hundred in the rents charged - we're producing new housing and with stableing the existing be stock you know that that is important to remember what we're talking about one slice of pie so we have inclusionary requirements with the crisis intervention recent ballot measure so paying for some share of new affordable units and we have underway a number of 100 percent affordable units in the pipeline we have prongs that are supported by tax increments financing through occ but those are limited in number of finite because the crisis intervention authority has end we're playing out and going back and mention the crisis intervention 100

percent affordable projects are highly dependent on tax credits with larger federal tax credits to make those feasible there's an argument that increasing the market-rate housing will take pressure off the crisis intervention accountable market but this is something we can't pull two many eggs in that basket and finally, the state has on the crisis intervention books for several provisions the crisis intervention city attorney says that applies to san francisco and this proposal in a moment is a response to making it more locally acceptable and workable on the crisis intervention existing supply we're not doing a good cyber the rent control is

eroding quickly - it serves the crisis intervention moderate to middle folks and through the mission district increasing the suit of tenants protections those are starving off evictions and trying to save the crisis intervention occupant in their units if answer the supply and a modest amount of units going on through the community land trust. >> small piece of the tilt one that is important to look forward to so here's how they play auto some of those in production numbers so again, this is not the preservation this the new unit side and how those play out in terms of incomes so we have an existing permanent

affordable base through those close to 40 thousand units in the city you'll hear a little bit later from the crisis intervention mayor's office of housing and they have between be themselves and ocii about 8 thousand i think that number has increased in the next 10 years 48 or 49 thousand this program is do not the individual transactions and this developers 5 thousand total affordable units they straddle a couple of income at the top because it is ownership and rentals this mirrors overseeing income levels 5 thousand predicted on the crisis intervention soft sites to take advantage and this is the whole program mixed as well as the crisis intervention 100 percent so you kind see the

total numbers if we're successful with those programs probably in the neighborhood of 52 or 53 units over the next 10 to 20 years so even that is just a dent in the affordable housing supply need supervisor peskin mentioned the crisis intervention general plan amendment this amendment will authorize subsequent planning code amendments by making it clear there is a derivatives to do so it is simply through the meat of that saying that it is policy of the city to encourage greater levels of affordable on site and the city any adopt the crisis intervention permits height increases and building mass increases those will be needing to be revised this is to create

more housing in general and more affordable housing in particular up to 5 thousand units and one of my programs we have that can produce some middle-income housing along with low to moderate housing quickly just so the audience what follow 3 slices of this program altogether one is on the crisis intervention left the crisis intervention state density bonus for providing depending on the rental ownership between 13 and 20 percent affordable they get a 35 density bonus and other incentives to determine if their needed and the local program we're talking about talking about for mishgd projects will require thirty percent accountable and would offer two stories of height increase and really from density controls

that are on based on the crisis intervention lot area again that is the focus of today's conversation is 100 percent housing so here again a little bit of detail that is allowed under the two local options this is an image one of many we showed with the neighborhoods and district here is a typical sort of commercial corridor with a height limit of i think 45 feet in this case with that is loud that corner building under the existing zoning that will be allowed if we're provided the crisis intervention thirty percent of affordable units and again, the one hundred affordable will allow 30 stories

and their density will be controlled by the building envelope by the crisis intervention forum in terms of and not applying to rh1 or rh2 districts the crisis intervention planning commission didn't vote as a whole to take action on the crisis intervention program details they did vote on the general plan amendments to approve that that is before you they've made no modifications and in terms of the 100 percent affordable program they felt no modifications were needed from the staff proposal on that and then finally with the crisis intervention mixed income program as supervisor tang referred to a number of recommendations that the planning commission made and they vote on those individually as opposed to the whole of the package know that is subject to great debate amongst you are yourselves here's the ones referred to earlier which would

be become part of the boards deliberations this will be in the mixed income housing paralyze with residential unit are rent control not eligible and the project notes a conditional use permit and other measures to preserve small business and neighborhood commercial corridors that are detailed and staff can answer the details if you like a series of other recommendations that the planning commission made which the crisis intervention legislation sponsor building will take additional work to study and to refine and those are the crisis intervention geography of the local housing program establishing a small business relocation fee perhaps and whether or not to pursue sort of

individual neighborhoods level adjustments to the crisis intervention memoranda inflicting income has part of criteria we say this knowing the conditions are changing in terms of policy and legislation the pending i think not yet certified on the crisis intervention inclusionary legislation at the ballot the controller's office is doing a study regarding that legislation which will look at the feasibility of projects with those inclusionary income levels and that report and study we feel heard will be ready in the late july or early august and then there are requests for changes from the board from board members anyway and from members of the community as well as the crisis intervention small business commission i believe so

this is the overview and the proposed action and the crisis intervention general plan amendment to which supervisor peskin alluded and again, this is the crisis intervention principle wording of principle section and there are details to it some asterisks and the crisis intervention 100 percent affordable housing we understand the sponsoring supervisors will like to move forward and again, the critical piece is these would be 100 percent affordable units that would be eligible for up to three storys and they're in density to say the number of units will be controlled by the former of the building as opposed to a lot per square feet of land ratio so with that, i'm going to turn it over to sophie hayward who

will talk about how the 100 percent affordable piece of this plays into their current work program and projects they have. >> good afternoon thank you very much i'm sophie hayward from the crisis intervention mayor's office of economic workforce development and as i can reiterate what mr. kelly stressed we're in a housing crisis at mohcd we create solutions for bringing solutions online and faster we're chars of dollars the first two items are related to keep that in mind more affordable housing we we want to like everyone want to drive down the costs for us that means maximizing the opportunities of driving down the per unit costs will help us to spread our dollars further

the proposal to create a affordable housing bonus program for the 100 percent affordable units is an opportunity that allowed united states us to maximize on appropriate sites quickly efficiently in a manner that respect the crisis intervention fabric of our communities this is on shot well street from the local bonus program styling this for shot well under the current zoning c interest it accommodates a work building this site accommodates 3 stories and 33 more affordable units for a total of 96 affordable units in this case for seniors without the local bonus program we'll have to pursue other rezoning we

know that a lengthy process or utility the state dense bonus that didn't carry the crisis intervention specific perimeters that are proposed by commissioner chung and the mayor and frankly by supervisor mar and supervisor peskin in the legislation as well and the second bite similarly the pub zoned sites on fulsome street is the crisis intervention streamlined to add the density and the crisis intervention surrounded this is zones for public but the surrounding area is height and bulk district and our plan to develop the site with a maximum of 85 feet in height with the stories and one and 34100 percent affordable units without a local program we'll have to pursue a new zoning through the crisis intervention legislation and precede with the entitlements with the local bonus program for the crisis intervention 100 percent units the crisis intervention entitlement timeline will be shorter and at

the same time the process will provide added certainly and predicament in the neighborhood shareholders mohcd is supportive and enthusiastic about the 100 percent affordable housing bonus program that incorporates the best practices for our projects by activate the crisis intervention ground floor of 100 percent affordable buildings in the neighborhood and community serving use as we've always done those uses are nonprofit and clinics and neighborhoods services we also are very supportive of efforts to assure that no residential unit will be adapted by not containing existing rent-controlled unit and restricting to more dense than rh2 i should say that has not allowing the crisis intervention rh1 and rh2 districts and then building on the crisis

intervention message and momentum started the crisis intervention board amazing passed the crisis intervention legislation exempting waterproofs of projects for the seeking of conditional use authorization so we thank supervisor tang and the mayor for addressing the portfolio and look forward to coming to an agreement on a program that advances the crisis intervention goals we share to produce more affordable housing faster thank you. >> all right. thank you. >> is that it the staff presentation okay commissioner chung any remarks before public comment. >> i'd like say that well, actuallyestore or reserved my comments i'm interested in

hearing the crisis intervention concerns raised by the crisis intervention. we'll go to public comment and a stack of public comment cards first is (calling names) and you'll hear a soft chime i so have 30 seconds >> i'll marla of north beach committee and we urge you to vote down the general plan amendment and support supervisor peskin and supervisor mar's density done right that includes and assures good selection no

displacement of residential or commercial tenants and very importantly we see this in north beach in other things that have been instituted this legislation will maintain public process requirements we in the committee are happy about the 100 percent affordable housing and we feel this legislation needs to be refined thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors in the planning department i'm from the san francisco tenants union and frankly i'm really surprised we're here again we've been here multiple times with multiple meetings and hundreds of people have come out to speak about a you call it mixed income we call

it a displacement plan a density plan that was not discussed broadly across the community and decided on within it was clarity and were there was an opportunity to participate this is the first we've heard about it operationally is today we believe there is only a dozens of so instead of a one hundred we thought we were talking about 100 percent affordable and those are the one hundred and i understand the mayor likes the idea and supervisor tang i like the fact that everyone likes the idea we thought weed come together tow to talk about those plans and pass something that is more affordable housing in the city but instead we have this

out of no where this new idea and it is totally confusing we don't know what is going on and not heard about what is going on i don't understand so i think we need to back to the drawing board and meanwhile think about tenant and merchant and neighborhood and include us. >> thank you. >> next speaker, >> good afternoon my name is a kathy i'm a member of the senior action and disability action on the board was a huge outcry that the east and west parts of city when the general plan or the affordable housing bonus plan surfaced last year the tenants and small businesses got together and supervisor peskin and supervisor mar with lots of communities input came forward with the density done right

alternative that must survive now with jurisdiction and displacement galloping forward in large parts of city that is urgent the 100 percent element becomes a reality real affordability must be connected to neighborhood memoranda income and tenants in the unions looked at the planning commission available 200 and 41 sites their got apartment buildings and businesses they must not don't worry about the community input and conditional use must be - the democratic foundation of any density bonus program thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm lauren i'm a lifelong voter in district 5 i'm but i'm also a member of san francisco senior population we're more than one hundred and 80 thousand strong sometimes not so strong we need to keep the residential units and the reasonably priced housing we have to need to keep that and if we get new affordable housing we need to be able to accommodate our mixed income i'm here to speak about the prbldz of supervisor mar and supervisor peskin proposal i speak in opposition to the density bonus developed by the planning department staff and the general plan amendment that was elected

24 plan will cover thirty thousand sites and disruptive and allow demolition and displacement and create market-rate and two limit affordable housing the supervisor peskin resolution was to - all itself pubically expressed needs of the tenant groups and small businesses groups, and affordable housing groups plus the recommendations that the planning commissioners at that january 25th full meeting the planning commission the contents was clear 100 percent affordable housing based on the neighborhood standards with the planning commissioners paramount with the cuffing no demolition no displacement limit the density bonus sites to verified the soft sites that are

abandoned i call those the neighborhood principles to build by. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm teresa from north beach also representing senior disability action and no displacement and no demolition i also support the density done right and again, it is thinking of what the incomes our seniors have in 2010 when the number of elder agencies created the senior tsunami it was called and that's; right when we saw incomes in my sdwrikts of 33 thousand as the medium income and for seniors that income has

not risen yes newcomers that have much, much higher income that skews everything, however, the reality that is as lauren said when 20 percent of population make less than 14 thousand a year make sure we have housing ti percent of evictions have been seniors or people with disabilities so again, it is thinking very careful very slowly about what is the best for the neighborhoods and our input so thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is george i'm president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and i too want to reiterate what was said earlier regarding we have not seen any of the

amendments and some of us came here for a little bit different hearing a broad consensus from a coalition of tenants and neighborhoods and small businesses and affordable housing organizations have helped to work together to create density done right the major tenants are affordable housing proposals and to insure the affordable units are affordable up to a neighborhood medium income the area where they're located select sites not diminished among existing - housing

conditional use does not displace neighborhoods and mitigate the impacts if any on pdr employment or nonprofit services that maybe on such sites and provide planning commission approval this is conditional use but we want to thank you for the changes and effort of the planning commission and welcome working with you and we want to thank you for we think we're headed to a much better bunch of legislation so thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> i have a couple of more speaker cards please come on up.

(calling names) please come on up. >> make can i speak for henry he spoke to him he's on his way he said he would be here in perhaps 20 minutes. >> please proceed. >> well, actually i wanted to let you know. >> he can speak when he comes thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors katherine coalition for eastern neighborhoods and first, i suggest you forward the general plan to the with a negative recommendation to the full board to vote down, and, secondly, i support of zions e supervisor peskin done right 100 percent affordable legislation so they're affordable and protects the existing housing does not displace the neighborhoods serving businesses those key

requirements are important we are buildings more than housing we're building communities and the type of housing and it's impact on the surrounding communities are issues that deserve public input and lastly in addition, i appreciate supervisor tang's efforts to introduce amendments to her own legislation, however, those amendments are new to us and need to be reviewed in the context of the full legislation before the public can understand their impacts and know what the result of the legislation would be beneficial to the community until this has been done he recommend that legislation and the amendments not be approved today for now every effort placed and only passed the supervisor cohen's one hundred affordable housing legislation thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'll call up a few more speaker cards

(calling names). >> good afternoon my name is tony rob less with senior disabilities action to reiterate what was said earlier this is important for the people that we serve seniors and people with disabilities and the overall community no displacement and no demolition and no displacement of tenants and no displacement of businesses we do support the density done right proposal that is property by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar that made one hundred affordable for the neighborhood income that is important we see the disparity of income that is striking between different districts in different neighborhoods and very, very striking especially our seniors make very, very little money that is very much

on the lower ended of spectrum that made lower by the influx of bigger money that is come in and skewed the numbers in severe way yes. the density done right by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon gym lazarus chamber of commerce thank you supervisor tang for taking on a difficult issue some of us have been around to remember when the city was perhaps nfl down zoned in the early 19 san jose and the housing development in all neighborhoods have suffered from that downturn and smart growth is needed not only on transit corridors in the eastbound but smart growth is needs on commercial district 90 in san francisco the legislation are before you doesn't demolish any

housing and not impact existing commercial uses but it brings a variety of housing stomp for working families as well as protecting residents by adding an increment in the different corners of city throughout san francisco as i listen to the opponents speaking phenomenally of an alternative piece of legislation how many housing and units can be built with the alternative legislation if we are going to build housing for market-rate housing we need to side 2 in all parts of san francisco where that make sense not just downtown and south of market we need to identify locations throughout the city that allows a mix of housing be built and the legislation introduced by supervisor tang is the first step and we support that legislation thank you. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> hi john winston i sit on a couple of cacs i come as a family member who is living in the city a working class a printer i print you'll our campaign materials and over the years definitely an important business in this town (laughter) i live in an rh1 neighborhood my kids go to mission high school i live in the west side of town and pay much more than 50 percent of income on housing this legislation especially with today is amendment will be really moving in the right direction i'd like to see as much housing built as possible with considerations to the neighborhood character anything can happen we working on this in my neighborhood we can build housing in the west side of how soon and e town and the east

side of town in a way to respective neighborhood character i'm depending on this housing to make the contribution i'll making to my family and political work and to my work and i also want to make sure my kids have a chance to stay here in a city they love and grew up in thank you. >> hello supervisors christie if spur the community director thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the avenues we applauded the planning department and katie tang to make the amendments in response to the concerns about residential and commercial displacement we urge you in support of affordable housing bonus program for the many reasons for in addition to increasing the overall supply of market-rate housing and enabling

the density spreading out housing across the city and creating a much need housing program for vacant sites and that's all about public subsidy we understand that supervisor mar and supervisor peskin have a competing proposal that offers 100 percent we're concerned by the limited aau mriktd and didn't address the states requirement for the states density bonus program will only create hundreds of affordable units and not take advantage of the construction of more affordable housing without density we urge to recommend this for approval like all housing solution this is not a magic bullet we hope you've move forward thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon andy west

side neighbor my wife and i rent we rented for thirty years we need more housing in that city my wife and i have been evicted in this century twice over educated noisy people like three and four get evicted there's a housing program i support this this is the 5 or 6 hearing i've been talking with people if we adopt the full affordable housing bonus program we will be complying with state law that's a good thing i'll pouted it will not create housing for my household i make two of money to benefit but maybe a little bit less pressure on the housing we have and maybe i'll not get evicted for the third time it is critical we build housing it

relieves the pressure and build horsz for the workforce and build affordable let's make sure we build housing for teachers and cops and firefighters we aau belligerent the folks to live in the city we can't afford to live in the city if you're a cop and firefighter not if you're a young cop next disaster i want to know there's cops in the city we need to build housing for them and everybody thank you. >> it was actually a function of a federal supreme court decision that said that cities could not require their employees to live within their jurisdictions. >> thank you supervisor peskin i'll call up a few more speaker

cards. (calling names) >> good afternoon. i'm patrick i'm here as a president of the south beach mission bay and an attorney my day job i think that i'm here supporting supervisor tang's affordable housing bonus program as amended i grew up mixing and recalling the building that has obesity inclusionary housing had 3 class units up for rents he shared it on facebook and within hours dozens of friends were calling and asking asking about it we don't hear about the demand for less housing we know how too well the number of people that make over that amount but under the - this program is needed the time is right to prioritize

the production of housing every analysis talks about the supply we're talking about middle-income housing and so we've got to get this done it is very important for the community and the middle-income to stay here we've heard over and over it is time to support commissioner sanchez legislation as amended thank you very much. >> thank >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors tim colen, san francisco housing action coalition. on three hundred members representation we stress our strongest supports for the ahbp proposal and want to also commend the mayor's office of housing and the planning department in the highest terms for the incredible research and analysis they've conducted to bring this policy forward it is is its been a long time coming and solid research that backs 2 we think that is

the city's best change to craft the proposal that will bring us in compliance with the stated density bonus law the number of projects that have been submitted to the planning department understates rules need clarification that is one not sure we can support conditional use for housing in particular conditional use for one hundred affordable it puts the pressure on the developer to say that housing is necessary and desirable in a city that hires attorneys to stop projects we can't say - we're not convinced the density done right is seems more limited than the very, very modest program is it so hard to imagine more than 1 hundred and 50 units in the next decade we can do more i say that

the ahbp peers to be precedent it anticipates the direction governor jerry brown is going the state has got to implement the principles and build for market-rate housing and use that tool to subsidies affordable housing as the governor says i'm not interested in state fund to pay for the housing this comes to us what we - >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> game-changer supervisors my name is ferdinand request the council of the housing i'm happy today last week, we won prop c i believe was endorsed by every one of you with 67 percent of vote that mandated 25 percent of our housing hobo accountable in every market-rate development

i'm a little bit confused why we're arguing over something that is going to get us thirty percent in exchange for some pretty amazing bonuses because we work for parents for this discussion we thought we'll be talking about waterfall affordable but i want to talk about this this is where some of the most amazing bonuses the rhd on the slope garden center and the irish hall they'll give a 5 hundred and 70 percent bonus to those property owners irving and terryville the they'll get a one hundred and thirty percent bonus to the property owners by signing a piece of paper right here

on the other hand, mr. collin talked about the bonus and part of reason why the planning commission did not recommend moving forward with the whole ahbp they understood that the feasibility study was complicate and frankly go i am measure random sites like slope boulevard or irving were not analyzed it is important that only the 100 percent affordable which i understand you all have been working on diligently be moved forward thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> supervisors i'm dennis i want to address the ahbp that cameo i from the planning commission without a vote or recommendation and only amended with without public notice it is to the planning commission

recommendations given oh, on february 25th it is arrogant this ahbp is mandatory demolition program and targets thirty thousand plus parcels so far as i know for displacement it is redevelopment under a cover of affordable housing i'm strongly in charge of affordable housing in their place will be 70 percent unaffordable market-rate housing and more for folks aribnb more than waterproofs ami and mostly affordable to corporate retail 88 percent of units and gardeners i'm a union guy automobile mechanics and clerical and cab driver and hotel and carpenters and more teachers can't afford the market-rate based program is not good policy if stabilize it disrupts and this proposal should be

rejected until development without displacement was introduced so we can be heard here the density done right is good policy and a tool to create affordable housing it is are supported by a broad consensus of tenants and small businesses and organizations and retail use and incorporates that prized the medium income and requires the planning commission for projects to insure those preconditions are followed finally unlike ahbp that represents the residents thank you and by the way, the general plan should be voted. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors henry with the san francisco counsel of the merchants

associations we're concerned in the small business world about the development we don't have rent protection and residential rule that people have and the evidence most have regular clients they come in here the displacement that is pretty much matt haney the business will be gone we should rethink the effect on displacements i'll urge to look at this and consider the proposals by supervisor peskin so thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> eileen a long time district 4 resilient here in opposition to the general plan amendments they don't rebuttal the amendments aurl under a consideration i'll urge the committee toe move forward with a negative recommendation the density bonus program urge

the supervisors to continue to stick to commissioner sanchez legislation with supervisor mar and supervisor peskin with the density dissolution right with the affordable housing component for the mixed income program to move forward we'll revisit the scenarios from last year like the community meeting at the ortega library the mixed income components needs to be served severed from the 8 hundred components and not move forward thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. this is testing wells fargo born with the 5 action and thank you supervisor tang for putting in no demolition of the existing housing in both of those this is great. >> thank you for hearing it. >> yeah. i'll encourage this committee to sever the two things the affordable housing and the mixed income housing

and go ahead with talking about the affordable how we can get that we have enough money in the city with the housing bond and other source of money to build macro maybe 5 thousand units of affordable housing so by working together you supervisors a ca can make that happen i'd like to call your attention if you haven't seen it the institute of government studies in berkley may published a study housing production and frirlts and they found was that in order to reduce the displacement pressure you have to build twice as many subtracted unit as market-rate and that in addition in areas like san francisco we have a

great deal of income differences and displacement that we cannot rely frirgs that more units will be affordable we have to do aggressive retention of housing stock and there are many other steps we have to take so let's work on getting your legislation and the other supervisors together and do a few more things get the general plan amendment begun so we can refine it thank you. >> thank you and any other members that didn't turn in a speaker card line up by the window. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm kathy the proposed general plan amendment is overly broad and

drafted to support all 4 version of the mayors proposed programs but i understand that all 4 may not be advanced the general plan should be rejected in its current form and trader to compromiseed version the local program - the environmental officer that a local project didn't cause a significant impact but the state law is the fair argument standard to determines under ceqa and in addition the proposed general plan amendment has significant impacts that must be analyzed in an eir and otherwise

objectionable for many my february letter and acts at a risk if you approve the amendment and the mayor's projects soon by rely on the i went for the 2009 housing element and the illegal eir is considered by the california court of appeal and it will substantially weaken the policies to avoid the impact into the neighborhoods character including policies and - afternoon units per -

>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors rose and was going to talk about what was posted on the website i see a change of part of what i'll read the original rhd back in 20156 categories and forwarded to the board with no recommendation even though i understand that planning was working on it for two years i'm part of coalition for san francisco neighborhoods land use committee and didn't hear it until close to the timeline it was sweet spot to be adopted so with this new middle-income housing program proposal i don't see any new

text and getting concerned that day today is the same process and if we do that again, i'm afraid 0 - they'll get rail rooted down the way i see issues no cu for the affordable housing only the mixed income housing and the sdebts on form rather than square footage of lot basically the zoning of lots and the ami needs to be refined and the general plan as written didn't incorporate the latest changes might as well forward to the full board with no recommendation no kumbaya and look at it both sides with the people that spoke earlier as well, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is laura first please

send the general plan with to the full board with a negative recommendation that is gratifying to hear supervisor tang talk about the affordable housing bonus plan the market-rate housing plan pro bono the demolition of all housing with the conditional use process but disstressing we are hearing about the amendments not seen the public outrage by the planning department occurred only after a huge displaced after we learned that the plan was rezoning the whole city over the holidays and today sadly this process failure is repeated according to kathleen in the sunday chronicle we are over producing market-rate but rents are not down in construction in rare case there's far out of reach below the reach of the

population we don't need more market-rate if i understand the amendments offered to the market-rate plan not addressing many of the problems raised with that proposal by the public and the members of the planning commission to continues to target directly demolition of neighborhoods serving businesses the very businesses that make san francisco a liveable walkable city we need a 100 percent affordable promissory note program and density done right by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar and 100 percent affordable housing with a density bonus needs and warrant a conditional use it is different from waving a cu with the local zoning thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> and again, if any other speakers wish to comment line up by the window. >> i'm koreay smith with the

housing action coalition i'm speaking on behalf of the three hundred members we support of affordable housing bonus program as is our organization has been involved in the legislation since 2014 both are business members had the opportunity to provide input and fully endorse that note just the two members of the organization speaking today that support we have additional 8 hundred signatures as well as 25 video submits to individual supervisors that were sent to the individual supervisors from supporters at work we've heard concerns of the avenues and think those are being addressed through not only the amendment today but looking back to my communication from february supervisor president london breed introduced her rent-controlled amendment before

the 25 hearing they've been online the hours actions coalition likes it i'm a fan of housing density i like the fact that 40ers of the units will be two bedrooms or more a agency a city i'd like to have a family some day and further that is a complete fungal inspection it is low and market-rate and associating economically city that i want to live in and additionally the market-rate housing will be able to subsidize that low and middle-income in a city not enough money more affordable housing lastly as repeated not one answer to the hicks but beg of you this is one of the pieces that helps not for answer it is really -

>> thank you thank you dennis san franciscans for community planning i want to concentrate on the service of businesses not adequately dealt with in the underlying issue the underlying program one is reminded the san francisco redevelopment projects in the western edition there were promises of the retention and preservation of small businesses that totally and completely failed no businesses survived during that process hundreds of small businesses were lost forever and as to this day really changed that community into one that is hardly a community not the basis of neighborhoods serving

businesses available to them the idea that somehow we will put off the question for future study didn't really make sense to me it is too important an issue to put off and find ways to preserve businesses a suggestion by staff was that we adopt the federal standards for relocation in cases where federal government takes over properties the small business commission looked at this question and be conducted lucked we've lost visually all the small businesses it will take a big, big amount to preserve and retain businesses that needs to be dealt would go things before not afterwards thank you. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> i'm shawn this proposal will benefit me but towards making san francisco a better place to live i sort of feel about the amendments that the alternative transportation represent status quo it's not good enough i don't understand how the status quo will help working people in the city especially those who don't live here yet but will i don't understand how this status quo will help small businesses so in my opinion is that you know this sounds like a reasonable modest approach i hope you'll approve 2 thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> and good afternoon members of the board peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. you know we have an opportunity moment today after months of contiguous process going back to september of last year and really a proposal that was much two complex and big to be coming out of planning commission to you and what we can do is focus on what everyone agrees to a first step 100 percent affordable projects not a small thing about creating certainties more affordable housing throughout the neighborhoods as you may know most of the projects are on the east side and a 3rd of city and difficult to have that certify certainty for projects in the neighborhoods that is a road map for that to happy in more places

and take advantage of that over time this is what this program does that builds the trusted and use 100 percent affordable as a test it's a case and thank supervisor tang for introducing the amendments today and for hearing some of the recommendations that came out of the planning commission but some of the recommendations came out a number of things they've suggested advocating for and 100 percent affordability is the kind of test case to do that and we're suggesting focusing on that and coming back in several weeks time and marrying those together and we're choking that we've committed to expanding the affordable housing and density bonus this is the right tool we

suggest you move forward thank you. >> thank you any public comment on items 4 and 5 please coming up seeing none, madam chair can we close public comment thank you. >> public comment is closed. at this time supervisor tang excuse me - supervisor cowen i see your name. >> i'm happy i mean - i'm happy to defer to the sponsor of the measure that is in front of us i'll reverse my comments if i want to proceed. >> thank you. i presenter all the public comment and couple of points i want to address first of all, i'll repeat one more time one of the major amendments i'm making in the program we're pro bono the demolition of existing residential unit that includes rent-controlled unit and the affordable housing bonus plan

that is an amendment that again supervisor president london breed announce we're putting it into the legislation today hopefully and in terms of demolition concern i hope that easy it we're prohibiting the demolition of residential unit for the mixed income and the 100 percent program a - secondly, i know that some folks have been mccomments about not knowing about the full ahbp and feeling like the information was - actually our ahbp had both component waterproofs program since 2013 when we first explored it second thing i want to bring up that all of the amendments i've property were discussed at the planning commission so we're also not

trying to pull anything over one oman those were recommended and discussed we agreed to make as many as we possibly could i know that more can be done in the preservation and we're not trying to punt this off to future studies we can't draft it legally with the supervisor peskin density done right we can't draft we're not trying to delay this and in terms of the timing of this i know that the last one of the comments were not try to jam so quickly we were perfectly willing to wait for the faerld and until moving with any part of ahbp given there is a 100 percent

program that is introduced we've triggered the conversations otherwise we were perfectly willing to look at the faerld in terms of the parcels being able to build more affordable units and move forward with a map of those eligibility sites lastly i'll say that in terms of the alternative density done right many elements similar we had a 100 percent program in our component i know that is the focus of supervisor peskin and supervisor mar's version, however, i'll say that don't believe that anyone can truly say they support affordable housing if we put more restrictions on affordable housing and one of the things unfortunately, i disagree requiring a 100 percent affordable i have no problem with mixed income but for 100

percent i can't agree to, and, secondly, not agree to restrict parcels for we're eligible to build one hundred projects on yes for mixed income i'm going to consider for restrictions but for the 100 percent that is a reminder we build one or two each year why should we put more restrictions on the program that is a few of the things two points i disagree with but for example, preservation of businesses all that that that supervisor peskin said we didn't want to include with that said, colleagues i'll ask you adopt the amendments i have proposed today all that were discussed at full public hearings and what i'll like to suggest then we

duplicate the file and we move forward to the full board 100 percent program as a slightly amend that was prohibiting the demolition of residential units to the full board. >> thank you very much i see we've got some remarks from supervisor wiener. >> excuse me - supervisor peskin. >> i'm happy to jump in at this point so first of all, let me agree with many of the speakers from both sides i agree to expand the toolbox particular more affordable housing we're doing that either accessoriesy dwelling unit originally appear in other words, by supervisor peskin and contrasted by the institutions of individuals that

have taken hundreds of units off the market where the short-term rentals or prop c embraced by the members or the affordable housing bonus plan which by the way, has been on the books in the state of california since 1979 and accommodated through the use of suds over time and i agree we need to get our hands around and with all due respect to chamber of commerce and spur and with all due respect our planning department a much more enlightened planning department in the days of justin justin herman we've made terrible mistakes that have ripped communities and we need to rather than do this in a ivory tower figure out ways to increase our production of

housing particular affordable housing and make sure that we have communities that stay intact and not evacuee people i'm delighted the planning commission made that recommendation and delighted that supervisor president london breed didn't to the gentleman of the action housing coalition didn't introduce those amendments but their before us quite frankly not saying this in a bad fashion our eiry tower smart educated people came up with a plan that actually did not have those safeguard and if not for this robust conversation over months we would not have come to that conclusion we need to get it right for small businesses as well i hear people speak to the fact that the planning commission made those recommendations and

while it is true that the version of this legislation that supervisor eric mar and i introduced incorporates more the planning commission recommendations particularly and in the study that the planning department staff did with david barker that produces 5 thousand approximately 5 thousand units of affordable housing in those locations without displacement or what have you i lost my train of thought for a second ahbp offering we're under no obligation to accept the planning commission represents i don't want to come long and say the supervisor mar and supervisor peskin reflection requires cus and those are incorporated in the mar and

peskin legislation but supervisors by a majority vote can choose to accept the recommendations or not i want to make that very clear what i would like to do is duplicate the file and amend in the density done right cute name and then then have to be referred to the planning department for environmental review it will not need to go back to the planning commission i'm keeping out the fee provision that would trigger another planning commission hearing that's the same advise i've received from legal counsel and want to make a motion and then to my colleagues that are member of the land use committee, however, you want to do that i prefer to send that recommendation do not ask as to

item 5 but send it without recommendation and accept supervisor tang's amendments so that when the planning department has reviewed the duplicated file for environmental determination we'll continue this conversation i think we're moving together i think there is more to be done and i actually would like to get the representatives from the counsel of the community housing organizations together with supervisor tang and myself for on offline discussion negotiation in the days ahead so those would be my motioned. >> all right. thank you very much supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair i don't think this legislation has nothing to do with with the

ivory tower this legislation frankly about the reality that we face in san francisco where we are in a deep housing crisis because we don't have enough housing we have 200 thousand more people than 1980 i know that supervisor peskin disputed those numbers last week at the board of supervisors if you look at the consensus 15 hundred and now 8 hundred plus next a million and in the bay area 2 million like 2.5 million people since 19 not an ivory tower we need more housing in the city and affordable housing we need more housing overall period and this program this affordable housing density bonus program is a very eloquent way of coming

out of ivory tower and putting for housing on the ground in a sensitive way in a way we'll generate new housing spread across the city and not concentrated in a few neighborhoods and generate below-market-rate subsidize affordable housing at zero cost to the taxpayers that is what this is about and it is very tangible and real and we need it you can't talk about reducing displacement without actually increasing housing we will never be able to address displacement in the city in a meaningful way unless and until we creating enough housing to house the population a part of displacement a lot of people want to live in a limited

horticulturalist and you vw have competition for the heirs and people get pushed out and this program again as planning department noted it not a silver bullet will you helps us generate a significant amount of housing i'm appreciative of commissioner sanchez amendment particularly the amendment that prohibits the demolition of housing and city housing that's a concern that have mine as well as when it was first introduced that's been corrected i'm appreciative for that so i would to supportive of this entire program, of course, he support of 100 percent program but the 100 percent program it will produce affordable housing it will not produce anywhere near the affordable housing that we need let alone housing overall affordable housing subsidize affordable housing is

incredible important we all support it and want more subtracted affordable housing by itself will not solve the housing crisis one piece of the puddles not solve the problem we have to have more hours of all types of that program will help us create that housing protecting hours and my mind hours and market-rate i support that the density done right program to me is absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot it is limiting to 100 percent affordable and then saying we'll make it extra hard to build affordable housing there are many roadblocks even to build 100 percent affordable housing and we this board just passed legislation earlier this year to

remove conditional use requirement for 100 percent requirement why put obstacles in the way of creating 100 percent affordable housing so those colleagues my take on this legislation and i look forward to the continuing conversations today. >> great, thank you my question is for the planning department and supervisor peskin let me know if you want to jump in one of the proposals i've heard from the supervisor peskin supervisor mar version of the legislation that new neighborhood basis the ami system based on the ami with an within the neighborhood so i don't know who can answer that the concern i have is that it seems we'll be getting away from a movement trying to get away

from the old ways of thinking with the concentration poverty let me back up so the details are not clear perhaps start there on what the ami levels will be and how you'll will be defining the neighborhoods and the formula you'll use to come up with a ami level and for like the bayview community there are low ami levels it make sense to keep something low perhaps arbitrarily low but it seems like it keeps the ami level low artificially and never

allowing full fluid upward mobility in building a difference mix of housing opportunities you know available to the neighbors so help me reconcile i don't know if i love or hate it (laughter). >> good question. >> now director rahaim the issue you're referring to say out the middle-income by the way, the income was too high relative to the medium income of certain parts of city the represents out of the planning commission to look at specifically at income levels to see if that level the program could be reduced to recognize

the income and recognizing that housing costs in those parts of city are less because of land use that was really that discussion we've not developed the specification but consider in the next round. >> have you start moving do you think that path. >> we've not made conclusions. >> what exactly are you going to the analysis have you figured out your methodology that already exists to come up with this formula. >> sure to our point a relatively new idea we've been working with the mayor's office of housing and community development to understand our oufshz respect this idea of making sure the housing in each neighborhood is affordable so the people that live there for the so far to your point we're concentrating poverty in each

neighborhood this is scoping out the approach and look at the neighborhood ami and another thing that might are more compelling look at the fair market on the other hand, so we want to connect and develop those ideas and work with stakeholders to be insure we're balancing the two competing policy objectives to move forward with that kind of policy. >> have we identified which baseline you'll be using to figure out the ami as the economies up and down to individual households income so are you bays it on a robust or maybe my assumes is incorrect with. >> the amis it would be easy.

>> a question if a building is built does the ami change - >> when year do you use are you going to be selecting from 1985 or 2000. >> we'll use the previous year. >> and then every year updated correct. >> i'll imagine the bayview from the neighborhood has changed dramatically even in the last 6 years i've been on the board of supervisors there have been wealthy gentrifying versions with the ami you'll use in the baseline i guess how do we reconcile and - how do you get manage that the fair - from what i understand not prices people out of the neighborhood is that why we're using the ami.

>> that's the logic behind that idea. >> which i'm baseline are - do we use. >> our first instinct the annual but the thinkibut takes summary to understand how to functions with the intended or unintended consequences of using that methodology would be. >> you mentioned about the costs of land did that mean you'll use an annualized average for the cost of land like did boyfriend for example, to afford to factor into our ami formula. >> that would be a factor yes. >> so i'm going to be watching that closely naturally i can see

both sides but i'm concerned because the experience on a daily basis what happens with you concentrate property it leads to a generational poverty i don't want to put forward a policy that has - with don't tensions but end up hurting a neighborhood in the long term i understand this conversation is early hoped to be helpful in the discussion as we map out what exactly 2 will look like and how we'll go about the evaluation. >> thank you supervisor tang has something to say. >> i appreciate your questions around the neighborhood ami i share the same concerns, however, we didn't propose the ami for the mixed income program in the density done right version a proposal for neighborhood ami system which to me didn't make sense for a 100

percent program i like to call up sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing to explain that. >> how it will even work. >> thank you very much you're correct the proposal to use an up to 100 percent of the neighborhood zip code hiring we're required when we use federal take credits to limit the affordability to 60 percent of city's i'm the majority the vast majority of neighborhood 60 percent ami users that high number is less than 100 percent of the neighborhood ami there are a limited number of

neighborhoods very limited in which we would have to make the units less expensive than in the typical affordable housing projects pursuit that is very limited i'll say 3 zip codes has an ami that is lower than the 100 percent project. >> did you know the 3 zip codes. >> supervisor peskin has a question as well. >> sophie hayward for everybody's information do you want to let us know what the the 100 percent and one 20 percent and one hundred and 50 percent of a san franciscan. >> you can go ahead answer that question about the zip

code. >> kate had a rightly 2016 and 75 thousand for two people that is 86 thousand plus and for a household of 396 thousand plus that's one hundred of area memoranda income. >> at one 20 and one 40 is what one one percent 9 thousand plus and 3 people one hundred and 16 thousand and for one 40 is one and 550 two people is 26 hundred and one and 35 thousand for the 3 people as you may know the vast majority of housing we build is two hours at or blow 60 percent

of area memoranda income within our development we include the set aside for homeless individual our average hovers 40 percent on average because we set as the target 50 percent of ami for most units but in some cases to a maximum of 50 now we have neighborhoods that have very, very low medium incomes those are the tenderloin, treasure island are. >> do you know what - >> can you call the numbers. >> the medium income for the tenderloin is thirty thousand plus dollars and so for a family household of 2 that's around 35 percent of area medium income

treasure island is a special case, of course, because a transitional population, chinatown the medium income $28,000 and for a household of 2 that again is around 35 percent of area medium income have to small universe of neighborhoods that have very stealing protecting 40ur8dz those are development with a high number of sros and my office is working on a sro acquisition rehab program to take our resources and target those special cases because in those developments it is very hard to finance an acquisition under any circumstances. >> have you considered public housing as well. >> i don't know if you know the numbers you mentioned the

tenderloin, you mentioned chinatown. >> so the tenderloin and chinatown virtually every neighborhood has public housing we are go rehabilitating 35 hundred units of public housing the average ami for the public housing residents is actually less than $20,000 a year so those households are at the 20 percent of ami level and we have putting enormous amount of resources to protect those households and preserving that housing for the long term it was actually at risk of loss. >> can you give me the i'm levels for the valley neighborhood visitacion valley medium family income is $50,000 and for a household of 2 that's about 60 percent of area medium

income for households of 3 around 55 thank you those numbers reflect sunnyvale public housing. >> yes. thank you all right. supervisor wiener our name is next no supervisor tang one thing i want to address regarding the demolition of existing affordable units i'll take full responsibility for touching not included as a prohibition in the protective, however, the planning department staff didn't take into account the 5 thousand units were be demolishing arranged not part of their calculations lastly i know that we are going to talk about the inclusionary housing requirements and we have heard in previous hearings along overseeing debates that in order

to achieve 25 percent or more affordable housing on the projects there is some sort of will public subtract that needs to be permitted i think that 3 ahbp it has has to do with with that conversation i think we should continue that conversation when our faerld is completed that concludes the comments for today and urge this committee to adopt the amendments and recommend we duplicate the file and send forth the 100 percent programming program there is a lot of interest and love to see us build 100 percent projects here in 0 san francisco sooner than later so what we'll do we'll take action on the supervisor tang's amendment a series of amendment that were read into the record and the language is circulated

we're good to go no okay. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> you may be good to go i'll suggest it so you would this committee supervisor tang and supervisor peskin are talking about 3 versions and supervisor tang's version the original go which will be amended to include the early notifications and prohibit the demolition of residential unit and excluded you have been been the 100 percent affordable program is that note right. >> i mean there are a couple of things requiring the conditional use. >> that's in the market-rate. >> yes. so the 100 percent yes. the prohibition of occasion of residential unit. >> that's version one 100 percent but the occasion of residential unit and require an early notification and a member

of the committee can duplicate the file and in the second version you'll have supervisor tang other set of mixed income programs and in the third versions the second duplicate you'll have if the committee adopts supervisor peskin amendment you'll have basically striking out more or less all the text between pages 52 and 51 in the ordinance that is before you and replacing with the text of supervisor peskin and supervisor mar's legislation without the fee waiver piece. >> thank you all right. thank you again we'll take supervisor tang's amendment first yes, we can would you like supervisor tang.

>> i can read into the record first i'll make the motion not make the emotion but read into the record the amendments to be made to the 100 percent program which is prohibition of the existing residential unit and early notifications for businesses which would take place no less than 18 months to the tenants and oewd. >> okay. >> i'll move that amendment motion has been made to move the amendment can we take that without objection? without objection those are accepted >> through the chair the records for the mixed income program number one prohibit demolition of existing residential units and number two require the conditional use authorization process thirdly, we direct the city to explore establishing a small

business and frifrl as well as other small business preservation tools fourth to require early notifications for commercial tenants in response 18 months to the tenants and oewd and fifth a finding sections with the exists tools and support for the small business tenants and lastly i neglected to mention which i thought we were going to make looter is include at the ground floor level active uses any neighborhood commercial uses demolished. >> excuse me - >> do you want to duplicate the files first and ask for the changed amendments. >> no. >> i mean there are part of different things done before the divide the file. >> we're talking about 3

different pieces of legislation. >> i'll defer through the city attorney but with an go mixed income program. >> no need to duplicate the file. >> afterward. >> after the amendment. >> right the amendments that you just made basically strike all the mixed income pieces out to include only the 100 percent affordable that's what i believe that commissioner chung was - >> what ever happens that is pilot or all goes out if this was to proceed those amendments will be in the same legislation some from the same income i'd like to put the amendments in to have a discussion where to split things out or not. >> that works for me. >> i'll move the amendments with the mixed income program that supervisor tang articulated. >> all right. can we take that without objection? colleagues without objection

move on now thank you supervisor tang for your amendments supervisor peskin you had a couple of motioned or one >> as stated by scombrib e john gibner, deputy city attorney i'd like to duplicate the file and strike out the new text in section 2 and 3 which would be pages 2 to 41 and amend in the density done right ordinance that we introduced last tuesday and leave in supervisor tang's amendments to section 250 and 60 and not have the fee provision as state by mr. gibner and like to have if those amendments are cemented to planning for an environmental review. >> supervisor wiener a few thoughts. >> i don't support this motion

supervisor peskin and supervisor eric mar can have their legislation i don't support this density done right it makes it harder to build affordable housing. >> commissioner peskin can you tell us why you and supervisor eric mar didn't introduce the legislation. >> we did introduce this legislation was introduced last tuesday and in order to i think facilitate the conversation that is evolving amongst stakeholder and supervisor tang and the mayors piece of legislation as well as mine and supervisor mar's that brings that conversation more together quickly if we don't it is referred to the planning commission for a hearing and take a lot longer to hear the legislation side by side and whatever problems to the forged.

>> well, we have the motion before us commissioner nakajo you have remarks. >> okay. let's roerpt. >> supervisor peskin supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen no you're one i and two notices with supervisor wiener and yourself december inventing this motion fails thank you so much any other business. >> wait item 5. >> all right. >> any need on the item was on item number 4 would be two amendments that were accepted you'd like to submit to the board with a recommendation. >> so through the chair i'd like to now that i believe i don't know if that motion is made to duplicate the fielgz but send forth the 100 percent program. >> no that most needs to be made. >> if i ask request the

committee to make that motion. >> motion to move supervisor peskin is that a motion from you. >> no okay. >> all right. motion made to move forward that one hundred program supervisor wiener would you like to make that motion. >> so the file is now duplicated. >> no - >> can i i'm confused. >> about what was proposed. >> i'm sorry two proposals by. >> can you talk louder. >> two amendments by supervisor wiener the demo and early notification and the income program so wait we've not taken a motion whether or not it is a positive recommendation. >> right for the full board with a recommendation or duplicating i know that failed the

duplication. >> no recommendation to the full board. >> that's the language of motion that's - >> has anyone made a motion. >> no. >> anyone has made a motion. >> supervisor peskin has duplicated the file so right now you have two versions of file that are identical and supervisor peskin that amendment failed two versions of file now before you in the committee. >> okay supervisor katie tang what were you asking. >> thank you you've adopted the amendment for the 100 percent program and then i'd like to duplicate the file so one version that stays in land use committee has all the components that both mixed income as amended and then one version has just one hundred program and that was forwarded to the full board. >> even though ideally i'd like to see that move forward

but at that moment in time move out the 100 percent to the full board. >> supervisor peskin as you let's deal with political realty without the amendments i've offered this committee killed the version you want to send to the full board is not going to identify more is the general plan so we'll wasting time. >> we're making a record of this the discussion for faster generations to come back and review supervisor wiener. >> yeah. so i would hope that once this comes to the full board that the board of supervisors will engage in a good debate about this and i don't know what will happen i can speculate but i also think that there's value to having a debate at the further be it resolved or members of the board of supervisors so they can go on record and say where they are

and people want to make it easier are harder to create housing put more obstacles in the way of building affordable housing and do we want more housing to our kids and grandkids can live in san francisco or make that has hard as possible to build hours so the average rent is $3,500 a month or people get evicted and have to leave san francisco for anywhere to live i'm happy to have that debate and my view that had happy again but a worthwhile i prefer to move the legislation how the commissioner nakajo is the author and i'll defer to her deserve my prefer to move the entire piece of

legislation out both the mixed income and the 100 percent my understanding that supervisor tang is not moving both out it is a compromise so the conversation can moved in good faith additional showing she's interested in extra dialogue let's honor the makers desire and one of the- i'd like to make a motion to put in the 100 percent and the demolition of existing units and also amended to reflect the amendments on rh1 and rh2. >> yeah. you did. >> for density bonus supervisor wiener. >> those - motion for one of the duplicated files to strip out everybody with 100 percent program and then we will send that 100 percent to the full board and then take the other

unamended file or the file that championships the complete program and continue to the to the call of the chair. >> is that a motion. >> yes that's my motion. >> thank you very much comments. >> that's for the 100 percent with positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> so at the full board i'll make a series of amendments with regard to the conditional use and other things that and so forth in the density bonus and take them in order next tuesday. >> supervisor tang. >> i'm fine with that if that's how you choose to move forward i've been open to working with everyone on the boards on the entire affordable housing bonus program but if you you know folks choose to introduce their own legislation they're entitled to do if that's how you want to

negotiate that's fine i'm fine with holding people to the record more obstacles to building 100 percent affordable housing projects let's do that that way then. >> i don't want quibble but the creations of suds and going to you krufs is responsible legislation that actually removes barriers in is an appropriate fashion it honors our neighborhoods and city and gives people a vices in the process. >> no more quibbling we'll do a roll call vote. >> the the motion moving forward to adopt the two amendments by a maid by supervisor tang and duplicate amending the 100 percent.

>> the motion is madam chair if i may my motion to take one version the duplicated file and to remove the mixed income program so that it is limited to the 100 percent to forward that to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation and the other duplicated file that will contain the complete program to continue to the to the call of the chair. >> so let's breakdown into two votes okay. >> so first, let's remove the two files that's been duplicated remove the mixed income program and then i move forward i personally don't want to positive recommendation but move is forward supervisor wiener will you honor that.

>> i prefer if - i'll prefer moving the entire program with a positive recommendation and move out the 100 percent only so that the conversation can continue around the mixed income i'll prefer to move the 100 percent program out with a positive recommendation that's my preference. >> i understand your preference. >> that's fine our preference i don't support that with a full recommendation let's do a roll call vote with the first - >> what. >> remove the mixed income without objection. >> that's what we'll do move and recommend. >> remove and recommend but the thing is i'm sorry. >> why not. >> - we can remove the mixed income and duplicate to the file and send it forward the 100

percent only with no recommendations as the chair is proposing i think that gets us to the conversation with we all want to have on the 21st to the board. >> that's without objection. >> just to be clear prefer with positive recommendation in the jirnt here for the motion to limit it to one version to 100 percent to put it out with no recommendation i'll support that motion. >> all right. madam clerk do you get all that. >> and condition through the chair. >> that motioned pass and it unanimous the second portion of that we'll need to do is take a - i need a motion. >> i'll make a motion to send

the general plan with a recommendation do not pass. >> okay. let's roll call vote. >> supervisor peskin supervisor wiener oh, no, i'm sorry on the - and on the general plan no. >> supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen no you have one i and two notice with supervisor wiener and supervisor cowen. >> any other motioned. >> on the general plan. >> move forward did not move forward to supervisor wiener. >> put it out of committee or table it. >> we'll not table it but make a motion to send is to the full

board without recommendation. >> i would - >> motion made and i prefer we tackle this. >> thank you okay roll call vote. >> and before discussion on that that just means it gets pulled pursuant to 3. 37 if that's what you want to waste another piece of paper we can do that. >> roll call vote. >> roerments supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen one i too notice with supervisor peskin and supervisor wiener dissenting motion passes. >> no, it fails. >> i'll make a motion i move we forward item 5 the general

plan amendment we move item 5 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> roll call vote. >> supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen you have two i's and one no with supervisor peskin december inventing. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, we hope you enjoyed that democracy to the board of supervisors i believe you have to duplicated version of the ordinance. >> i'll make a motion to continue to the through the chair that passed amazing thank you, mr. city attorney madam clerk anything else. >> there's no further business. >> >> thank you very

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today.

>> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off

the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center

so come

>>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco budget and friends committee for wednesday, june 8, 2016. my name is mark farrell. i'm sharing this committee and i'm joined by supervisor norman yee and scott weiner and we joined by supervisor jane kim and katie tang. i want to thank sp keady sfgtv any announcements? speaker please sounds cell phones