to this legislation, if the supervisors will accept that amendment? >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. well, the good thing about this discussion happening now is that we're actually building group housing in a broader way in san francisco. i think when the inclusionary housing ordinance and i actually checked with some people back when the inclusionary housing ordinance was first adopted and none of them could occur group housing ever coming up as a topic of discussion and i would assume at the time, the only group housing was probably 100% below market rate, senior housing or emancipating foster youth so forth. so the fact that we're seeing a broader type of group housing produced to me is a good thing. in moving past this housing crisis we need to be building a lot of different kinds of

housing and group housing both bmr group housing and non-bmr group housing in my view is a very important part of the mix. we need to make sure that we're allowing various types to be built. i know at least one group housing project that was in the pipeline, when this legislation was introduced, converted to a more traditional apartment or condo building. they said it no longer penciled out for their financing and we lost a group housing project. i have heard from other group housing developers that it can pencil out. so i think it's a little unclear here, but clearly having inclusionary housing ordinance apply to group housing does increase the costs of the projects. that is not to say that we shouldn't do it. i think the bmr program, our inclusionary housing program is a very, very important one and one i support. what i would

like to suggest, and after public comment i will make the motion to amend, that we have some additional flexibility in terms of ami. 50% of area median income and i would like to propose that the maximum median income for rental bmr be 90%, which is into the moderate-income range. and for ownership, up to 120% of area median income, which is at the top end of moderate-income. so taking group housing inclusionary program, and extending it into moderate-income. we know from a recent report that was issued and many reports over the years around the production of housing for different income-levels, we produce a lot of housing for high-end.

we produce not enough, but a decent amount of housing for low-income, although we need much more. and almost nothing for the middle. very, very little of moderate-income housing. group housing is more affordable, because of its size. and if we increase the ami to that moderate-income range, i think that would be helpful. 90% of ami as i understand it for a single person in group housing would often be single people living in a units is $64,200 is the maximum income. for a household of two, it's about $73,000. household of three, $82,000 and how old households of four, $91,000. so i will make the motion at the conclusion of

public comment. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted -- this is my first time hearing of this amendment. so i just want to clarify, with the author of the amendment, you would like to go up to 90% of ami, specifically just for the inclusionary requirement for group housing or for our inclusion program in general? >> just for only group housing, up to 90% of ami per rental and 120% for ownership. >> so i just have a couple of comments on that. first of all, i want to agree with supervisor wiener, the reason this hasn't been an issue until now, because we haven't seen proposals for group housing in our piper jaffray until recently. our housing market is so hot now that micro housing -- micro units and group housing are now conceived as very

profitable types of housing units and getting the financing that they never got before. that is something that we have been thinking a lot about and being that is the case, they should certainly be a part of our inclusionary housing requirement and part of our affordable housing solution as other market rate developers are. to give an example how well these units are proposed to be doing, the two group housing proposals on 351 turk street and 141 leavenworth is proposing to market these units to individuals that make 150% ami. so these are market-rate sro rooms typically that have gone to working-class, low-income individuals and these units will be marketed to a single individual making at least $107,000 a year. so these are really high-end micro units that they are proposing to build. for that reason, i think it's

important that they be able to include inclusionary housing in their projects. i think that we are all in agreement about that. on the second piece about raising the ami, specifically just for group housing i think is premature at this point. we'll have a discussion on the concept called the dial, that we have been in discussioning with the mayor's work group where we're contemplating allowing developers to perhaps build more units at higher ami or to build less units than the 12%, if they are more heavily subsidized. i think this is a long-term conversation. if we're going to raise the ami for one category of housing, we should be looking at it in the broad conversation of all of the types of housing proposals that we have. and that conversation i think is more appropriately had when the dial is introduced. if we're going to allow a developer to raise ami from 55% which is the standard

today, to 90%, we should have a conversation of whether had they should be supplying more units because they don't have to subsidize those, as much as they do with 55% ami >> one the policy discussion will occur in the future and so if we're going to do that, we should examine whether we should require them to do more units at 95% ami. so i will not be supporting the amendment today. i do know that supervisor avalos has a number of amendments that came as recommendations from the planning commission. on the second set of amendments that supervisor christensen has introduced, i will be supporting those. i think it makes sense to close the loophole on that affordable housing program that is part of our c3 program, which allows greater density, in exchange

for moderate-income units being part of the inclusionary program. i think it makes sense to close the loophole and ensure those units remain permanently affordable. so i'm glad that supervisor christensen's office is examining that as including that in our legislationing. so i know that is not part of group housing, but they are both part of our inclusionary affordable housing program and so we'll be supporting those two sets of amendments. >> guest no. 4. >> thank you, that is me. guest no. 4, supervisor avalos. my office was reaching out to supervisor wiener, your office, to hear about any concerns that you might have about this. so clearly you hadn't talked to staff about these amendments coming forward. this is the first time hearing it. to me, they kind of undermine

the whole argument being put forward about group housing being affordable, but by design. we're actually, if we're creating another special part of the inclusionary to cover group housing for rental and ownership, then we're really saying that these units need to be built in -- not built in affordable, but to create a special accommodation to make them affordable. i believe that they should be treated like every other type of housing. so we can apply inclusionary. i don't think we should be making any kind of special arrangements just for group housing situations as well. so i will be -- not voting today, but i don't support necessarily the amendments that you are proposing today. and i also want to also echo the comments of supervisor kim about what is being planned in terms of dialing up the level

of affordable as we're increasing density. that is a discussion going forward, and part of our plan getting 33% by 2020. i think that we would be amiss in trying to create changes that would not be consistent with what we're going to be doing as a city; that has brought support among the board of supervisors. so i don't support the amendmen that you are discussing. do other members of the committee want to speak or go on to presentation from the staff? >> well, let's go ahead to the presentation of the staff. i can save my remarks for afterwards. thank you. >> good afternoon, chair cohen and supervisors. planning department staff. the planning commission had the ordinance proposed by supervisor avalos and supervisor kim before them july 2nd.

the commission approved the ordinance to apply inclusionary requirements to group housing and supported that notion. the commission did found that did not have enough information before them to approve or disapprove supervisor christensen's amendments, so they wanted those amendments to go back to them. as for the inclusionary housing application to group housing, we thank supervisors avalos and kim to taking the initiative to codify the requirements in that regard. the planning code has some conflicting language, as mentioned, about that and this ordinance would fix that conflicting language. so that group housing projects could also be subject to inclusionary planning. the planning department noticed

this conflict recently, because as some of you mentioned, group housing projects previously were homeless shelters, supportive housing, youth shelters, that were already exempt because they were 100% affordable. more recently we're getting different types of group housing projects that are more, like, private bedroom suites. they have some limited kitchen facilities as well. so it's more of a market-rate housing and we noticed that and the code has that conflicting language. the planning commission also recommended approval of the staff-proposed amendments. the first amendment is about the bright light requirement. group housing currently is

exempt from exposure requirements. also exempts group housing from rear yard requirements in certain instances and also they have smaller open space requirements. staff found that the quality of life requirements should apply to group housing, similar to other types of housing that are being proposed. so the proposed amendment is to apply exposure requirements to group housing, similar to what is in the code currently for smaller units such as accessory dwelling units. also staff proposed another recommendation, which was approved by the commission, to incentivize on-site affordable inclusivity and group housing units. so that the inclusionary units in a group housing building would be exempt from that calculation. and this would allow certain

projects in areas of the city that currently have -- controls to be financially feasible. and lastly, the last amendment is about parsing of group housing units. the proposal states that group housing bedrooms that are smaller than 150 square feet would be priced at 75% of studio. currently most use sro rates for 75% for studio for pricing of inclusionary units. the original ordinance proposed the same rates for group housing, 75% of a studio. but the department found that there is no maximum limit on the size of a group housing

bedroom and therefore, we wanted to create that distinction. so group housing bedrooms have smaller than 150 square feet would be priced at 75% of a studio and group housinged about rooms larger than 350 would be priced equal to the pricing of a studio. so that concludes the amendments proposed by the commission. >> thank you. i just wanted for the record say that i am supportive of the amendment from supervisor christensen as well. >> all right. thank you very much. why don't we go to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item no. 6? please come up at this time. you will be given two minutes. >> sue hester. i support the avalos/kim legislation.

i ask you to seriously ask the city attorney whether you can even entertain the legislation that is proposed by supervisor christensen and supervisor wiener without sending it back to the planning commission? at the planning commission, there was a discussion of the christensen amendment. and that discussion was very explicit; they didn't have enough information to go up or down on it. and they were not taking a position on it. the planning code requires amendments to the planning code be considered by the planning commission before they can be circumstantial considered by the board of supervisors. what they did, as they considered by structuring their vote on the christensen amendment they said we have nothing that enables us to take that position, because there is

no code language. they took a position that it had toom back to come back to the planning commission and if you amend the legislation, with any amendment not considered by the planning commission, that it go back to the planning commission and not to the board of supervisors. i am not your attorney. he is your attorney. because that discussion happened with the city attorney sitting in the hearing, and advising the commission about what they were doing, i think it was either [speaker not understood] i don't think you can send out either of the two amendments that you think you can do. the ones that came from the planning commission, you can do. they have been before the planning commission. thank you.

>> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kim mastero, a resident of san francisco. i was raised mostly military family, hats were not proper to wear inside, but today i wear this hat in front of you in respect and honor and that i am also a boards member of the tenant association in the tenderloin. and they gave me this hat as a present for all supporting me and for what i come here to do in support of them. so i'm here today very, very strongly requesting that you pass this new ordinance, that stops this gap. i do not agree with the new amendment today for the 90% ami. i agree with commissioner kim that further conversation needs to be done on that. i

have been a victim of domestic violence, which caused me to become homeless. i would still be homeless or dead while waiting for the promise of help, while many others still in the shelters. still i'm here to 'm here torequest as a

to make us a city with 0% homelessness and where families can afford to work and live, both poor and rich. come and listen to some of the people of the tenderloin. there is an event coming up i invite all of you to come and hear our stories. :thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i am from hospitality house. i am here to fully support this legislation and in your file, you should have at least 63 letters that i have gathered in the tenderloin and soma and the corridor supporting this legislation. there are many calling themselves group housing finding the loophole and in reality they are luxury sros. ten or more units are intendled

to provide housing to follow the inclusionary ordinance. i believe group housing are ten or more units, intended for long-term housing. last week at the planning commission, they heard about the project on 351 church and 146 leavenworth and they also said they were intended to be for individuals and small households. this is a requirement for all inclusionary housing ordinance. i ask you today to recommend the amendment to the full board. thank you. >> supervisors, madame chair. thank you. i am brad south. i live on turk street at hyde; which is a half a block away from the big project.

i support the amendment and how many people would actually legally be able to apply for and live in one of the group housing bedrooms? that would -- 350 of you applied for a one-bedroom apartment, for instance, at the franciscan towers that would apply to the income requirements for that project. that is about it. thanks. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, or maybe evening. supervisors, my name is alexandra goldman, a community planner with the tenderloin neighborhood corporation and i'm here today to encourage you to recommend on this item to the full board. we believe it's a loophole in the inclusionary housing ordinance overlooked because people didn't think that wealthy individuals or small households would have any interest in living in units that are as small as the group housing units. however, today we're seeing that is a reality and to request that you apply the same. in the tenderloin, we have a lot of small lots and we definitely support the development of these lots, but we believe this development must be he equitable.

we have this one project mentioned at 145 leavenworth and 351 turk and another run near turk and aunt charlie's is group housing and we expect to see more in the pipeline. we think it's only fair for the development in the tenderloin to be affordable to some of the people who live in the tenderloin. on that level, we support keeping the ami 55%. even that amount isn't affordable to a lot of tenderloin residents, but 90% certainly would be affordable to even less. in the sort of process of approving this group housing project, at 145 leavenworth and 351 turk a lot of tenderloin residents showed up. a lot of people showed interest in keeping the neighborhood affordable and being engaged in a planning process that has excluded them. so hopefully you will be listening to those voices and encourage the fact that residents want to get

involved in planning and let the city know we support affordable housing. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi,supervisors >> thank you for hearing us today. my name is colleen rebecca. i work at subpoena st. anthony foundation and we have submitted letters of support both to thes 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.