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

enterprise and minority business enterprise and finding space for them. the way i think you do that is to have a development agreement. i think the best thing to do was to have a standard development agreement that has elements that everyone wants to see, and then tailor it to specific sites and they arer not only starting from scratch with different development partners. that is something to consider and get it out in one fail whoop, local hire, mix of units, any sort of benefits that you want to provide for special open space or programming, for economic development? put it all in there, do the work upfront and for each site depending on how many units and the size, you can see what of those elements you canly actually do? this is another sort of planning code issue that again i'm not sure if maybe the housing working group saw it and determined it wasn't feasible. but we have a requirement for

the affordable housing that if you are going to do it, sra there is a certain unit mix, a certain percentage of two bedrooms or certain percentage of three bedrooms and i'm going to agree with commissioner antonini. i don't think will you get long-term stability and equality in economic diversity in the city not supporting low and middle-income families because if you don't, you talk about individuals who time going on and they come and go. so you need the larger unit sizes and we need to find ways to either hopefully not acquire, but promote the development of larger unit sizes. particularly in those again -- those larger multi-phase or mixed income developments. and then i know everyone else wants to speak, the last thing i might say is i think that the process for the public housing sites in terms of the rfp that went out and sort of splitting

it up by sector, for the most part worked. so i'm sure you are looking at it, but it would be great to see a similar site -- similar process to that, maybe not as involved for public sites so we see the involvement of some of our local developers and local housing community development corporations. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> thank you for this. i agree with commissioner johnson. it seems like there is some good momentum to take some of these sites offer the list that have been on for decades and i agree with commissioner antioni too, there are others on the list for decades that we may want to look at now that the momentum seems to be shifting to the 7th avenue site and laguna honda. in responsibility to the comment that we have heard 50% total seemed a little low given the fact that some of these are 100% and others are mixed.

for public sites overall, it seems like a low target of total affordable housing. can you explain more kind of how the math works? if you have some sites that are like 4th and folsom that are 100% affordable, what does that mean for the balboa site? 60-70% market rate? how do you get to that? >> i think how we get to that is the feasibility analysis that we're trying to describe. and i don't think we set the portfolio goal as sort of a reservation that 50% of every project, of every mixed income project would be market rate. i think what we have seen in other model as round the country is 50% market rate with cross subsidization and other financing tools that frankly we don't have here. have made some moderate-income housing feasible. so we haven't actually gotten in the specifics of these sites and been able to say what is feasible. i don't think anybody on the

interagency team expects that we'll put our pencils down once get to 50%, because if we find the tool for doing more that is what we have been looking for. to the early comment to look at the state government and federal government to say let's broaden these tools. by no means saying that market rate has a defined home in the project and we're trying to be as realistic, so we're not seen as sort of not meeting the goal that we couldn't meet, but at the same time, sort of reaching out to something that really hasn't been piloted or demonstrated feasible in this city. >> and do you anticipate -- i mean does this not account for a bond that has passed aallocates some money many more moderate-income housing? would you anticipate if that happens the numbers get boosted here because there is that funding source not avirginia tech currently for the 100% of amami. >> certainly if that conversation advances and voters approve that kind of approach, i think that

availability of a funding source, that presumably wouldn't be targeted at market rate would expand our ability not to relay on market rate for subsidization. we want to keep the program nimble and valuable to have these resources flowed and -- deployed and the public policy goal that was illustrated by the slide a lot of work will go at the low and moderate income level and to the extent those resources become available,ti think this program is a place we want to maximize them. >> is there room on the land value that enterprise departments kind rely on fair market value? they are zoned p, you know, it's the kind of question that mr. eberling brought up about suprazoning. who gets the benefit, enterprise department or going back in this help subsidize

more affordable housing units on parcels? >> that is a very legal conversation on what constitutes "fair market value?" i would argue that we make an aggressive argument that says the agency and its mission is still getting value for its asset, but this are things like sort of value of our process, and sort of bringing something forward that brings value to the site, too. and so we want to make sure that the fair market value is reached, but at the same time that we're maximizing as we have said, the real focus of this is affordable housing for low-income and moderate income. >> miss heartily and i worked in octavia, where we targeted 50% of the units being affordable. it was a combination of inclusionary, and then 100% affordable sites and in this mix now there is kind the moderate income which seems there is difficult in finding the right financing sources for, and hopefully those get expanded. so you can beat the

50% goal. >> i think absolutely. i think i want to say that unequivocally that is the team's goal to beat that -- our objective is to beat the goal, is that is a way to say that? by no means are going to to reign thing backs in. i think as tools come forward, this becomes this great elaborate to try these tools out to say that to the developer you can do this and get a is good value and still contribute to the well-being of the city. i agree with the tenure of your comments that we are not taking anything as a hard and fast limitation, but it's a realistic look at the schedule and feasibility for this project at the stage we're at and we're hoping to expand and improve on it. >> thank you. just one more question. there is a lot of obvious port property that is publicly owned and i think it's always kind of puc or mta that are the enterprise departments. are there more constraints on port property that make it

difficult? i mean i am on the water side, there are state lands, but on the land side? >> so well there is one challenge with proposition about that requires height increases or zoning as you described to bring some benefits back to the site requires voter approval. we saw some success with pier 70 there. but you know, that presents one more hurdle, one more challenge. the port has a lot of other house -- housing isn't a trust con consistent use and they have found ways to get to [speaker not understood] so the port has definitely been involved in our discussions and had a meeting yesterday that they were at. i think as we sort of continue this rolling site review process and as things rise to the top at port level, i think we'll engage in that discussion. >> thanks. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> thank you, to commissioners johnson and hillis for say something of the things that resonate with me. i would like to ask mr. martin

to espouse a little more on feasibility goals? i would like to start a little more concrete frame to my question to you, the sites that we have, because of their location have attractiveness quotients which are different? closer in site, including a site near the waterfront and i'm using the latest of your comments have in perception higher values? some of them might be more expensive to build on because of foundation costs and because of infrastructure, which is not set up form housing, et cetera, et cetera. are you taking these types of criteria already into consideration aside from saying that sites up to 200 units should have 100% affordable, et cetera? all of those issues, the

peripheral effects for affordability? >> absolutely, that is the feasibility analysis that we need to do. we showed you the range of 50-200 units, projects that have been feasible and have been constructed, but think all had their own characteristics as you talk about site conditions and land cost, compending on where they are you all of that needs to be taken into cannot to say this site is feasible for low-income development based on subsidy sources that we have. what we're trying to show is that athlistical priority may swing if is there a site that is actually feasible for that mixed income level as well. i think those factors sort of bear on how i site gets from our initial analysis to the community process. >> i wasn't trying to draw the conclusion that certain sites are more suitable for affordable housing than others. but i would like to see and i hear the other commissioners at least touch on it that our public core values including

our public policy goals are largely reflected in all projects irrefective of where they are. that is where i am trying to go. because i am not interested to see affordable housing be confined to the areas of where it is cheaper to build things, the site is flatter, the streets are already all there, et cetera, et cetera. i am looking at an equity, which we mostly don't address and talking about that, i do think a basic structure of public policy and core city values be the basis for a draft overriding development agreement where all sites have to indeed meet the idea of mixed-use, of mixed income, addressing local labor and addressing local small businesses. i think in your presentation

and mr. schmitt's comment had me almost jumped up, you talked about business, but you omited to call it "local business." it's important to be very careful of how we tee up drafts of basic principles which govern everything. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> i think this is a great concept. i guess, finely after many decades the city is finally going to walk the walk on this. i think public assets absolutely have to further public policy. whether that be housing, businesses or non-profits. a couple of questions that i have: everything is interrioted here. we have labor come out and talking about housing and talking about businesses. so you have wages and jobs drive housing and housing drives business and non-profits and community benefits and transportation issues and livability issues, everything is kind of related. so it's hard to talk about one of these things without talking about something else and how it affects it. the question on the grounded

lease concept. if it costs half a million dollars to build an affordable unit, mr. martin, how much would the land acquisition of that $500,000 be per unit roughly? >> it's hard for me to say, since that is very site-specific as we just heard. >> a percentage? >> i will turn to a colleague to see if i can get a good answer. >> good afternoon, [ka-euts/] harty, kate hartly, mayor's office on housing. $65,000 a door to $165,000 a door, it really dependents on where the site is. what the nature of the site is. we're seeing production costs exclusive of acquisition right now between $500,000 and $55,000. >> $550,000. >> wow. >> one is that the mayor's office on housing is absolutely

committed to this and we're trying to build as much affordable housing as we can. and the public sites program is a fantastic part of that effort. we don't discriminate in terms of areas. so we have got a site at seawall that we're wocking on right now. the mission. we're looking at -- we're working on upper yard, balboa reservoir and 50% ferris, baker watts that we actually did achieve in central freeway is a great example of our producing in all kinds of neighborhoods. i will say that we work within coin straints. so if we build pay 200-unit deal our average subsidy is $250,000. that is $50 million of subsidy. we have to come up, and that doesn't necessarily include acquisition costs. that is a huge amount of our annual budget. there are opportunity costs we have to consider, because if we're going to do that, that means that other very worthy

projects may not. >> so i heard something about driving with -- i heard some of the folks community housing organizations come up and say they want it exactly the inverse of what you are proposing, up to 200 units want 100% affordable and you are saying it could be 50% affordable. >> let me clarify, i must have misstated. we would love to see 100%s but that would cost $50 million. so we have to acknowledge scarcity of resources. >> it's a resource issue? >> yes, absolutely. >> one limited resources you would be on the same page they are. >> absolutely. absolutely is. >> another quick question, let's say the four tier 1 sites and put them in up to 200 units 100% affordable units camp, how would they pencil out if built

to the max these four initial sites? market rate versus moderate and low-income? >> you mean in terms of costs or percentage of units? >> percentage of units that would fall in each one of those? right now, 1950 mission upper yard and seawall 33221 are 100% affordable. >> they are? >> yes. >> i have not done an analysis on 4th and folsom and balboa reservoir is a large -- much larger development. but if we could do 100% affordable at 4th and folsom, that would be great. we would love to do that. so of the five parcels identify, three are 100%. >> so 1950 is actually 100% affordable? >> yes. >> i have one other question, maybe mr. cohen, he is still here? given the scarcity of resources issue that we just heard about, and your advocacy for the inverse, what do you say to

that? >> well, miss heartily is correct, we have a certain amount of resources now and those are all been programmed and there is sort of a game plan for the next five, six years. but the conversation is about adding more resources. so what we need to be thinking about is how to meet our housing goals? because we saw earlier, we're at 41% in produce of low-income and 16% of moderate. we have to figure out what we want to achieve and then what that costs and that becomes the a. sizing for our new revenue package and housing working group came up with six ways from sunday how do you find new money? we're bog to be work on that as well. so we don't work backwards from how much money we have now. we say how do we spend that? and what more money do we need to be able to achieve some of our policy goals? that is how we approach it it could be silly to say we can't afford it, so therefore turn it over to market rate housing. we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. >> thank you, to commissioner

antonini's comment, about the income levels, ami is defineds a family of four, $87,000 that we heard on the commercial and industry, that $85k was average for an individual and we shouldn't confuse those numbers. i think the efforts that a lot of people in my circle face is not the income qualification, but the down payment. so they have the job that pays enough money, but they are already pay 45% of their income in rent and can't get a down payment. so that is a real issue. there is a continuum that i see in my circle, like who have housing security and actually start building wealth with housing security and physical stability and community stability and i think we need to move up that continuum quickly because there are too many people at the bottom of that. thank you. >> thank you.ing i want to add a couple of comments.

i strongly agree with commissioner johnson's comments that we're trying to show developers our city values in developments that we have more -- or sites that we have more control over; right? so trying to address a number of city goals, small business, affordable housing, local hire, prevailing wage, i think this is really an opportunity to talk about the package of community benefits that we want. it's really great to hear that three of the first five sites are looking at 100% affordable housing. i agree that there really is a site by site analysis to be done and another goal that has been talked about is neighborhood stabilization. and so look in particular at maybe 1950 mission and 4th and folsom, it's an opportunity to do 100% affordable at those sites in which -- or in those neighborhoods in which we're seeing a lot of also pressures caused by market rate housing. i have always thought that for that middle-income category, in

abag, it's so hard, because a lot of our middle -- a lot of middle-income people are actually served by existing rent controlled housing also. so i want to bring that rent controlled housing stabilization discussion into the conversation also. i know that within the context of mayor's task force we're looking aways to expand the pie and looking at new tools for middle-income housing and hope that we can do that and that sup really one of the major goal for us going forward. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. to broaden the discussion a little more and i don't know if you have looked at this, the city of san francisco owns a lot of acreage outside of the city and county. in fact, i believe we're the largest property owner in alameda county, if i'm not mistaken and a lot of property many san mateo. i grew up in pleasanton and i'm aware of fact that san francisco puc sold a big

portion of land, i don't know if they sold it to the city or private developer. housing was built there and i don't know if it's affordable housing, but hopefully the city realitiesed a lot for that. these sites might provide means to provide housing because consistent with other areas also have needs for affordable housing, and i think we have to also factor in these sites, many of which might be appropriate for housing, and may be sites that are underutilized as was the you case the water department sighsite used for farming. and wasn't bringing in very much revenue. and why the city didn't develop it themselves, and use it to meet some of their housing needs, i don't really know. but it's been quite a few years since that was built. it's worth looking at these different properties. >> commissioner richards. >> one last thing. i do support local hiring and

middle-class rage wages and our race to the bottom line is a slippery slope to nowhere. thank you. >> thank you. so once again, thank all the staff for coming and presenting today, and the public for bringing their comments as well. commission will take a break. >>

>> decemb silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. we left hov discretionary review calendar on i. 17 for case no. 2014.0544d. at 16 and 16a iris avenue. this is a discretionary review. can be considered to be confirming with respect to density and one unit must beer 11 designated aids non-conforming unit. this distinct is important because the planning code does place some restrictions on enlarge -- please standby. including the loss of a dwelling unit, but eliminated from the project scope and

proposed one-story addition that they believe is inconsistent with the block pattern and intrudes the mid-block open space. the residential design team reviewed the horsesal addition following submittal and concluded that the proposed addition is -- that the proposed one story addition is of modest size and reasonable depth, which does not disrupt the mid-block open south and proposed south of 5-13' is sensitive to the adjacent property in terms of massing, property and sight lines and

>> the overhead. thank you very much, commissionersm i'm kathy and my family has owned the property next door to this since 1955. the planner told me that the first thing that had to happen was that the merger had to occur because the garden apartment was a non-conforming use that could not be expanded outward. as you can see the department originally recommended that the mergeerr be denied. because it would create a larger less affordable unit contrary to the mayor's directive to preserve the affordable units and that the current affordability crisis created exceptional and extraordinary circumstances such that the commission should

deny the project and preserve the existing dwelling units. the modified project would still merge the units through an internal sayrway right down into the middle of the garden apartments. [ inaudible ] the only modification from the time that they were denying the merger is the addition of this floor. >> could you bring the microphone over? >> the addition of the internal door that i highlighted in yellow. the door can remain open and so it's considered reversible. and under your guidelines, the planning commission has a long standing policy of treating as mergers any applications that connect via a door, or other communicating opening two or more existing units even though kitchens are retained and the construction would be reversible. that is your policy. the first page of the plan

still show a connection. as to the ground floor unit, says dwelling unit on ground floor existing vestibule will be remodel and have access to enclosed staircase that connects with the second floor units. at a minimum the commission should take dr and eliminate the internal staircase because that is the merger staircase and they already have a staircase right here that goes down into the garage and they just take two steps into the garden apartment. so they don't need a second staircase. that is the merger staircase of the they say will at this time not formally pursue the merger application, but the construction is the merger construction and if they cut the hole in the floor and put the staircase into the apartment, the apartment will be -- you know, it will be the merger construction and then later they will move to make the paperwork match the

reality. also, the proposal to move the non-conforming use designation to the middle flat is contrary to code. the third unit was the last one in, that is the non-conforming one. under section 181, the non-conforming use shall in the be enlarged intensified extended or moved to another location. under your zoning administrator's bulletin, the prohibition against moving the non-conforming use shall not apply to relocation within the same building provided it occupies the same or less area. and it's not intensified in many other way. so the move would occupy a greater area and violate your bulletin, because the flat is bigger, 1375 square feet and the garden apartment is 505. so under your zoning administrator's written interpretation on your website, moving the non-conforming use to the bigger unit is an intensification that is prohibited and the zoning