planning commission and to the board. not having talked to our folks at subpoena st. anthony's, i could not imagine we would be in sunday support of that type of amendment. a lot of our social workers at st. anthonies help people who have very, very very low-incomes. i always get tripped up on low, extremely low, whatever -- especially since my income is very low, according to ali.ami. people at 90% of ami can.

doing back-of-the-envelope math, it will be challenging to afford sro at market rate without that support. so i can't imagine that we would support changing the ami. but we are in support of the legislation in its current form. thanks. >> next speaker. >> hi. jennifer friedenbach, we're an organization deeply rooted in the tenderloin and been there the past 27 years. for the tenderloin community, we have really deep housing problems. and they tend much towards the very extremely low-income. i would guess that just about every garage in the tenderloin is occupied. we have a lot of overcrowding. we have of course, a tremendous amount of people who are tenderloin residents without housing.

you can see that any day, the effects of the severe housing crisis in that neighborhood. i don't think anyone imagines high-end housing and i would imagine that the real residents of this high-end housing would actually not be permanent residents, but would be used as corporate rooms for corporations who are housing people temporarily at those high-incomes. i can't imagine that they are living there year-round as san francisco residents. with that said, you know, we really support the legislation by kim and avalos. we think it's kind of a no-brainer. like they should have to have some -- at least a small percentage of the units be affordable. this is the first hearing about the amendment by supervisor wiener. and without having gone through a process, i can say that we would definitely oppose that. we are quickly looking at it and 90% of ami would be

market-rate. and that is already those folks are able to and are renting residential hotel rooms. that have gone up in price already. so there is really not a strong need for that level of housing. there is a strong need at the lower ends, at least below 55% and from our perspective, lower than that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. hello again. my name is chi-dog, from the mission collaborative and dolores street community service, but speaking as a born and raised resident of the tenderloin. first of all, i want to thank supervisors kim and avalos for putting this forward. and we want to say yes to this legislation without any amendments. what we are seeing in the mission at a lot of sros are a raise of tech dormitories and start-up communities.

one former sro that we used to have tenants in has now been fully converted and self-described as a "queer tech commune," and does not rent to any of the sro tenants that we know. we're also seeing other sros at risk of being solid sold and converted into group housing. we hear are there are real estate agents coming into their rooms for purposes of conversion. as high-end group housing is growing around the city, we need to close this loophole, add more actual below-market rate housing that is affordable. as a non-profit worker in san francisco, i can't afford 90% ami. and so we ask you to pass this legislation and move this legislation forward without any of the proposed amendments.

thank you. >> good afternoon, again, supervisors. my name is fernando martin with the council of community housing organizations. thank you, supervisors avalos and kim for introducing this piece of legislation. it is much-needed and we hope that will you will recommend it to the full board for passage would you tell us the proposed amendments. the first amendment raising about income and whether it's an appropriate place for that kind of level? frankly, i would like to say that raising the ami level for group housing to 90% ami is quite ludicrous. if you take $60,000, which was quoted as the ami level, or the income level for someone at

90%, divided that by 12 for 12 months, divided by a third, you would be expected to pay $1777 a month for group housing situation. so if i could have the overhead slide, if possible? >> so you are saying fernando, you are saying that $1700 is unreasonable for group house that anybody should pay? >> what i have got on the slide? >> overhead, sfgovtv. >> down a little bit. what is the new panoramic, which is about to open micro units a little bit above that 90% level. if you want to share a house in nob hill it's just above 90% ami. just to say that is fine right now. as soon as the market changes the mayor's office of housing

will be stuck trying to rent an ami unit when group housing may be going for something lower than that. and second about the christensen amendment as sue hefter pointed out earlier, it really needs to go through a process that the planning commission has a chance to review the legislation and understand it. nobody has seen it yet. >> thank you so much. supervisor kim? supervisor avalos. >> thank you, it's my understanding that the christensen amendment has been discussed and seen at the planning commission and just to get some clarification from deputy city attorney john givner. >> i'm sorry, supervisor, i would like to close public comment. seeing no other members of public for public testimony,

public comment is closed. thank you. >> what has happened relative to amendments proposed? i believe christensen amendment was discussed at the planning commission. i was texted by planning commission members while the discussion was going on -- i didn't get to the text until i got into cell phone range, but there are also amendments from supervisor wiener that are due as well, that weren't discussed in planning and just your thoughts about what can go forward and what can't? >> sure, deputy city attorney john givner, if you make any of the amendments, yours, supervisor avalos, et cetera, or any combination, you will have to continue the item for additional public comment which will be noticed with all of the language of those amendments. as to planning the planning

commission does consider supervisor christensen's amendments in concept. the proposal was described in the staff's report to the commission and the commission discussed it, but concluded that they needed more information and the commission said that it wanted to hear the item again and to bring it back before it goes to the board. legally the board of supervisors has to sends back to the planning commission any material modifications that the planning commission hasn't had the opportunity to review. here the planning commission has had the opportunity to review the proposal, although they didn't have the draft language in front of them. you could, as a policy matter, send these amendments back to planning for additional review, but you are not legally required to. supervisor wiener's proposed amendments were not specifically discussed at the

planning commission. but those amendments would have the effect of making less restrictive rules on the property owners in terms of the affordability-levels. so the idea is that the planning commission consider changing the ordinance from no inclusionary requirements, to full inclusionary requirement, and got into some of the weeds about the levels of affordability, as one of your amendments discussed, supervisor avalos. and supervisor wiener's proposal is somewhere in between, no inclusionary and inclusionary matching all other housing. so consistent with our usual advice about what a "material modification" is. supervisor wiener's proposed amendment would not require additional planning review

either. so that was a lot of words, but the bottom line is any of these amendments would require another hearing at the board and none of them would require going back to planning. >> thank you. again, i have already been discussing the amendments from supervisor christensen and i actually have been okay with them as they have been described to me. but the new ones from supervisor wiener, i don't really believe fit the spirit of what we're trying to achieve, especially we'll be creating what seems to be a new standard for what "inclusionary housing and ami" would be for inclusionary housing, rear view mirror relative to group housing, but would change what our inclusionary housing is. and to clarify that inclusionary housing applies to

group housing and not create a special category for grown group housing. so my hope for the committee to accept the amendments that i have proposed. i'm supportive of supervisor christensen 's amendment and hope that the committee moves it forward. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you, i want to clarify that the commission heard supervisor christensen's amendments, even if they weren't written out. i got a copy of the language. i was curious and knew there were concerns expressed, but were there specific concerns expressed beyond that they didn't have more time to consider it? >> planning staff. i don't believe so. it was mostly the concerns was about not having the ordinance before them and also that it

was not necessarily completely related to the group housing amendments. but nothing that i can recall. >> so maybe this is a question for the city attorney. i do agree that there are two different types of legislation, although both under the inclusionary affordable housing program. if you could just make some comments about including both in this legislation? >> deputy city attorney john givner again. under our city charter, every ordinance must relate to a single subject and that has been defined -- bless you -- defined by the courts to mean that they are reasonably germane to a single subject. and here, certainly these amendments are reasonably germane to the same subject of affordable housing and group housing. and so they can move forward in

a single ordinance >> okay. great. thank you so much. just to add on to the conversation about supervisor wiener's amendment and i made my comments that i feel this conversation is more appropriately had when we introduce dial. because it allows developers to produce more units at a lower subsidy, or to produce lower income units at deeper subsidies and fewer of those. i think that is the time to have this conversation and that whatever we decide, should impact all types of housing development, not just group housing. i wanted to add on to what fernando said, that we have units that are marked at roughly 90% ami and so if we allow group housing developers to provide inclusionary housing units at 90 %, i think we

should be consistent. 55% ami is what we require on-site at 12% is what we require of all housing developers. i don't think we should differentiate between group housing and other types. i am a strong supporter of ensuring that we are building more affordable housing. i will give an example where the community negotiated with the giants on 40% affordable and middle-income housing and key in the negotiation was that they ensure they provide 12% that every market rate developer has to provide. 12% of the 40% is going to be market the to individualss and households at 45% and 55% of ami. it was a key part of the negotiation and that there was a consistent standard across the board that all of our market-rate developers have to comply with. i think we should ensure that we do that here in group

housing. there are other ways to be creative about increasing our moderate-income type of housing. at seawall 337, 28% of the units will be for individuals making 150% ami. this is unprecedented and we have never, ever built this much middle-income housing and i support it. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you and i really appreciate those remarks and the good discussion and the fact that we're producing -- even though this have been some projects recently coming forward with moderate income, we're producing very little moderate-income housing overall. and in terms of consistency, right now, group housing is

completely exempt from the inclusionary housing ordinance and it's being proposed to be brought in and we know at least one group housing project has now converted to non-group housing because it no longer penciled out for them. in addition to providing moderate -income housing -- i'm glad that the dial discussion is happening of it's long overdue. that will happen when it happens and i'm sure it will be a great dialogue. right now, we have before us this group housing ordinance and i think 90% is a good number. >> supervisor kim, before we acknowledge you, i want to ask a couple of questions of you. when do you anticipate the dial legislation to be introduced? >> our office is currently in conversation with the mayor's office, and supervisor farrell's office. this has been a discussing since the housing trust fund in 2012 and that legislation is coming to form actually now in this month. so i anticipate introduction this month or

early in the fall. >> so is it currently being drafted? >> it is currently being drafted. >> okay. >> i know the mayor's office of housing would like to introduce it before the legislative session ends. so this conversation is literally coming on the heels of this amendment that is before us today. >> what i wanted to respond to is the comment that we're making a change and that group housing was completely exempt. in the 2002 ordinance the board expressly stated that group housing would comply under the inclusionary ordinance. what occurred later with the interpretation by the planning department, which i completely understand -- it's not to lay blame on the planning department, but our code has multiple definitions and the planning department did the best that they could to interpret the ordinance. it really didn't have to

interpret the ordinance until recently when we had group housing projects come before us. so there was a long period of time, when that question didn't come before the planning department. to say that we are suddenly exempting something had that wasn't exempt >> thank you very much. i appreciate the discussion. so let's see, as a matter of order, let's take supervisor christensen's amendment first. >> i will move adoption. >> thank you very much. >> move for adoption. all right. supervisor kim seconds that. so that motion is unanimous and passes. [ gavel ] >> i will move supervisor avalos' amendments as well. >> all right, supervisor avalos' amendment and i believe that is going to be a unanimous

decision as well. both of those amendments move forward. that leaves supervisor wiener's amendment. >> i move the amendment that i described earlier, regarding 90% ami for rental, 120% for ownership. >> thank you. roll call vote on this. supervisor avalos has something to say. >> i'm just not clear on the language on that, how it will be done? i know our ordinance doesn't actually list ami, but it references the inclusionary program elsewhere it's an oral amendment and the city attorney would draft it and it would specify that bmr group housing units for rentals would be affordable for those applicants make up to 90% ami and for owner, 120% ami. an oral amendment. >> thank you. colleagues, i do appreciate supporting the amendments that i brought for and supervisor wiener, i cannot accept the motion from supervisor wiener.

>> so the motion has been made by supervisor wiener, seconded by supervisor cohen, roll call for this vote, please. >> supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor wiener? >> aye. >> wiener aye. >> supervisors cohen? >> aye. >> two ayes one no. >> thank you, this motion passes. [ gavel ] >> i move to forward the ordinance as amended to the full board with positive recommendations >> all right. >> i'm sorry, i move to continue the ordinance as amended by one week >> one week. all right. that motion is moved and seconded. madame clerk, does that work on the calendar? >> yes. so that move to the 20th >> that is correct. unanimously supported. madame clerk, is there any other business before this committee? >> there is no further business >> thank you everyone. this meeting is is adjourned

[ gavel ]÷y.n