get bids it takes more time than 9 months. >> through the chair to supervisor wiener how would you feel about better defining good costs. >> what. >> more specifically defining what means a showing of good cause. >> i actually have a lot of confidence in the entertainment commission in terms of the work they do with the permittees and i don't need to add additional definitions i think we the entertainment commission is the person responsible a thousands of variations and i'm comfort with the way the language is now. >> subject to public comment make seminaries no pressing

deadlines 0 on this particular matter i'm respectfully suggest rather than sending to the full committee but keep it in committee for an additional week and discuss those items that were previously discussed at the committee and continue the item one week subject to public comment. >> all right. we'll go ahead and take public comment. time for public comment a reminder you'll have two minutes a soft chime indicates your time is almost up >> thank you supervisor cowen i'm speaking in support of supervisor peskin call for mailed noticed. from my prospective an entertainment firm is as much in

business to make money then our retail establishments in my neighborhood i routinely get u.s. mail noticed not flyers e.r. handout in my mailbox notifying me of one hundred and 50 to three hundred radius from my residence to the extent somebody will be in the entertainment business to generate revenue anticipate hire employees at the, afford the notices >> any other speakers on this item. >> okay public comment is closed. at this time thank you supervisor wiener to your name. >> thank you. i know supervisor peskin indicated to make a motion to continue i

don't see a reason to continue this is not rocket science and you know obviously this conversation with the entertainment commission could have happened at any time and plenty of time over the next 8 days for supervisor peskin to sit down with ms. kane and talk about potential tweaks to the legislation i'm not opposed to making an additional amendment but don't see a need given this committee how it gets to hold this in committee so my motion to forward with a positive recommendation. >> i see don't see a reason to continue but move it forward. >> ms. kane you and supervisor wiener will work out the details in the next 8 days and i'd like commissioner peskin to sit down

to see - >> i'll endeavor to do that with you ms. kane a roll call vote on that item. >> okay a motion to send with a positive recommendation has been accepted and unanimously passes thank you. >> all right. could you call items two and three together. >> item 2 a hearing on assigning from the bio report and item number - >> two and three. >> item for a bio annual housing balance. >> okay supervisor kim is going to be speaking and moving the discussion on this. >> we'll wait a couple of minutes for her to arrive.

>> okay. the clerk has notified me cpmc is not in here office and not on the way down so we'll take a recess at this time than

>> all right. we will reinvite item 4 call back items two and three together. >> item number 2 is a hearing on the finding from the bio annual housing report and item 3 a resolution ref the housing balance report. >> supervisor kim thank you,

thank you chair cohen this is the second hearing that passed at the board last april 2015 as really a point in time through the november 2014 prop k i'll see how the city was meeting 32 percent of affordable housing and all new production and preservation as well as 50 percent affordable housing and madam clerk, any announcements? >> and wanted to acknowledge the hard work and recognize teresa and really grateful for the rich data that helps to understand the impacts to the city's housing shortage in order for the planning department to make more informed policy decisions howe hours that is coming down the pike as expected certain district that harbor the

majority of development by vibrator of proximity to transportation we see had in district 6 and 10 but percentage wise we expect it all of the district should be able to off a positive housing balance the number of affordable housing produced or preserved to pass the amount of housing that is lost primarily to what we see with evictions and condominium conversion unfortunately, the back the majority of district have a negative housing balance if 21 percent to two hundred and one percent the good news is that we have had an increase in unit from the last time to the housing balance september 2015 now 11 thousand plus entitled unit as opposed to 9 thousand plus in september of the previous year which is an

increase of over one thousand units and a housing balance increases by 17 percent over the year there is still plenty of work to do but good to know we're moving in a positive direction and the mayor's office and the board of supervisors had hsa have been pushing in the negotiations for the developers and pushing our voters and residents to give a little bit more in terms of public dollars for the housing bonds that passed in november and other forms of public dollars to make sure we're building as much affordable and middle-income as possible and the fact we know we can only do the work together if we're truly to achieve our goal of affordable housing and 50 percent affordable for middle-income housing so i the president to bring up the planning department to

speak. >> off i'm sorry director rahaim. >> no problem. >> thank you for being here i was not looking in this direction. >> thank you being here. >> my player we're pleased to present the third housing balances report the first supervisor after the report the balance was passed and we're on a normal schedule of 6 months we understand that the trailing legislation to update the specification of including the evictions in the housing balance report we've been doing that with the legislation to clarify that as well so i just really here to thank teresa a robust piece of work that happens every 6 months with lawful valuable information and thank you for her to put this together and

introduce her to present the details of the report. >> thank you director rahaim and thank you very much for your commitment to supply the research for this report. >> good afternoon supervisors my name is teresa senator planner with the policy section i'm here to talk about the housing balance report this is an annual report mandated by the board to be heard annually representatives of the mayor's office and the rent board are here to answer questions to any - so what is the housing balance report in april of 2015 the board of supervisors approved ordinance 431 to add section one

03 to the planning code this new section directions the planning department to have a balance continue the new market market-rate and the affordable housing production the housing balance the proportion of now affordable units to the total of netted housing units over a 10 year housing balance period the ordinance bye annual report that was submitted to you a couple of weeks cover from the three-quarters to 2015. >> we submitted the first in july and the second one in september of last year and we actually had our introductory hearing on the report in october of last year

so why a housing balance when the ordinance is to insure the data are meeting the target citywide and informs the process for new housing development and to remind the supervisors here are 3 separate affordable housing tasht each with a reporting requirement the housing balance the housing elements that are to be dictated a production goal of 28 though new units to be built between will 2015 and 2022 called the arena over and over the regional housing goals 47 percent of this between 28 thousand units should be

affordable to low and moderate households they 134i789 an annual report to meet the goal to the state department of community development the planning department prepares a report to the planning commission based on the production goals called the quarreling residential dashboard prop k passed by san francisco voters in 2014 set a goal that 33 percent of net new units be affordable i believe this is the goal point housing balance report will be aiming for this also mayor ed lee by 2020 that set a goal of thirty percent affordable units the mayor's office of economic workforce development prepares a weekly dashboard progress towards meeting this goal so

what is the 10 year affordable housing trend if we look at only new housing production the affordable housing made up 24.6 percent or almost 25 percent of net housing built in the last 10 years the housing balance calculation, however, looks at beyond in any housing production in addition to new housing production the housing balance calculation looks at acquisition and rehab for existing housing rad public housing replacement rad stands for - this is rehabilitation and subsidized projects and looks like with the

permitted affordable housing units the - the units are removed from protected status essentially rent-controlled housing either through the ellis act or demolition under conversion or owner move-in evictions it is called the net affordable housing stock foyer district reports this net affordable housing stock is seen as a proportion of necessary new housing units built and permitted and the figures for the 10 year reporting period is results in a housing balance of 18 percent this is in comparison to 15 percent that was recorded last year

the ordinance requires that the housing balance is calculated by the board of supervisors district and any planning department districts the housing balance for the board of supervisors district range from negative 200 one percent and 49 percent in district 5 the negative balances are due to large numbers of units removed from the protected status relevant to the net affordable units built and the new - housing units overall district 8, 6, 9 and 10 positive balances the rest have negative balances the next slide shows the housing balance by the planning district and again, we see a variety of balances. >> i'm sorry can you go back

to the previous slide. >> excuse me - the cumulative housing in the district. >> can you explain the - >> the reason for the negative balance. >> yes. yes. >> that is the number of units that are removed from protected status. >> what are some of the reasons and criteria to remove those. >> those are essentially this is data taken from evictions no cost evictions primarily no-fault evictions that are primarily ellis acted the units are elised out and those that are converted condos and the units where the owner move-ins so he will relatively those are from protected status

to a large number than the number of units that are produced in the district. >> thank you. >> so basically, it is just for the planning district and again, it shows a range of balances. >> the ordinance also reports protected housing balance essential net not housing affordable units if projects that have received entitlements but have yet to receive building permits this slide is the projected housing balance is 15 percent the projected housing balance provided at the board of supervisors district and the planning district levels and that you'll see in the report itself what is not included the housing

balance orientals specifics it 3 major projects that have been entitled do not get building permits not included in the projected housing balance this is until facing those projects move to applying for and receiving building permits all tooth the projects will provide about 21 plus 23 percent will be affordable hunters point and treasure island they were specifically called out in the ordinance and not included in the projected housing balance are prongs currently under review there been 21 thousand 5 hundred units under review of which 13 percent are in 100 percent affordable housing

projects and another one hundred market-rate 15 thousand units will be subject to this city inclusion housing means 18 net affordable units built on site under the requirements the second phase is the rent program that included over 2000 units in the projects again, all the coming into the pipeline but not included in the prolonged housing balance i'm talk about others balances this is a a bio annual ordinance in the - the housing balance report comes out in the first of march and the first of september we appreciate the boards patience because we've had

difficulties in meanwhile the deadlines given our current technical constraint and staffing constraint and that would be helpful from the deadline coincided with our deadlines for the housing inventory for example, the ordinance also meant an annual hearing to be conducted before the board of supervisors and the planning commission before the first of april this year's schedule is slightly late we tried to meet the schedule. >> what's the reason it is late. >> as i mentioned we have been having technical constraint. >> such as. >> such as the we are having problems getting data. >> from who. >> collected from the department of building

inspection and also matching that with the data from our departments it takes a lot of work to make sure that we capture all the information that we can simply because it's just not easy to create the data as well we'd like to. >> so is the dashboard an issue. >> yes. could be and also, we have a schedule we had for some years now we normally prepare the housing inventory and we have the schedule release of april one and having march one deadline pushes us a little bit too much given the staffing constraints we're not - we're not able to

prepare the report - we were able to prepare with the housing inventory. >> okay continue. >> so the mayor's office of housing and community development the mayor's office of economic workforce development the recommendation stabilization board and the department of building inspection and the city environmentalists will present the stratus for having the housing balance with the affordable housing goals at the annual meeting should the cumulative balance fall blow a percent they'll determine how to bring the city into the required minimum percentage. >> sorry the planning department office created and maintenance the

website for the housing balance reports as riders by the ordinance the current report as well as previous ones can be download from the site and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> if the services have questions thank you. >> thank you i should reiterate again how helpful it is to have these numbers but for all of us to work off the same numbers in terms of how we calculate our production more affordable housing and in relationship to market rate housing and i think as we look at new construction we both look at preservation and very excited about the fact if last year for example, we were able to announce another

building that was in the south of market stabilization fund on top of 534 plus we are actually saving current residents to stay in their home often they lived in their units for thirty or 40 years but we count the units we are losing online usually as though no-fault evictions or owner move-in or condominium conversion i think that is important we look at the balance of both to understand where we're at and while we want to be almost double our housing balance to thirty percent it is helpful to know the difference how we chuch the goal and it gives us guidance in future legislation in terms of how we

build more affordable housing so is it having more of our general funds dollars towards affordable housing is it asking the voters to give back or developers to give back to get to the thirty percent i think this is in line with compensation fees that passed unanimously out of this board going forwards to the voters we're having the feeling in terms of what we can ask developers to build for onsite affordable housing and this measure will be an important element of how to get to the 17 percent housing balance we're building today so at this time through the chair. >> supervisor kim i have a question throughout in the presentation i asked the question when this was made she indicated the times and schedules were for the peshdz don't sync up awhile it is

important and great to have those numbers but from the schedule is not in sync i don't understand why i think your office was kind of inflexible and having an april one deadline according to this to push forward to the march one deadline do you recall. >> we asked the report to be submitted by march first and the board of supervisors to have the hearing in april like we're doing today; right? >> perhaps you can come back to make sure this can sync i i up so we're not having it late in the month of april and at this point let's go ahead and take public comment. >> public comment is open ladies and gentlemen, if you want to comment on the items the

matters you've heard. >> thank you chair cohen i'm patrick the first housing balance report in july 2015 showed that the cumulative balance was 21 percent the second report is september showed is it dropped to 15 and the third it back up to 18 percent to peter coming down the pike recorded in april through examinerer it was down and the recorded balance was the projected balance was 11 percent and the third report in large reporting the reflected balance is now up and between the two

and three report for moderate income saw 28 point decline from 15 hundred and 50 units no september to just 11 hundred plus unit in march while the combined low and very low income households saw only 7 point plus decline from seven hundred units down to 4399 units and also between the two and three report the moderate income households dropped if 24.6 percent of the total affordable units to just one percent in march while the very slow plus jumped from 75 plus percentage to 39 puss in march as from the city is fiscal year

only on low income. >> are you converging didn't we have this conversation. >> your public comment is also for the public to hear. >> next speaker. >> again and again supervisors i primarily am here to just i think give proposes to the staff that is kind of mind-numbing work this is only the second or third report so a methodology that to the previous speakers point there is a little bit of a difference in the way the data is organized that explains why the out put it different but the

methodology is fine tuned i think that is important we all recognize how hard that is and how important it is very, very informative we have one set of numbers to tell us how we are doing in all the public policy debates over policy a or policy b at the end of the day, we want to know how it's stacking up and this housing report helps to what we're doing terms the providing brick and mortar housing this is not close to thirty or 33 or 50 or was the housing element but san francisco still stand out ahead of the pack so we set your own goals tore getting higher and setting ourselves a leader get to 33 or 40 or 50 percent we'll continue to pull the state with

us that's something we should be proud of but we have a displacement crisis the report looked at the loss units unit taken out of price control that's what we're losing as san franciscans and we have to stop the displacement and speculation and think with about both of those solutions thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon, supervisors with the well action having the housing balance report has been a big progress there's two missing items that i feel that should be addressed at some point perhaps some way to be added one of them is that building housing that is larger vacant, i.e., private tiers and first and second homes doesn't add to

the housing stock in san francisco really they're vacant and the second is the number of units that are lost to and/or and equivalent services which is somewhere 2w7b 2 and 4 thousand units that's not an insignificant number so we need both more enforcement of b rb o had units running underwent only to vacation and other visitors to san francisco none of those are legal and we are - that's a loss of affordable housing right there thank you. we need to see those things take into account thank you, supervisor kim. >> next speaker >> yeah. this is a good report i think the focus on housing balance percentage is to the point oakland last year had 90

percent affordable housing sounds like wow. 90 percent but we had fewer 200 homes built total housing balance we can get to 100 percent of 5 homes and we'll still be in a big problem it should be housing production monitoring that should be the focus of analysis and conversation thanks. >> any other speakers all right. public comment is closed. supervisor kim >> thank you again, i want to thank the planning department for your work in putting these nebraska's numbers together in response to one of the members of the public the analysis of the balance and the number of unit that are produced and constructed and we're certainly doing i think significantly well and better this year for construction and production that is as positive for the city

in response to the timeline for the reports we received the report on march 31st but keep in mind this is still a new process for the planning department there's a lot of numbers and data to go through we're happy to hear the item in april and continue on and more routine and we're able to add up the numbers in a quirk fashion but i have to say that is a heavy lifted and a lot of new data to calculate and i want to appreciate the department for the work they've put the resources to make that report possible and this responsibility will help to guide and drive future postal service of policies of the board and the mayor's office to make sure we are a city that everyone can afford to live if if you're

a working-class or a middle-income and not - by throwing today is it is a very important part of the work and want to recognize the planning department and director rahaim and the colleague for making this happen colleagues i don't have further questions or comments i imagination members of the committee don't so i'll suggest to file 24 item. >> all right. a motion to file this item let's see supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin supervisor kim has asked us to make a motion to file the item supervisor wiener made the motion and supervisor peskin has graciously argued without objection this is filed thank you very much supervisor kim and the planning department

hopefully, we'll work to streamline all of our collection of data all right. are you guys ready to call items two and three together >> all right. >> excuse me - item 4. >> item 3 the resolution receiving the bio annual housing report. >> supervisor kim. >> my apologies for item 3 that we move that forward with recommendation. >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. that that item passes for item 3 ladies and gentlemen. >> item 4. >> please call. >> the administrative code for the inclusionary housing for the economic feasibility study and with the housing for the advisory committee and also this matter has been notices to increase the fees and this establishes a body suggesting for the rules committee clerk. >> thank you very much supervisor peskin is the author

of this item supervisor any opening remarks. >> i'm the co-sponsors with supervisor kim i believe that supervisor kim has opening remarks i have plenty of additional remarks. >> thank you supervisor peskin actually, this is a very appropriate follow-up to the report that was given on how we're meeting our goals of building 33 percent of affordable housing and 50 percent of middle-class i've middle-income this has coming up come out of long series of negotiations that has followed a ballot measure that was that the board put on for the june ballot to eliminate the ceiling we've placed in the city chapter in terms of how much affordable housing for the market-rate building inspections to build in san francisco assuming the cap at 12 go percent you can go

above not below what preceded the housing trust fund we saw one of the hottest and strongest housing this market has seen in san francisco and through many of the negotiations that has preceded we know that market-rate developers can do more than 12 percent given the market but also in many cases the value on the land developers prop c roves the cap and sets an sdrmz of asking the developers to go back to 15 of the affordable housing we know that developers what manage and on top of that acknowledges not just working-class residents but middle-income residents are similarly getting pushed out of the san francisco on top of of the 15 percent for the developer

to do this in that discussion a big question of how we treat projects have gone into the pipeline but not approved that have not limited to their epa that is a discussion that followed i want to thank many of the developers working closely with delegate habeeb's and i, we move that the developers that everyone wants to do more regardless of requirement was 12 or 25 percent we also wanted to acknowledge that many developers submitted in their proposals do have notice their inclusion rates are going on and around land purposes that make it difficult for them to meet the 25 percent now projects moving forward the 2016 has notice of extension and the city's expectation of inclusionary housing is the expectation for them to work the numbers within their development but were projects in the pipeline that

didn't have notice of that that we would not set the same rirmentsdz but yet we were pushed to ask them to do more i have to thank the developers for saying yes, we want to do more and make it work within the project we have in place and that is the ordinance that is before us today that is a essentially call do grandmother proposal but a way to figure out though to have the inclusionary housing to a wide variety of projects in multiple neighborhoods and in the best fashion possible we really handled this legislation with a scoop he will not a hammer not treat the projects the same thing differentiate between 2013 or 2014 or 20152015 and think about the eastern neighborhoods and make sure that there's a slightly graph of parcels that

are exempted higher affordability so this is the ordinances that is before the board today it is not perfect but it is a great negotiation and compromise we're building more affordable housing and would have been expected and with this ordinance so we're able to do it in a way to be feasible for developers and put skin in the game in terms of the process so again do want to thank the mayor's office and the market-rate housing developers and agreeing to figure though to do more and make up for the units we've lost from 15 to 12 percent but coming before us with the ordinance that is before us today so these are my opening comments and commissioner peskin my co-author if you would like to make further comments. >> thank you, supervisor kim chief sponsor of this

legislation i think you summarized 2 but i agree in 2012 when the previous prop c went on the ballot that reduced the 15 inclusionary housing requirement to 12 percent albeit out liar areas none knew at this point what with the best of intention we'll enter one of the largest booms in the rent-controlled housing since the 1906 san francisco earthquake and fire today, we'll talk about for the one and 10 anniversary of that major schematic and fire fended and hats off to the fire department for the one and 50 anniversary the chinese hospital we opened and it was built

originally 91 years ago so a great day in san francisco but the reality is in 2013, 2014, and at or near in 2015 the developers would have made their net and paid in their loans and folks from the executrix trades would have they jobs our jobs as a society to make sure we get as much affordable housing in new market-rate construction so indeed that the people who build those projects the police and fire and other city workers that serve the san franciscans can afford to live in the city and county of san francisco and that will only happen if we step in and make sure that that 12

percent that has been made and legitimately should not have belonged in the city chapter since this chapter was introduced on september 15th supervisor kim and myself working in a very collaborative process as representatives the mayors and representatives the building and construction trade and representatives the market-rate housing development have co-owned with that piece of legislation pursuant to a legislation that supervisor yee offered that was voted for unanimously by this board and this was the resolution i called the road map to peace that laid out how we do that i believe that we have all endeavored in good faith to come up with the trailing legislation

i think it treats the pipeline appropriately and treats the pipeline projects in a way that is not going to end up with a demolition of new housing stock or the loss of jobs for the individuals that build those new projects i think that is done in a way that will capture going forward the amount of affordable housing that we can and should construct in this great city and county of san francisco i want to thank eric who has represented most of the albeit not all of the organizations and individuals in the market-rate construction industry i want to thank michael who i've kept awe pride e prized of our communications and thank you to mayor ed lee and ken rich for working with us in a good faith collaborative congressional

centennial fashion and i believe that as the board of supervisors put this measure on the ballot unanimously i have every confidence with a few minor tweaks we will pass this trailing legislation unanimously thank you, supervisor kim for your leadership. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam chair colleagues this important and impact full legislation in its current revised form became public on thursday afternoon i don't think we should be asked to vote on this legislation a mere 4 days later this is perhaps the most significant piece of housing legislation that we'll vote on during our tenure on the board of supervisors one that will determine how much housing is san francisco going to produce to meet the needs of growing

population and how much affordable housing are we're going to produce we owe it to the public to have a fair and transparent process that was not happened here i don't can't support this legislation today i supported placing prop c on the ballot i agree with supervisor peskin that we need to remove the affordability percentage from the charter i support raising the affordability percentage i support doing it in a way that will maximize the number of affordable units we produce in san francisco yet i also support doing this in a thoughtful way one that is based policy, one that is based actually maximizing the amount of affordable housing, one that respects the rules and notation of fairness and based on economic and financial feasibility so we don't kill promotions and

actually undermine the production of affordable housing this legislation is bad housing policy and will make our housing crisis even worse it results from a series of private backroom negotiation with certain favored developers graisht in some projects while not grandfathering in other projects it dramatically increases the inclusionary requirements adding million dollars no costs the projects that were already fully approved by the good faith reliance on existing rules and requirements and for future housing creation this legislation one size fits

autos not studied realize on random numbers that has nothing to do with with any analysis of what will actually maximize affordable housing production in san francisco current projects the projects in the pipeline the legislation creates convoluted grandfathering grandfathering language resulting from the backroom deals where developers they win and loss inform policy basis to explain why some developers are grandfathered and others not and it gets worse the legislation goes so far to have the inclusionary requirements in some cases doubling that requirement and imposing millions of in cost for the projects already been approved you've heard that right the projects that followed the rules

that went through the community process and approval progress went to the planning commission that got approved those fully approved projects are now having to meet the change this is not good government how we should be doing things think outside the box on that basis the lack of policy based fair and clear grandfathering provisions the legislation should be rejected in it's current form yet the grandfathering issue has attracted the most tension and activity the problematic part of legislation is in terms of it's long term the impact on long term housing policy in san francisco future projects because is one size fits ought

to determine whether or not those projects will be feasible at 25 percent the legislation treats a thirty unit project dentally to an 8 hundred unit project again, no economic feasibility study and it is important - this is the elective equivalent of throwing darts at a dart board it works well, for dart scheme but not appropriate i'll note no nexus study on this legislation colleagues, we all want to produce the highest numbers of affordable housing yet to achieve that goal we absolutely must know what is economically and financially feasible if a project becomes infeasible or if it shrinks or reluctance to 24 units or less to come in

under the 25 percent trigger few affordable units will be produced artificial 25 percent of zero is still zero this is a significant risk if the future of the de facto moratorium in san francisco it moves us to the days when we produced this housing as a our population was growing by leaps and bounds which directly led to the housing crisis and the displacement that we are experiencing today this legislation will make our housing crisis every worse and will make our city even less affordable than it is today i will not be supporting this legislation thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, supervisor farrell has joined us. >> so colleagues first of all, i want to associate myself myself with many of the comments

from supervisor wiener we're in a housing crisis and housing crisis across san francisco doing everything we can in terms of policies here at the board of supervisors and inside of city hall that encourages more housing kiss e chris, i building we need to build more affordable housing in the city not less supervisor wiener touch on the perspectives on that overall i want to mention in terms of grandfathering legislation i appreciate some of the comments of my colleagues and supervisor kim about projects in the pipeline and people that have made financial decisions nevertheless their projects and put money on the line only to have not only projects fully approved but magnificent decisions make a good e made only so have us change the rules

midstream people have put skin in the game and this is not applying a scalpel to the pipeline this is a hammer on affordable housing in san francisco i know in my district that is the potential to put the hammer on over one hundred avenue, i building we owe it to the people in the town we maximize affordable housing and create a process that is fair and visual so people know the rules they have to abide by people in the city of san francisco when they have a choice landowner or developers have a crisis between residential or commercial our history we want to encourage residential building within our

city limits and in some instances it is much easier for developers or landowner to build commercial given the hoops and now 0 move we are impcos and give the housing crisis we have to have residential along the way in march in board adopted the resolution i'm glad to adopt a policy that maximize inclusionary housing requirement it was adopted unanimously with the understanding the trailing legislation by a further resolve grandfathering class it allows economic feasibility with projects in the pipeline my fears this is constructed as supervisor wiener mentions some developers left in and some out depending on the whims of the colleagues that's not how to promote polly will be a supporters of that and my fear

that legislation the way it is drafted will not achieve that goal it will kill be not only market rate housing in the pipeline on line sooner than anything else and established city policy to eliminated the non-conforming uses and support housing especially on the opportunities we shouldn't loss site of this policy i want to say i understand there are amendments to project suggested later on i'm in full support we need an honest discussion i ago that 4 days is two soon again especially in the pipeline can't think of any reason not to support the people to get housing online as quickly as possible so have more commercial uses and in the process killing affordable units

in the city. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair if i may through the chair to supervisor farrell is sounds like you're speaking about amendment relative to a specific project you said would be residential or commercial that is a large site in your district are you referring to something in particular. >> to my colleagues commissioner peskin both at a citywide and project in particular in my district a strong invested interesting interest yes. >> through the chair to supervisor farrell what project is that. >> is it a project up at laurel heights. >> okay laurel height is a big area can you be more specific you or supervisor cowen is going to introduce an amendment to

accommodate it. >> i'll suggest two amendments i fully support i'm not a voting member of this committee but at the support two amendments one in terms of issues within the 4 days we've had to look at this legislation that we have been able to look at that is detrimental and in affordable housing in district 2 and other parts of san francisco. >> i'm not sure that was responsive to my question but i'm sure we'll find out what you're referring to if i may through the chair to supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell raised high-level issues which is in reveling i was not a member of this body i believe most of you were when you choose to put on the ballot proximate cause which reduced the percentage of affordable housing from 15 to 12 percent. >> absent economic feasibility

study. >> i've heard words in the last few minutes if my colleague supervisor wiener he hold in highest esteem this is the subject of dealing with specific developers and offering them specific things i've not heard examples why'd with the grairthd legislation does is it says if you're in the pipeline remembered we voted for a resolution we would we'll get 200 units out of the pipeline we voted for that how did we do that we did it uniformly we did it fairly we do it in collaboration with the planning department's and the that in collaboration with the folks who developed those projects, we did it in collaboration with virtually outline of the building and construction trades albeit not one for the head of the voting

construction trades doesn't speak so far one union i went or respect that having said that, we all unanimously voted that we were going to get approximately 200 units of additional affordable housing out of the pipeline and why'd we have in good faith worked to do that how did we did that not by choosing politically connected developers but like this we said if you were in the pipeline which we did quite geniusly in the pipeline if you filed angle environmental application if you filed one prior to republican you'll get a with only percent bump none claimed ♪ calendar year 2014 a one half hour binge no complaints up to

january of 2016 when supervisor kim and i introduced this institute charter amendment you'll get 2 and a half percent bump how is it picking favorites or through the chair to commissioner lee you've - give me examples sfashth i heard without further ado, you e with all due respect you sued me of hypocrisy if you're getting getting ready to introduce a backroom deal for a specific developer for a specific project that was not covered and quite uniform very generous compromises we brought up to bring the people of this town building construction workers everyday people normal folks

approximately 200 more united of housing we should have gotten which this board i was not a member put proximate cause on the ballot >> supervisor kim. >> when they put their name on the cue they can respond supervisor kim. >> actually supervisor peskin covered many of my points the grandfathered legislation is uniform how it treats our developers the bumps are exactly the same depends on the year you submitted your education a i think that is a generous trigger there be up to this time we could have made accident grandfathering bumps we choose a

piementd that was early on in the process generally when you introduce legislation in this case we actually were generous we didn't pick the date in december we picked january 12th the day we submitted the institute for prop c at this time we felt it was fair and the developers did what the expectation was and if they submitted their e a it was the beginning the development process with the city the very giving you understand the expectation of the city in terms of what we exterminate you to build omitted in the board members have issues with 25 percent they should have voted against prop c negative impact february i don't like this hammer it is was development of construction that was the moment in time to say i don't like this what we're doing today, we're

taking care of projects in the pipeline asking them to contribute more we worked the developers in the pipeline they agreed and they wanted to contribute more affordable housing they believe that is important to do and they did it in a way they felt it was reasonable given the fact that many of them have skin in the game and have actually begun a planning process with the city so i think that is important to note the krivendz i'm hearing hearing how there is is not a fiscal faubd that was agreed two months ago at the full board of supervisors in february and my colleagues had an opportunity to vote no on prop c and say they don't support building more affordable housing but prop c they said we'll go do a go feasibility study and we can who we'll lower the number to the maximize that we think that

market-rate developers can do and that is what that process is for so anyone that is concerned b about projects that came in after january 2016 they will be taken care of by the feasibility study so if you'll say i submitted my e a last week and in fact, only one market-rate project since january telephone, 2016 only one since january 2016 well and we discovered through the feasibility study that will be pled by july 21st we'll not make you to 25 percent we need more affordable housing and our goal to get the maximum that we can expect in terms of what they can build that's what prop c is so for mono that has concerns about that that will be taken care of in the future there are really none on this

board that wants to halt construction or development we all agree ear a growing city and we have to be in balance and not leave anything on the table we want the market-rate developers to contribute and not just market-rate housing developers as supervisor wiener appoint it is the city and property owners through the housing bond and through set aside at transfused, it is general fund dollars all of those things and developer fees that are helping us build more affordable housing it is also the contribution of a private community as well and i'm actively proud to say the developers that i district recommend - i want to appreciate that's the work of all the negotiations now in response to the facts if some of my colleagues say on 4 days to

consider the amendments it went under the planning commission the planning commission made a series of recommendations and in fact, we actually put most of amendments in and they've - their typical we bring this to those the planning commission they make the recommendations and ask the sponsors to consider a serious of amendments we make those and it comes before the land use committee i've not heard any containments so suddenly 4 days not enough we've done it multiple times before it i think is no a genuine criticism this happens amended and if you get the planning report those are the ones through the planning department i know that ann marie rogers is here to talk about the process long with the amendments they have proposed which supervisor peskin and i committed and

adopted several of. >> thank you supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam chair you know supervisor peskin has raised the prop c issue in terms of putting the affordability thresholds into the charter and i want to just note that that prop c was quickly adapted during times was passed out of this board unanimously supported by the mayor, supported by the business communities, by the affordable housing community, came out of actually a broad based transparent process i never heard supervisor peskin exclaim about prop c when it was pending at this board or during the protection maybe i didn't

hear all i agree that percentage needs needs to be taken out of chapter i don't agree can supervisor kim's statement this was the time to complain about the 25 percent when we put proximate cause on the ballot the whole point was taking the percentage out of the charter and establishing and temporary 25 percent threshold with the understanding that there will be trailing legislation that would then establish a more wrote a broad-based approach understanding not all projects are the same i don't know that is the case if you didn't oppose prop c you can have an opinion about welcome to the /* one line fits all it is clear this

legislation as present to us today without naming the projects is exempting certain projects from this increase is it so very, very clear the office of the legislation i've been talking to different developers nothing in appropriate but we know that they have been all sorts of negotiations in recent days and weeks in terms of what different kinds of xoems exemptions will be and what the cut offices will be and we know there are winners looser so not adequate 24 was drafted in the ivory tower and sealed off by the projects happening and not happening we know that was krachtd very much with the acknowledge which projects will be bend and which

projects will not be benefited i do think with should be attending otherwise. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair i first want to reiterate what supervisor kim said which is this trailing legislation didn't come along 4 days ago that was introduced a month ago it went to the planning commission the planning commission wrote up a staff report the planning commission reviewed it can supervisor kim and myself made changes with all due respect to my colleagues disingenuous to say it arrived 4 days ago the changes were changes that happened though the introduces processing that is a piece of legislation that has been around a month but through the chair supervisor wiener please tell me what are those projects what change needs to be

made to this legislation that is not uniform supervisor kim stated i stated this is being done absolutely uniformly pursuant to the unanimously passed reserves authored by supervisor yee we were getting approximately 200 units out of the pipeline that led to the one bum and is 2 and a half percentage bump so, please if there's a change your proposing that you on is parse of this backroom deal tell us what it is yes have i gotten calls from a number of developers who would like to make more money or who will be invented not one of them actually on one of them who previously spoke about who is a day late a directing short said this will kill the project not

one of them which is why you'll hear later on today from the representative who represented the maufrtd housing developers many of whom have long histories in that town that they actually port in compromise so, please through the chair supervisor wiener what you r are you talking about. >> supervisor farrell. >> all right. i'd like to take a second to talk to our in response to some of the comments i'd like to ask a few questions by the planning department it was referred to by one of my colleagues only one project that has filed an application since january 12th. >> one market-rate project. >> my understanding it is incorrect that there are now been a number of projects filed since then i want to make sure

we have all the facts as you. >> director rahaim with the planning department i believe that there are 5 projects filed since that date i'm actually checking the data but 5 projects since that date i'm not sure exactly on the totals. >> ignore him. >> i think there are 5 projects since january 12th. >> a rhetorical question in terms of this these provisions to our planning department as well were you involved at all in those discussions who grandfathered in or out. >> to the best of my knowledge i believe there was information traded in terms of data i don't believe there was discussed about the character or the types

of grandfathering that is to the best of my knowledge as and i as written something your supportive of. >> we certainly were here to present the planning commission proposed changes to the legislation se of which were incorporated into the revised draft. >> let's that speaks for itself and thank you for that just want to conclude i think we should respect the people that want to speak in public comment but i believe we need to promote building more housing especially in the city of san francisco and legislation that come down forward that kills over one thousand units of public housing and one hundred units of affordable housing we'll not be supporting here at the board of supervisors. >> thank you, supervisor

wiener and after this supervisor wiener comments we'll go ahead and go to the staffs presentation and take public comment. >> the planning staff there are various categories of grandfathering do you have a list of which projects falls into the categories of grandfathering how much can you go through public-private to start. >> good afternoon emry rogers planning staff i do apologize attire staff has been working on that and came out friday after 5 so the first public discussion of it and the commission was not able to hear the information so there are 3 proposed tiers that are described in the grandfathering the first will be for the projects prior to 2013 and that year or prior and we

have there are 200041 potential units in the first year between january 2014 to the ends of that year there are 18 hundred 78 potential residential unit in that tier b and tier c all the 2015 and up to the first two days of this year there are about 8 thousand 1 hundred and 23 dwelling units. >> do you have a list of projects that are not being grandfathered. >> so of those potential projects not grandfathered a total of 5 thousand 200 and 46 potential dwelling units. >> is that because i know

there is building over one and 20 feet at all or taller no grandfather and that's right building over one and 25 feet with. >> i'm sorry one and 20. >> one and 20 feet or higher. >> all right. so if you have a building that is your proposing one and thirty feet and you filed our environmental application in 2014 what is your affordability percentage. >> defense in the zoning district also. >> what would the range be. >> and it this for grandfathered rate. >> the new permit rates? for a project one and thirty

feet tall >> that filled the environmental application in 2014. >> i believe that will be 25 percent. >> right that was my understanding so for that kind of project they get no grairthd at all so even though they have been in the pipeline for several years they purchased their land based on certain assumptions without affordability, they went through the process, they're now do 25 basically doubling. >> so my incentive should the economic feasibility study has not happened yet; correct? >> that's correct. >> so how - obviously a

project becomes infeasible you could you know we instead of 25 percent say 50 percent or 75 percent has to think affordable some point the project is economically infeasible so without that economic faibd o faeshd how do we know from particular type of project that you know 15 percent is the highest feasible or 25 or 35 or 50 percent how do we know if we don't have the feasibility study. >> supervisor our right the feasibility is difficult and depended on the project with the economics the building prices of the reality market and unless our developer returning the performa we don't have the understanding newly we do our own feasibility study. >> we've not done.

>> that's correct. >> do you know how the number 25 percent has come up i know for the charter amendment the goal was to take the percentage out of the charter to ed set a temporary 25 percent with the understanding that we would then presumably both into through an analytical progress to say this kind of project 35 percent is the right number or 40 percent whatever the case for this project 25 percent maybe 21 or 19 percent to that was my understanding of what we are going to do instead putting in the grandfathering for the existing pipeline projects that will eventually be out the pipeline and built or not built

and further projects so this imposes on all of them if 25 unions or more inclusionary percent of 25 percent and what it sounds like that number was i made a comparison throwing a dart at a dart board 25 percent may sounds like i sound good but i've yet to see any analysis that links 25 percent to what is feasible for any kind of project we heard the other day treasure island was here for 8 thousand units project an upcoming e up zoning and all sorts of economic advantages that the projects don't have they tell us they were struggling to hit the 25 percent they'll do it because they have to but struggling for a large project so it is twoub we'll be asked to vote on prevention to set for future

projects and projects 25 percent threshold in no connective feasibility study whatsoever to determine whether or not it is feasible for those projects is the planning department able to say whether this legislation will maximize the production of avenue, i think our shared goal so have the most affordable units possible so will this legislation maximize production of affordable housing? >> supervisor it might be good do go into the presentation part of the presentation they're no support of that because of the long term it sets out the best practices model for doing a feasibility study and periodically and professionally

updating it so they have any additional recommendations when necessary said they'll support it but want to see it into the legislation some have happened but overall the structure will set the model. >> supervisor kim members of the jury that and, of course, it is good to do periodic analysis but the board of supervisors has to make the provision for 6 months or 5 years there was an analysis suggesting maybe instead of 25 but maybe 17 percent or whatever the case but in a political situation to lower the affordability percentage we heard from supervisor peskin krivenl criticism of the board in 2012 so am i correct it requires large project authorization a political decision by the board of supervisors or the future board of supervisors to make

those changes not like the the economic analysis happens in the future not self-implementing. >> that's correct no self-implementing nature so take another ordnance by the board of supervisors after the feasibility study was complete and we get a lot of reports from different depends suggesting we make changes to the legislation that often doesn't happen you don't need to respond to that. >> supervisor peskin. >> madam chair. >> thank you. i know we want to hear from the planning department relative to the presentation by from the patient members of the public but if i may through the chair to supervisor wiener a couple of things first of all, supervisor wiener i think you made a serious allegation which respectfully you've get to refute we've spoken to the

uniform way this policy is being applied but your line of reasoning and our line of questioning does not deal with the reality and the reality is that you are one of the lovingly unanimous members of this body that voted to put what is now prop c on the ballot that measure very clearly said that we were going to take this out of the charter you stated you'll agree and set an interim rate of 15 protecting and moderated income vote for that we all voted for supervisor yee's legislation that said that on or before the 31st day of july of this year 2016 we would have a fiscal analysis conducted

by an trusted independent corral that informs the board how we'll deal with that going forward i want to read to you and to the public the language if this matter that is before us it reflects the language that was in supervisor yee's resolution it sets forwards the good faith spirit of the negotiations that have been ongoing and it readers federal, state, and local the board of supervisors has proposed this is on page 43 of the trailing legislation this board of supervisors has proposed to the voters a charter amendment that will appear on the june 7, 2016, ballot the cheater amendment will authorize the city to enact i ordinance subsequent changes to the affordable housing requirements including to the minimum or maximize affordable housing obligates awe applicable to the

housing stock and on march first, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted the resolution 80 delaying that it shall be city policy to maximize the economically feasible percentage of air force and market rate housing to create housing for low income and slash middle-income households and two in the voters adopt this on adjoin 7 the board will adopt a further ordinance requiring the city 2k789sdz to have a feasibility study to maximize affordability in the affordable housing requirements this is that ordinance and 3 the future ordinance will create advisory committee to insure the feasibility study is a result of inclusive process the purchasing purpose to set the affordable housing ignitions in san francisco at maximum feasible

for the housing for he working-class and middle-income housing set forth in the charter and with the guidance with the nexus study you referenced that will be periodically updated and it goes on to say at subsection b we'll do a bio feasibility study and i'll read you, you all of that but everything supervisor you're speaking to is actually the subject what you vote so far not ones but twice the subject of the trailing legislation i have no problem if you want to oppose it but in substance of what you sport if you want to make a motion to there's the affordable housing so forth to uniformly apply that at one and a half and 2 1/2 you'll make that motion we'll vote on it here quite frankly the thing i think you owe the

supervisor a response to you've yet to give how your allegation with the backroom deals is true give me one example. >> not today we're about to again to the presentation from the planning department keep this moving. >> thank you, supervisors moore's planning staff i'm joined by the director director rahaim and the mayor's office of housing sophie hayward so today, i'm here to represent what the planning commission has to say they considered it on march 31st of this year and recommended a approval with a number of recommendations as you may know the voter removed this for the chapter this ordnance establishes the new rates and creates grandfathering and a

message for the periodic updates because of this the commission recognizes this as perhaps one of the most important observances of the year this ordinance energies the city to maximize the production of affordable housing and inclusionary housing with the most affordable housing with the market rate housing can only happen if we establish a review and update and this ordinance does that from the inclusionary rates are too low they're not providing as much affordable housing and from the production is low so it establishes the best practices not only by the regular study of and investment and response to feasibility but also establishes the best practices by building public trust given the importance of the feasibility study the ordinance establishes an open and transparent process that will be

reviewed by people with technical expertise and in the two prond approach with the transparent process the ordinance follows the best practices and set the needs for inclusionary housing on behalf of the planning department i commend the sponsors in the long run the city gets the most affordable housing no matter the marketing condition this was amended last week and somewhat different but you have the commissions full recommendations in your packet and i'll hit the major points we thank the sponsors for the approving the equity and the new version as postage's in the umu and the family zone and grandfather rates further and likely due to the speed of the process the first version has some of the

grandfathered lowered rates set lower than the existing rates this is corrected and now the existing tier rates of nuke reflects the capacity within the districts today the new version - only to in association with the concessions and the density the project itself so the commission made recommendations the most important ones we would like to drawing your attention to include the following the commission requested additional equity and viability to be grand parented raised and namely the muck is outstanding we're involved in the 2020 fetter effort to

stabilize the small businesses the second request that the commission i'd like to directing your attention without the fooebd that demonstrates the specific needs to differentiate the building types the issicomm asked for the building over one and 20 the same until studies that can for the rates by building heights and number 3 the projects which have been completed their commission hearing or the planning approval the commission add r asked those approved projects are exempted from higher rates if in their approved before the election on june 7th and in those instances the board feels those grandfathering provisions are appropriate the commission pointed out it is very limited window deadline will be 2018 our r for those projects to achieve their entitlements from the b b i and

the commission asks for those projects they wish to grandfathered 3 years and this is consistent with the conditional use authorization to complete the entitlement project after the approval if projects are not invested within the 3 year period they shouldn't apply as the current reverberation some projects with the e base will be technically allowed to use the grandfathering rates but have a difficult time of getting approval by 2018. >> and also in this proposed ordinance maybe some confusion been the terms middle and moderate income in consistence how those didn't exist in the proposed ordinance one of the last - the new amendments that was presented to the commission not yet analyzed

it was supervisor kim i guess that is one of the ones you handicapped to them the department in thinking about this hearing has concerns some of the amendments especially the location but all the size of the bmr units those requirement may have a significant impact on feasibility but no studies to truly understand the breathe of this impact and also this may be perhaps an unintended circumstance but two works in the permanent rates for is - the prmentd rates are a continent and not the tiers and then further those grandfathered rates for a u m u will be higher than the that

time u m u as proposed in the ordinance but that's not tint in talking about retalking with the staff that concludes the recommendations of the commission we need one more follow-up on the question in conversation with the city attorney correct the record on the question of the fees paid by a one hundred 20 feet building they certain can use the grandfathered rates the only place in the mission and the key districts, however, the two and 20 feet or higher elect to pay the fee they're not able to use the grairthd rates i'm hearing in the city attorney if she has a correction if she has it right. i have a wrong

the project sponsors based on the study in the future that is the best way to maximum the production of inclusionary housing. >> emry a couple of questions for the planning i have one in particular i'll put out there to the of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a the my understanding the way the substitute ordinance p is written there are inconsistent with way the umu is treated this could route in in newer projects actually paid less those that are grandfathered in explain with the planning department analysis. >> it is really complicated so i'll apologize at the beginning and do interrupt me if something is not clear it is possible in the umu to pay a higher rate and

this is because there were some set percentages that were added to the various tiers there are 20 tiers abc so if you are doing a dwrairth say in tier a depending on the date of the app it will be 28 or thirty plus or 33 percent whereas anybody that is not grandfathered will always pay 33 percent and if you look at tier c it is the most confusing in tier y c depending on the date of e e application your rate will be 32 or 35 plus or 37 percent and if you're one of the promotions that was not eligible for grandfathering because your new it will be 33 so grandfathering 37 and higher than the new permit rate of 33 and i don't believe that was the

intent. >> that was not the intent we're capping out at 33 percent thank you for pointing that out we hadn't realized had this change but to cap out at 33 percent per you know your pointing that out to us. >> thank you for your clarification. >> it should make the umu consistent. >> from a policy prospective difficult commission agree on the approach. >> it is part of the new approach the commission at that point looked at no reflection the capacity within the umu so after pointing that out it was in the grandfathered section but not in the permanent fee rates. >> okay. all right. thank you supervisor kim i see your name on the cue are you in line to

speak. >> i have a quick question do you have language. >> do you have los angeles you'll introduce today. >> so, yes. >> so we have the language on the cap of 33 percent. >> the uniform treatment of the umu. >> yes. to the point that was brought to make the nuke consistent with grandfathered or not in you're not grandfathered you, your capped at 32 but if not your capped at 33 and not above that that change we will i will ask this committee to make a motion to mainstreamed but to summarize by the way, so many numbers and technical adjustment the baseline the summon are in the substitute legislation following our hearing at the planning commission was that we are making the bumps the one percent and one and a

half for 2014 and 2 1/2 for 2015 including the eastern neighborhoods the umu and n u r so in response to planning department we did want to make that consistent abused we didn't grater in those paralyzes because the eastern neighborhoods plan states they can do more affordable housing so our original intent asking them to do more but now we're making urban forest the bumps to all of those projects the exception is for building at one 20 and above it is really because we firmly believe that you can do more affordability as you build for housing it will be seen in the past with previous developments that is the one exception to that rule so finally this is really a question i'm not sure if this go is to the mayor's office of housing or to the planning

department that it was brought up today a new point a feedback to the authors that maybe the bmr mixed requirement is not what the planning department wants to see in the legislation but actually, we anywhere the bmr language based on had was proposed at the mayor's office of housing and planning commission which say we expect the below-market-rate in condo built in the district i represented to be spread across the first 2/3rd's of the building and the reason we put that in and by the way, negotiated in fulsome and several others projects that you know there was a desire on the part of developers to put all the below-market-rate on the first floor and the 5 floor again, a compromise not the eventual 100 percent but a minimum that middle-income residents should have access to the bottom tier

of the building and - as well as on the bottom floors so the intent is the language if come out of our office we were simply mirroring language through the mayor's office of housing and so we wanted to make sure that was included in the legislation and, in fact, we've already negotiated this in several others developments that is the sustainability behind that language i wanted to ask the mayor's office of housing specifically about some of the changes that were made, of course, sorry to describe the recommendations amendment in recommend to 9 small sites project that is a key component of that legislation. >> sure thank you very much it is sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing and community development we have a

couple of recommendations and they relate to primarily section 415 plus and the existence we are hoping to insure insure that the inclusionary housing fee can, in fact, be used to support the small sites fund and the small sites project programming so our suggestion. >> i'm not sure ms. hayward what page. >> i believe 22 but section 415.2. >> got it, it is that have. >> thank you. >> our suggestion you add a sentence that will help use inclusionary housing fund to support the small sites and the incentive is on line 11 for the purposes to find if section 415 plus and the small sites program and it's perimeters of

periodically updated and administrative code protecting moderate income and middle income are together extended as affordable to household that earn or will earn an average of 80 percent ami i can explain but sierra club in the small site promissory note program we can acquire a rent-controlled building at risk of irving we obviously don't know the income of all tenants at the of the acquisition the building will reach an average of 80 percent ami and as the existing code as structured we're limited in spending inclusionary housing fees on projects based on the definition of low and middle-income before that. >> madam chair is not here can

you retina repeat those. >> ceremonial we add a sentence for the purposes of the small sites funds extended in section 415 plus and the small sites program and it's premiers as periodically administrative code by mohcd low income, moderate income and middle income are together defined as affordable to households that earn or will earn 80 percent ami so pretty confusing for the effort so limit that coincidence definition to the small sites application. >> we have a second chance i'd like to suggest as well and similarly this is only for implementation purposes that is to clarify that the income targets did i understand i'm still in the same section are

the original income targets that are applicable for the inclusionary housing program what i mean there are income targets that are defined for the program that are not in the sections that are amend their included in section 401 as a result this ordinance that two conflicting targets so assuming your intent to have 80 percent i going to be qualifying households for next door and 80 percent for - >> middle. >> no, i was going to say 100 percent ami for low income owner and 100 percent for middle-income and relents and 100 percent ami for middle-income ownership if i can find the page we would

need to amend section 415.6 a-3. >> what page is that on. >> page 36. >> and on line copy striking the reference any reference ♪ section to the term qualifying household not capital letters but it is a definition in section 401 that describes the discretion so you spike the qualifying household affordable unit on lines 15 and 16 and replace that with low income household and then also strike on line 19 the reference inform qualifying households and receptionist that with low or

moderately or - >> through the chair we have slightly what's in the board packet line 19 was struck months ago so can you help me out 415.6 sub a 1, 2, 3 all of sub 4 has been stricken so where i see qualifying household at the end of sub 3. >> and in the middle of that same subsection there are 2 references in subdivisions or subsection 3. >> in our - to strike our saying qualifying and low income. >> correct. >> and in our version at line 17 strike qualifying and say low income. >> i'll say protecting and million dollar and - >> no. you said it correct

strike it with protecting household. >> oh, i see got it. >> is it possible to get a copy so we can all look at it i get i'm personally supportive but want to make sure we're looking at the same wording. >> supervisor kim is that it. >> that's it. >> i want to go back to the city attorney and give deputy city attorney kate stacy an opportunity to talk about grandfathering. >> go ahead. >> madam chair deputy city attorney kate stacy i want to clarify the temporary provisions for building of one and 20 feet in height or greater from the building is providing onsite unit the only expectation from the temporary requirements are buildings located in the mission

nct regardless of their heights for the purpose of onsite housing or paying the fees the xemgsz exceptions from the interim gardener parenting provisions are either buildings one and 25 feet or greater or buildings located in the mission nct so for onsite. >> one and 20. >> i'm one and 20 ann marie found that. >> i hope that is clear the legislation as crafted only excludes building of one and 20 feet if offsite and fees provisio provisions. >> all right. thank you supervisor kim is your - >> question to the planning department. >> based on when supervisor kim was talking about maybe you can clarify for me and this is regarding the cap of

thirty percent does it not present all the projects uniformly. >> emry rogers planning staff i believe that as described the cap at 33 would still not acknowledge the different tier rates in the proposal so if you - set everything as 33 percent if an onsite instead of having substantially higher automates for abc in the umu. >> supervisor kim you have not looking to address that there are two ways to be consistent one way to say if you are you know at he will 2013 and get a one percent and 2 1/2 bump we treat everyone the same what it gets calibrated the offsite

and then 10 percent the problem if you are grandfathered then in some cases your bump at 10 percent you're actually above the 33 percent if we're to be twul consistent with all the bumps we'll not cap it at 33 percent but if we want to be consistent with projects not grandfathered those projects capped at 33 then cap it at 33 percent so that is you know my understanding of the discretionary pleased reorganizes is that not the case instead we're saying that - if the bad news are recorded consistent you might be at 37

percent we're saying guess what we firmly believe that 33 percent is the max if you're not grandfathered in 33 percent will be the maximums does that make sense. >> i've raised the capping it solves the grandfathered maybe paying a higher rates the other is other there but perhaps you're saying that is a policy call in the permanent rates tailor no differentiation about terse the raised are set the same for onsite and offsite and fees so regardless of the existing tiers within the umu zoning so. >> can we actually just walk through an example tier a or tier c and a 2015 project. >> so how are we treating those projects. >> you're addressing the

grandfathering rate because of the tiers i'm not talking about the permanent leases so in tier a currently the offsite requirement nuke umu 20 percent you'll change to thirty and tier b is higher than the 33 but still. >> those are projects not grandfathered. >> exactly. >> but it is consistent because ever any project regardless of umu now anothers thirty percent. >> advertised how you want to look at it anything after january federal and state, 2016 at 25 and 32 percent so that is uniform and i think that you know, i have to reiterate supervisor peskin point i mean we're treating projects uniformly i say guess the one exception we cap the thirty percent so from the bump up is different we'll keep you at 33

percent. >> i have a question for you either one of you i'm not sure which one were supervisor supervise can you tell me how current projects in the pipeline you anticipate will have the collaboration obligations. >> so through actually through the chair i believe that ms. rogers answered that 220041 projects that played phenomenon for an environmental application prior to 2014 will be affected in as far as they will get a one percent increase all of this is pursuant to the resolution that the e resolution we voted for on march first if 201418 hundred plus