housing where you wouldn't be able to sell for a certain number of years and there would be cross appreciation. but you could also -- that would be a way that you could produce housing that was good housing that would appeal to people in a middle-income group and that is what i consider "middle-income." people who could afford $600,000, $700,000 and we know that the average wage is $85,400 and two people, that is $170,000, so we have to kind of look at what is out there for families, not to minimize the need for housing for lower income groups. but i think you have to look at these things realistically and not just be locked into abag numbers, but look at what the reality is? and what you can

rent and sell and it will help to you provide housing for lower income groups by doing it in a smart way? so i would suggest that we continue down this path. i think we're doing a good thing to look at these sites, because they are not generating anything right now. it's a perfect solution and there is a variety of ways it could be done. but working with private developers to work out a situation where it can make it possible for them to develop it, but the city still gets its goals as farce affordable as far as, for or family housing. those are areas that we significantly lack. we have a dearth of units with 3 bedrooms or more, only 20% of city housing. so you wonder why families flee? it isn't just costs that they can't find a place that is adequate to meet their needs.

so i think we need to continue to look at this wisely and continue to pursue it. thank you for your report. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. this is say great program. mr. elderling made a comment there were certain sites considered getting on a generation ago. so it's fantastic and looks like there will be actual movement on it and will economically, politically and otherwise to make it happen. i have a couple of comments on how -- maybe some of this can happen? i will start with a question for staff and anyone can answer it. and then i have a couple of comments and i will doo them really quick. is so i'm familiar with the housing working group's suggestion you on how to accelerate housing development and talking about density bonuses and different ways ever accelerating development, talking about potential planning code changes, where we can reduce requirements where

there are typically variances. there is a laundry list of those things. my question, are any of them -- are there going to be any suggestions from the housing working group that will be specific to public sites that will make these projects more attractive to development partners? or otherwise accelerate their development? >> commissioner, mike martin again. i think that one of the recommendations that the housing working group is this program and to identify sites specifically for affordable housing through this program. so i would say that what that -- what the housing working group's recommendations have done is tee up the ways that we can get to that goal? so these other financing arrangements, the density bonus conversation that you are describing, the process improvements, all of these, i think a lot of what the housing working group saw we need to find a way to reduce construction cost as a way to make these projects feasible? i think a lot of those recommendations while they are

not going necessarily beg moving forward through the program, this program will be closely tied to the success of those recommendations. >> thank you. >> i know the working group went through a lot of suggestions large and small and a lot of when which i heard and didn't make it for the final list and some i hadn't heard. i will throw a couple out that i think would really helps we consider the public housing sites, particularly the ones that are greater than 200 units and can support multi-phase mixed income developments. the first is going to be on financing. this is going to be more of a call to action rather than a specific suggestion. funding moderate-income housing is the toughest nut to crack. the tools really aren't there at the local, state or federal levels. but i would also mention that the low-income housing tax credit didn't exist 30 years and people came up with it to

create low-income housing. so it's sort of a call to action to be more creative. i don't know that we're not going to go fly to d.c. and try to make anything happen just for san francisco, but there might be opportunities that we can take at least in the city, potentially in the regional level, to create some new financing tools or adjuncts to financing tools like ifds that would really help with the sites. particularly ones that we're thinking about higher percentage of moderate or low-income housing we're going to need to find those dollars from somewhere to subsidize it and it needs to come from somewhere else than low-income tax credits and those other tools that people are familiar with. i didn't hear too many about it and forgive me if it was considered and tossed out, but i love the idea of doing community benefits for these projects. i definitely agree with one public commenter it's not just about residential, but also about commercial and not just non-profits, but also about small profit and women business