want to make sure when the affordable housing is built in the bayview hunters point those residents have the right of first refusal it is not 100 percent but one of the tools we need to move forward in order to begin this process which should have been have happened over 20 years and now we're playing catch up we and hopefully, we visit this in another year the legislation requires to analyze it and decide when we can do to maybe increase it or make changes or enhance that or make that better that's what i want

to see i do i know that supervisor cowen has some amendments but it will be helpful to understand the neighborhood verse supervisorial district and that preference and if any of my colleagues have comments this is one i'm torn on it because you know how do we decide and let me tell you why western edition haushl we used to be japantown and western edition that is part of japantown so how do you carve other u out those neighborhoods and make sense i don't know what the solution is that's why i was torn by limiting you know what is happening specifically in district 5 i don't know what the answer is but i'd like to thinks a little bit more how we arrived at supervisorial district versus

neighborhood and whether or not the planning department can give us a little bit more understanding of this process and why neighborhoods are not necessarily specified (clapping.) >> charles mayor's office of housing and community development staff so there's been a lot of discussion about the boundary by which to apply the neighborhood preference and so address that we identified sets and looked planning neighborhoods as their currently defined as a set of graphic boundaries with the supervisorial districts we identified several of the reasons in the slide as was prepared as a challenge the first to direct your attention

to say the number of households in each the graphic subdivisions so looking at the third actually, the fourth column the size of neighborhoods as you can see planning neighborhoods has a population of one 57 householders at 50 percent ami so one of the ideas throughout the neighborhood preference we need to have an active neighborhoods participation so looking to have groups that have populations size that can support that. >> that participation we looked combining the neighborhood boundaries generally speaking they start to resemble the spoiler district trying to decide the criteria by which we'll pit neighborhood boundaries together is a process

that of being done through communities engagement which was one the criteria that was involved in producing the supervisorial districts additionally i think that is important to note others number off households we'll exclude in the neighborhood preference the smaller the geography generally, the more households i'll exclude we're not building affordable housing in the pipeline evenly throughout the city trying to pick geographies that balance the aspects as well as excluding those from that preference. >> additionally looking at the second criteria there is a valuation. >> can i ask a sclaifr question. >> of course course. >> for example, when i did any noise legislation we measured

workplace a polar area where we on the sound appetite impact for example, where a project could be and look at the radio feet around that project and expand it in a sufficient way that cough allowed for just mostly immediate surrounding must not u communities more neighborhood like and the buffer that was part of recommendation addresses that particular issue the boundaries are always an area of concern after city policies and programs some are on, on side are another by allowing a half buffer you include parts finding neighborhood in the supervisorial districts since they were drawn as far as just having a half pile buffer around

a project inclusively in creating a model that allows us to analyze the impact of a neighborhoods preference through the two he was i've talked about earlier in any presentation we have some idea of where this project will be but to do an analysis around a half-mile buffer for each project that maybe coming online not know about it teammate but hollering problematic we offset the geography set since we know but not what it will be for projects we don't know going forward that haven't gone through the entitlements process to difficult to assess what kind of impact they'll have we have the

half-mile buffer applied to the supervisorial districts to address aspects of neighborhoods that are not included i don't know if this answers our question in the entirety. >> well, like for example, the parks two is coming online in 5 but we're talking about the entire district 5 that includes covet the inner sunset off the scope of the neighborhoods per say it is challenging to figure out okay. we're going to have a neighborhood preference the folk within the western edition counties definitely i know should be prioritize if some way but this opens not only would it include this inner sunset district 5 but includes parts of district 6 and other areas because of the bored type of situation so you know that is a situation where you know that

can ends up being a frustrating situation we're building the affordable housing for seniors and western edition residents that need the housing and assessable housing and again i know the possibility of them getting left out with a preference intended to include them makes me nervous i'm struggling with how this legislation specifics supervisorial districts rather than doing it decendents board spectrum of a neighborhood. >> we recognize that it is very challenging and falling upon a set of geography boundaries noting none of - each the stewart's sets have a unique challenge i think the important part is creating a preference program that is robust enough and successful and bold enough

the challenge with some of the smaller geographies is creates more problems in its prelims; right? so - >> it didn't create problems if you have a smaller group of people 40 percent and 10 people from the neighborhoods apply all 10 of those folks get housing and the other thirty b will go a large pool it didn't necessarily create a bigger problem other than you may not have enough applicants for the pool that's okay as far as i'm concerned. >> it relates to the strategical analysis a neighborhoods participation is an important part of having and threshold buff 80 percent 0 it is an important component having neighborhoods that have

sufficient number of participants is important sophie will add additional comments. >> supervisors sophie from the mayor's office of housing i want to notes in layman's terms i'm a layperson there are 37 planning neighborhoods and 11 supervisorial districts we feel comfortable with the proposal its 25 percent preference for the supervisorial district bus we know that there are affordable housing opportunities in all 11 that districts they're not evenly distributed but exist there are not affordable housing opportunities in all 37 direction is with that means if you have the 25 percent preference at the smaller neighbors neighborhoods with the 37 there will be people that will excluded from those opportunities and there are a number of neighborhoods in which there are no opportunities for the residents to have access to

a neighborhoods preference. >> let me ask a question to our city attorney or i guess the city attorney working on this legislation. >> clearly the gentrification is take place in the western edition has take place in the mission is this take place in the bayview and those par communities we see the gentrification we look at those communities and really target those communities because we also see sufficient affordable housing well, not sufficient but affordable housing in those communities and this legislation could we specific those particular neighborhoods where the challenges exist or required to do this as a citywide are we required to do citywide legislation. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney it sounds like what you're asking could we guess maybe two things are you asking can we

target these particular neighborhoods or can we set criteria for how neighborhoods are defined that are different from supervisorial districts. >> yes. >> well i'm saying it is the possible to look at what we're sxern significant challenges and target those for this particular legislation and not as a citywide i'm asking in general is that even a possibility. >> i won't want to answer on the fly it raise many of the policy concerns and legal concerns mohcd has been discussing but we can evaluate it not giving you a yes or no right now. >> i want to be clear supervisor cowen has substantive amendments next week this item will will be before land use and

possibility to continue this discussion i appreciate the conversation that is happened here today, i do think this is important to move forward but in the process of moving forward to continue our worker on looking at the possibility of making this a better legislation and so again, i want to thank my colleagues for supporting this i'll continue to work to figure out ways in which we can make the legislation better and anymore relevant to a lot of the challenges in the community as well thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on some of the questions first to the city attorney john gibner, deputy city attorney if you could clarify around the housing developments that use state funding. >> sure john gibner, deputy city attorney before public comment supervisor kim you were asking with the state funding restrictions

the ordinance provides that any state or federal that funded program is subject to the restrictions competed by the is state or federal government so we'll apply the preferences under our local organizing and unless the funding for this project prohibits us applying that that applies to the cop preferences, the displaced tenants and the new neighborhood preference with multi family housing funded projects that moufdz staff was referring to the states will not fund a project and a unless the preference is citywide and applied to working and or living in the city along the lines of the amendment supervisor wiener mentions earlier those neighborhoods preference

are not apply unless the states says yes, we're okay with the neighborhood preference and live in san francisco if so it not okay then it will not apply to those projects. >> thank you so much for this go clarification back to ms. benjamin if we could get the answers on the number of buildings that are found through the state. >> and also in the pipeline. >> all right. that was a question so - >> i think i had two questions hoping to get answers. >> we'll certainly get you the information about how many. >> i okay. so that information will not be available today and about how many buildings are qualified or how many buildings are - >> in the pipeline are state

funding and currently in our portfolio. >> yeah. certainly provide you with that and want to know federal funded programs as well? >> promotions as well. >> i was hoping to get the state right now but, yeah if we can't get it i want a breakdown of alls projects that maybe definitely impacted by the legislation so projects that are funded 100 percent ocii the federal fund and state funding and the clerk will fund 100 percent by and the breakdown would applies and wins the affordable housing for 100 percent and inclusionary some of the demographics breaks down and other categories he thinks that is not collected in every application but the information

you have. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> the first amendment to remove the displaced tenant at mayor's office of housing so we can continue to work with the stakeholders is there a motion on this amendment. >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. this amendment passes the second amendment is one i offered to increase from 25 to 40 percent we've heard a lot of discussion around do we need a roll call vote or an unanimous decision on that. >> okay why don't we had a roermentd on this amendment. >> on the - for clarification this is to increase the neighborhoods preference from 25 to 40 percent. >> is percentage amendment supervisor kim.

>> just so i, comment i'm open to still to moving up to informative percent but today, i want more information i'll not be president's report that but next week getting the data i'll open to moving i am the preference today i'll be voting no on the amendment. >> on the percentage of amendment. >> supervisor kim. >> no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen madam chair 23 i's and one no this amendment passes supervisor wiener anything you want to add. >> yes. thank you very much madam chair, i indicated i would like to put forwards an amendment to codify what appears to be the practice of providing a preference for people who live

or work in san francisco to assess affordable housing and so what i'd like to do is duplicate the file so i don't want to slow down this amendment will have to be referred to the planning commission duplicate the file and on the dipped duplicated file on page 13 after line 12 so will be the fourth preference and that will be important people who live or work in the city and county of san francisco and that's 80 my motion to amend the duplicated file. >> mr. gibner opine absence for the folks in the audience can get a better understanding of what is happening entertain a motion to continue this for land use for november.

>> sure. sure explain what the duplicated file sure so the committee has made an amendment to increase the level to 40 percent and maids additional amendments that moufdz requested to take out the piece of displaced attendance that amendment is ordinance will be heard in land use in the commissioner lee again, a week from foe and supervisor wiener has requested an additional amendment the committee has not voted on to create a level preference for anyone that lives or works in san francisco that will say after the cop preference and is displaced tenants that amendment has to be considered at a hearing by the planning commission so the land use adopts it, it is continues

for the planning commission to act on that. >> and it is duptdz to amend it. >> we duplicated the file and making a motion to add the preference into to the duplicated file and condition the main file one week and make a motion to refer the duplicated file to the planning commission. >> all right. thank you very much. >> if i could the mohcd submitted and written amendment that included the written remove the - had additional changes that the cloikz requested to insure that the fire chief hearings at the boards happen in a timely manner i don't believe the commissioner lee voted think outside the box 0 piece of mohcd amendment so here on behalf of the appellant. >> i'll move the technical amendments

we'll take that without objection. those amendments pass. >> and then my motion is on the tackle to add the lids apprehensive into the duplicated file can we take those amendments without objection? that passes well >> i move to continue the main item one week to refer the did you want file to the planning commission. >> one week november 9th we'll take that without objection.? >> i said to ask i know that the 5 m will be here and a lengthy hearing so want to question whether we wanted both items on that day. >> that was my initial reaction a i think this legislation is time sensitive the laguna project is nearing the point for lottery and other projects as well i have lost two

not lots of but too many have gone out with lack of neighborhood preference i don't want to lose any and supervisor kim will agendas device that. >> i was going to suggest no board meeting on the tenth and the next on the 1 by get to the boards on the same day so no difference in terms of timing i'm open either way i know the 5m could be a 12-hour hearing but it is important it is heard next week it is important. >> it is important that will heard next week. >> i'll say on this voted but i'll defer to the chair. >> we'll hear it on the negligent 24 motion we'll take that without objection.? >> okay we'll take that without objection. that motion carries. >> madam chair the motion to continue the original amendment

to november 9th and duplicated was further amended and referred to the planning commission and what actions do you want taken through the chair. >> even it is referred to the planning commission i would for the duplicated file referred to the planning commission and move to continue to the call of the chair. >> yes. thank you. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, thank you important being with us today any items on the agendas. >> there's no further business. >> thank you. this meeting is