afternoon and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, march 16, 2017, i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner fong commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner koppel and we will expect commissioner johnson and commissioner vice president richards to arrived commissioners, the first item on your agenda approve with conditions item 11058 mississippi street proposed for continuance to april 27, 2017.

further commissioners under the discretionary review receive calendar a request for item 17443 everson street discretionary review for continuance to april 6, 2017, no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> okay. thank you any public comment on the items proposed for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. open up to commissioner comments proposed to continue item one as noticed and item 17 for april of. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner on that position to continue commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore

and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners that places us under our consent calendar all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 2423 10th avenue conditional use authorization and item 3 for case 49 kearny street mandatory discretionary review commissioners, i have one speaker card for item 3 and 49 kearny street did you want to pull this off of content then. >> do you want to pull it off

of content. >> you can request this item is pulled off of content and heard during the regular calendar 0 would you like to do that if you have concerns with that. >> okay. >> okay. thank you any other members of the public would like to speak on items two and three pulling them off content? so seeing none, commissioner moore >> i'd like to pull items 3 off content and move to approve item 2. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners then on that motion under the consent calendar commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and a for members of the public who might be interested in 49 kearny street

that will be heard at the beginning the discretionary review calendar prior to item 15 after the cu item 14 jonas you may want to let people know people here in the calendar we can't hear any items until after 3. >> items 9 and beyond or after will on be heard after 3:00 p.m. the bulk of the matter we expect to take 88 to the p.m. and draft minutes for march 2, 2017. >> any public comment on the drefts seeing none, public comment is closed.

move to approve second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for draft minutes for march 2, 2017. commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners, that places you on item 5 for commission comments and questions. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to bring to the decorations attention something that has definitely worst discussing in his participate in the regional participation of how to grow the bay area about a week and a half ago that was a 1.2 acre site in front of the noah valley planning commission that was egging suggesting 20 between on a one acre site today we are looking at the point 6-acre site with one and 27 dwelling units one for 2-acre

and 20 dwelling units and today point 6 acres for one and 27 dwelling units i'm asking about the regional entity i'll give you the article it is worth discussing participating and to the ones stragglers thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> i read that there was a court case the supreme court sited on the personal electronic devices we got a very, very large encompassing records request i'll ask we have a closed session with the city attorney on the in and out of that ruling and what that means for us and whether we have an issue by the city, etc. and i don't know if i or

other commissioners are concerned i request a closed session with the city attorney. >> thanks disclosure. >> i ran across an e-mail i did my sunshine training that is on hours worth of mrnsz of what to do and not to ddo i can't tell what the instruction that commissioner vice president richards is suggesting i'll strongly support we consider such a session. >> we'll put that on the calendar any other speakers thank as commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to department matters. item 6 director's announcements. >> thank you jonas and good afternoon, commissioners two announcements today you may recall today was a place holder on today's laundry for a discussion on the progress report for the academy of art the reason we again include this in today's calendar we're working

through issues the academies da application is so far not full complete we're making process in regards we're asking items to support their application for the agreement some are met and some in progress we're hoping that will be resolved soon to move on with the next round the discussions on the developments the next hearing with you on your calendar regarding april 27th second an announcement of an event coming up we're co-hosting to saturday the 18 infrastructure planning and the public works department are hospitality a day eco fair at warm a water coast a park from 9 to noon with informational

bothers of tree care and environmental sustainability we will be celebrating at the fair a san francisco island with a tree planted in her name with a citywide streetscape that took place a couple of months ago that as collaborative effort between public works and the planning department the program has identified the exact locations and current conditions of every street trees in the city in addition to identifying the vacate streets for street tree planning and upped wards of one tea 25 thousand trees we've surveyed throughout the city we thank public works for this effort in the city we again there is a free fair from 9 to 12 on saturday at the warm water coast park thank you au. >> seeing no questions move

on to review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners emery rogers for the weekly reports the land use committee a report for eastern neighborhoods you heard thereby report covering 2011 to 2016 last year supervisor cohen called the hearing asking for the park to address the community be sequesters about the pavement development public comment from potrero hill stated it exceeded the #1250ud by the eir the department described the analysis not bear this out and to item was informational item only next up home sf slogans of hpc supervisor tang amended the density bonus program as home sf for

onsite affordable housing offering two floors this commission forwarded the legislation to the board last year since then the board adopt 100 percent of the program and continued the rest of the program this week week in committee supervisor tang proposed the following amendments renaming it also adjusting income levels for more equal low and moderate unit adding families amenity and adding enhanced protections and other clarifying that language during the hearing supervisor peskin said that was time to revisit the program especially the density bonus program he stated this is could be a compliment that the adu's and other housing tools highly expressing concerns of density supervisor tang talked about how this provide incentives and including in her

district were not much development occurs public comment was overwhelmingly supportive of new housing and keeping the locating families in san francisco the head of the first degree murder produceable associations offered a letter around the concerns that impacts the small businesses and is in support after the item was continued to the carol on tuesday the main planning event a committee of the whole on the family-friendly this gave the department the prestige of addressing the public at an formation i've not seen in my 18 years you've heard this in the guidelines our director and staff provided an overview of report that was demographics in the characteristic of child

friendly housing and solutions board members were #3resh89 did board acknowledges the complexity around the dpivengsz michigander supervisor ronen expressed the disappointment not more renovation for the affordability and questioned had the city can do to improve the development one commissioner talked about the population is decreasing and supervisor kim stated we need to focus on building four middle-income that population is decreasing due to the lack of affordable housing supervisor tang described how family-friendly a amenity have been integrated to the home sf and supervisor safai was interested in the missing middle he asked director rahaim about the lack of smaller misrepresent units and director rahaim described the economics and suggested that

strategy zoning can encourage the development supervisor fewer discussed allowing for senior housing and the problem of them in large unit and supervisor kim said she's eager inform move forward with a recommendation in response director rahaim said first to better understand the economic impacts of the community public comment were largely in support of recommendation and focused on housing costs several mothers spoke about the structural of being worked out a single mom andes capping depends on and the elderly talked about you how the housing costs push families into long commutes as well as teach family housing issues and so moving on the next step proposed for the department is producing

a design resource guide and the work on the housing that will help to improve our understanding of housing and then lastly we'll work on the financial implications for the amenity and work on guides that was a big technicality items other items were passed an first reading the calle quarto and members were appointed to the bike committee one is a staffer that concluded my report. unless questions. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess one ms. rogers about the home sf come back or are we done with that. >> i have a handout they're all matters that have been discussed by the commission those will no 9 come back from the board will further

amend it and introduce subject were not introduced but at this point the matter is in the hands of the board. >> thank you and the board of appeals didn't meet no report. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim frye department staff here to share a few items from the historic preservation commission hearing the architectural committee met before the hearing to review the design of two items one for broadway an empty parcel the proposal to construct one and thirty affordable housing units and 54 affordable housing units for senior housing the arc had a number of design comments but a good dialogue with the project team that will be before the arc before the full approval at the full

commission the arc also reviewed a property art for the brt station some concerns over the skyline and location of the installation and after a short presentation by the arts commission the arc recommended the arts commission will have a new location for the arts particularly at van ness and market rather than directly at in front of the veterans building station or work with the artists to redesign something that appeared a little bit more compatible with the civic center and landmark district and one item to share with the hpc hearing on the overhead is the commission approved or initiated the landmark designation for 27 or 2731 fulsome street it was designed by

architect an irish architect and builder in san francisco the builder the owner initiated the landmark designation requested art commission with the commission agreed to the owner is interested in replying for a program that concludes my presentation. >> commissioner vice president richards thank you four showing the landmark and it is described and this is what is it looks like. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to general public comment general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. 3 minutes.

i did have a couple of speaker cards. >> two speaker cards anastasia and laura clark and others that want to speak appeals board . >> i want to add so the report given on family housing to the remarks that supervisor fewer the supervisor said about her district she said that most of the housing in her district was rent-controlled units housing and that she didn't want to see that type of housing demolished the well john rahaim his rely that is not something i advocate that fs

was in view of some of the projects that is the policy of this commission not to demolish rent-controlled units and the director advocates it i wanted to say that was with the report and came here because today, i want to remind commissioner president hillis and the commission the last time a joint hearing between housing was held october 2014 and that there are a lot of issues that you have that you bring up that overlap between building and housing and i know your calendar is really full but you should allot time going on 3 years for a joint hearing to occur one of the topics that i know that commissioner vice president

richards brings up and spoken to deborah walker the fact that the alteration permits turn into demolitions and this has to be fixed in the code thank you. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm sarah i'm the director of human rights committee per commissioners, thank you i'm here about carl jensen at 3926 street by church and as you've heard he passed away in a building he was in his 90s when the landlord seek to diminish his building to that diminish the rent-controlled units and lied to this commission and utilized to other bodies not tenant and went to push and has him to

move out this landlord has a long link history of the messaging with tenants and putting homeowners in foreclosure and walker them out illegally on and on and nike came and told the tenants they had is to be out on monday on the weekend and only because of neighbors called and one of our phone numbers could talk him down saturday evening i'm sorry. i'm sick of seniors dye in buildings because of our policies 90 in san francisco we can't diminish rent controls unit and allow landlords we need to make that so this landlord can't do this and not profit over carlos death and have policies

that we're in the diminishing renderings in san francisco it makes too much of an economic sense for landlord in and spake later two prey on the elders i want to come and speak that will building i know that is not heard but wanted to really on our thing so long as landlord think they can get away with that and make millions off of the deaths of seniors so thank you thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi (laughter) clark from action i wanted to present an important issue about the rule of zoning district and recollection in the segregates in the city as well

as in the bay area this is a review in the atlantic of research by michael and michael lens sorry and pablo they've seen the cameras in land use the main conclusions the restrictions isolate the wealthy they're creating enclaves of the wealthy and excluding the low income restrictions in both the city and suburbs matter we can't point and say there's a bad actors we're all the bad actors and they call out san francisco specifically local governments restrictions contribute to segregation the really important thing to highlight places that require multiple levels of

housing built more segregated because regulations are with anyhow housing development and further that is higher where local governments are involved in the residential development and restrict the populations growth and hope you keep in mind this and everyday. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm finally do with the housing organizations we want to talk about laura's comments that is true our zoning regulations can create inclusionary housing and segregate that's why you all will be considering inclusionary housing housing that is the opposite of that kind of inclusion that laura was talking about regulation can create inclusion one of the things was mentioned

earlier in the report from the board was a comment around the family housing discussion we've seen how historically in san francisco our housing authority was 60 percent poor families today we are building 60 thousand your family housing has been reduced this is a historic stop that includes all the sros so one the things i'm hopeful you'll consider is what kind of requirement fight that kind of segregation consolation that says our poor a family have to live outside of city by requiring requirement for families housing across the board or specifically in the inclusionary discussion you'll have later on today you have members the mayor's office of housing here who can tell you when we build affordable housing what kind of units we're building with size

and percentage for families and typically a family building will have 60 percent two bedrooms or larger will have 20 percent three bedrooms or larger, those are a based on requirement from the federal funding? the kind of thing we want to see in the inclusionary housing and throughout the city if we are to be true to not create a segregated region our poor families have to live outside of city thank you. >> thank you /*hello mr. president, and congratulations thanks for your service and hooting us we're obviously conversation about community engagement i want to follow up on that diversities i'll throw your way in the event you want to think about that in planning the first started in 2011 san francisco he hoped a 7 percent african-american population that we hoped a

patrol population 60 percent summers have their scary and other african-american status is about 54 percent of african-american seniors graduate high school last year so thinking about diversity and not only in the planning again in our transit infrastructure currently we have 15 to 18 multiple streets that run to the tenderloin not only in the housing policy but in transit policy i'd like to see the designs on the reservation of the 18 freeways and i think this is good for real estate and good for rail sales just a couple of thoughts as our moving forward with our work the 12 thoughts will be this room and see new design projects going through i think somewhere around a thousand projects obviously seen 4 or 5 thousand bus the former of that

room i'm in a position i've introduced military theories to the board this is in direct connotation i feel like george walking up the ridge and the idea we're not on the same side, however, if we reverse the sitting maybe we're facing a speaker to help the idea of the community working together and walk around and see glass walls i have in scotland and they have seats where the bureaucrats the government workers are working and have glass windows to see through the idea of transparency behind the government yes, we are looking for this miserable board to be a leader and the next thing i've done a white board people what write and draw and post the design they can lay out their blueprint and design thought to this room might make

a big difference thank you for your service and have a nice day. >> is there any additional general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards. >> i i guess i two things the issue even if models will turn into decisions i know the department is working on section 317 reform and we're planning on having a joint hearing sometime that year commissioner president hillis and i will be having lunch with the department of building inspection president tomorrow to throb this issue, and, secondly, one persons comments on diminishing rerltdz this will affect the financed of whether or not we're diminishing rent-controlled units this is on our minds as well i want to let

you know that. >> thanks jonas we're ready very good, commissioners. commissioners, that places you under your our regular calendar for case inclusionary affordable housing program ordinances. >> four elected officials expected to speak two proposals with each in their own way and inclusionary program and together this is either proposal will be the first major relation for inclusionary sings the enar acceptance we're today starting with supervisor safai is going to start with a proposal and i'll introduce him and supervisor kim will go afterwards. >> thank you well supervisor safai thank you for saying my name

right. >> i didn't butchnch it. >> thank you, commissioners unites to see p you this is an issue that is preying for sometime we appreciate the opportunity i'm not going to take a long time but get to the point the members of the public have the opportunity to speak and a lot of people with strong feelings we appreciate you're hearing it and this proposal we worked on for the laced foe months myself and supervisor president london breed is really designed to focus on an area of market we feel unfortunately has been neglected for a long time an area of the housing market was taken care of through private developed prior to the great recession in the city pocketed of housing that were afford to working people

the excelsior and you outer mission and sunset those are parts of housing market that take care of what i call lower middle-income but working families i'll talk about teachers and nurses and firefighters generates and hotel workers electricians people in the construction trade folks have been the backbone of this city the housing market take care of them after the great recession there is a difference the homes in the excelsior are going for up to one million dollars and the bayview hunters point and sunset and richmond north of one hundred million dollars the market has disappeared the approach we took is that and this is a strong

statement to make we fundamentally believe it we will never again in this city build housing for middle-income this will not happen the market will not by i've take care of that seethe of our population we have a presentations put together by your staff about housing opportunity for families one of the - stat the slide we saw the growth in population in the income bracket people macro over one thousand dollar a year were the only sector of the community that population grew by everyone in the middle had decreased it was significant our approach to this was to look at how is affordable housing built in this city so we looked at programs inclusionary housing was

created in 2002 what were the options available not done on affordable housing bond since 20072006 and no affordable housing accelerator program the only items outside you can build additional affordable housing for low income families under the inclusionary market but the fast forward to the area of the housing market that has disappeared and today, we have past in the last 2 years an affordable housing bond and the trusting and a low income tax credit and the affordable housing accelerator program and millions and if not billions of dollars in the pipeline to build more affordable housing for low income families the only way that we can build housing for working people that we have discovered right now and because we know we're in a crisis 22

schools in our city do not can't fill teacher positions teachers are started around 51 $51,000 a year for credentials based on the way they're not able to find affordable housing one of the slides that was put together by the planning department said that to buy a home in the market an average family area medium income will family making one and 4 $4,000 they can afford a home at the three hundred and 93 thousand dollars$393,000 2015, 91 of the homes were sold you know that because this was presented to you; right? this is also for tsthe general public 91 percent was out of reach for the 100 percent average income if we

fundamentally building this is not one of the cities we have to reverse the trend make a strong move the only area of the housing mark market we can build to the clths program so what we proposal myself and supervisor president london breed was to create what we thought was a fair system of spreading out on the homeowners the inclusionary program is designed as it is designed this is not a program designed a lot of people say oh, 55 percent or less around 550 $550,000 a year no less in the current program you have to be making around that 53, or 54 or 55 a small window if you're at thirty or 40 percent or 40 percent and so we thought about that a lot of low income seniors there is a lot of low

income families that are concerned about their affordable housing market but this inclusionary program we're talking about today is didn't serve them so our proposal says we want to start have 3 clean things we can serve and staff will talk about that but peg that note allow the developers to peg it you'll hear people talk about proposition p this sets 3 trunks at the 50 percent ami on the rental and 80 and one and 10 percent and expand to allow for families as low as 35 percent ami if they choose to spend a little bit more of their percentage of their income towards rent all all the way down down to one percent and same thing on the homeowners do going from 90 percent up to one and sro

percent serving 70 all the way to 100 percent and 50 we believe fundamentally this will begin to produce this program along with home sf will beginning begin to have the opportunity in the next 3 years to build 2500-unit a conversation in 2 weeks with the board of supervisors actually next week about the status of teacher housing in the district we have been talking about that for years but if we do this program teachers immediately along with all the other sectors of the workforce and teachers and firefighters and police officers and janitor and tooemz and truck drivers workers will have been an opportunity to assess this market from the programs 23 i named we've produced from the life of the programs over the last 2

decades 24 you thousand low income units inform moderate and working families we've produced 4 thousand that was when we had the redevelopment agency the redevelopment agency as long as is gone we have no other funding stream for working people we believe this is a fairway to approach it we believe this is the right way to go about building more affordable housing and then there's going to be discussions about the affordable housing bypassesonus program the violations looked at that and took a lot of time and consideration to dig into the technical advisory and controllers report came back with a recommendation 14 to 18 percent of inclusionary housing will be the right number to land on and they also said that from -

excuse me - the state density bonus we can't predict with certainty how it will be applied the idea of approaching every single project will go in the state density bonus we believe is not a reality so if you set that inclusionary number higher than iowa the controller recommends you'll fundamentally stop the construction in many parts of the city because introduce our neighborhoods you know from the work you do that will come out and say i don't care what the law says or on the books we'll no 9 have more density there will be conversation on the parts of developers not going through fight if i set that number two, high you land an proposition that then is not fundable i say investors and banks will not underwrite and project not

produce the right income we have 7 to $9 billion retirement board reserve retake that we're the 8th's largest investor that the aclu and the eight largest they take the money on behalf of the workers mainly the working families and invest they will not in many of the projects in the city will not underwrite a project that is inclusionary go is too high and walk away we'll stop he development so we believe that 18 percent is fair and then the last thing i'll end on we wanted to approach it going back to the planning report and also be thinking about when our building and looking at another telling slide families in this city live in two bedrooms and three bedrooms united but the production in the city over the last 10 years

excuse me - over the last 5 to 8 is in studios and one bedrooms families don't live in studios and one bedroom we are talking about working people and families the other slide that was telling in the planning report the families in the city the highest concentration of families living in the excelsior in district 11 and hunters point that happens to be where the hive rate of owner occupied unit if you stabilize the housing you'll create housing for families and working people thank you, commissioners for kg this proposal i'm going to turn it over to supervisor president london breed to came up come up and say a few words as well. >> thank you, welcome supervisor president london breed. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> thank you for taking the wanted to listen to us clearly this an important issue it is near and dear to my heart as a native san franciscan that is beyond frosted u frustrated

with what i see happening in communities all around san francisco i want to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you from a different perspective since supervisor safai expressed the need and specifically the numbers and what we're looking at to do with the legislation i'm proud to be partnering with him and just wanted to tell you is a supervisor before that i felt the pressure i've seen far too many of my friends leave the city in some cases for example, when the public housing was torn down and over three hundred united torn down and 200-unit built, of course, interest was not any anticipation of the folks to be coming home and in some instances one of my friends got a job driving muni

tried to come back and basically made $600 over what would kwvld here to come back to the place that she was promised after they were rebuilt she'll be able to those are the kind of things the city did in the past people like my a friend that worked for the state building who makes just above on monument to qualify more affordable housing who has two kids as well my friend didn't construction who's a single father raising his kids the stories are ongoing about the native san franciscans i grew up in low income affordable housing who basically are city low income they make too much to qualify for low income housing but not enough to afford the market-rate housing that we're building this in

this city who is looking at out for them and building housing we're not doing that no more who are the advocates room 416 city hall that who are getting people to pay attention we talk about displacement and at fact there is in middle-income and the fact that african-american have left san francisco but what are we are doing about that actually doing to make sure that the policy that we pass in the city actually work for the people that they're intended to be work for because what's happening right away right now is not working for the people i grew up with low income affordable housing is incredibly important known is arguing that i grew up if and lived in it 20 years of my life my grandmother raised me with my brothers i know how important that is so is workforce

housing we're not building enough as well as you well know multiple forces for locating affordable housing the housing trusting the housing bond as well as job housing linkage fees paid by developers that's why we build more of the low income housing all of these can be compounded by federal tax credits and other tax dollars that's why our city has done an okay job but a decent job paying for and building low income affordable housing we can't, however, use those same tax credits those same resources to build workforce housing i find it sad and ironic people insist on repeating this might that building housing for teachers and workers is a give away to developers i don't care about

developers i care about the fact that construction workers that are building this city as we speak can't afford the market-rate that's insane. >> (clapping.) >> i care about the droves of workers that are leaving this city and care about my friends that can't afford to live here families have built homes are 19th century requirement it is not a give away to none it is a tack away for workers an eviction notice a cold divide for residents that are called san francisco home for so many years we can't keep on failing them in the name of a false narrative i miss my friends that move forward away my community and neighborhood and what they used to be we can't turn back the hands of time but start

right now the best way to insure the workforce housing is to incorporate is and privately fund it inclusionary housing and that is exactly what our legislation does this is the only resource that we have to build this kind of housing at this time the city is pronged to build 8 housed plus by 2020 but only 25 hundred moderate income workforce units those allocations or the rh n a numbers this is a consistent trend from 2007 to 2014 san francisco has 39 very low income unit 59 percent of the goals for this category is not enough i know that is not enough we only permit is one

thousand 20034 moderate workforce housing units 18 percent of a goal that is insane teachers and construction workers and union labors and adjournment and bus drivers we're failing them not making a place for them in the city we ask them to support all of things we do all the way down city when ballot measure comes out knock on doors we want to be elected for officer they can't afford to live here we're not creating a place for them we are buildings market-rate housing as i said before consistently matters of that honestly, i don't want to keep on building what choose do we have we have a choice yes developers can pay more and out of control like the market-rate housing but

more importantly we have to make sure that we do a better job at making a realistic place for those people that continue time and time again to be left out of the equation this is our time to get it right this is our time to change things and we're talking about is not even a whole lost unit not going to change the path or make san francisco the place that i grew up i know and love but hopefully hopefully, this can begin to change the dialogue hopefully that can be given do change what we're doing not city to the next generation of san franciscans don't look back and wonder who happened to my community and what happened to my city and why is there not a place for me thank you. >> this is our chance to get

it right. >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor president london breed and welcome supervisor kim and i see supervisor peskin is here also. >> thank you commissioner president hillis. >> thank you members of the planning commission we talk about affordable housing and inclusionary housing policies and i want to appreciate all of your work and also conversations dialogue and how we can make sure we are building the max affordable housing 44 for all even though households in san francisco over the last couple of years i should start off by saying i've been not only the number one, advocate for building low income housing here in san francisco but the first supervisor to win middle-income housing as part of inclusionary program with the area plan and able to do with the giants with the 337 deal and the hotel workers

and entertains by our side we can build for everyone without taking away housing from others this is the proposal that is before us today with housing for all which is our follow-up to proposition c the voters made a case in june of 2016 we need to maximize our fundamental amongst the private rate developers to make sure the housing keeps all families in san francisco including our vulnerable population to have the tools for the housing balance so the majority of san franciscans can live here you've heard me guess this 60 percent of san francisco residents qualify for hud and we know that our current pipeline pipeline is not meeting the need now

while we have tools like previously redevelopment and our housing trusting and affordable housing that was graishdz passed by the voter of san francisco 2 years ago we know the the the developers make sure we're building housing for everyone and this is why our legislation here today closings for all is bringing our promise and much needed updates to the precedence setting with inclusionary housing law with the market reality it follows the mandate by the city voters in june of 2016 that increased the local housing requirement to 25 percent and passed lawmakers seeing financially feasible and with supervisor peskin and i made we brought this number to the voters we know developers can do more than the 20 percent building previously and

in fact, we proved it with 337 with the giants they committed for the first time to build 40 percent affordable and middle-income housing on site in public land the highest commitment that any developer made in the country that is ami 55 percent to 100 percent and 50 percent with the 5 m deal which this commission approved a few months later and with folsom 20 percent homeowners on site keeping in mind what we have been seeing on the one of deals we want to create a consistent inclusionary policy that takes the realities and our marketed take a look at it and want to make sure we studied had was fiscally feasible our ordinance is not about halting development we know we

can't build more affordable housing middle-income housing if we don't build market-rate housing we know this is incredibly important to meeting this need following the six months6 months technical study thank you ben rosenfield and ed reiskin and our technical committee members i see and over soliciting impact the measure that supervisor peskin and i have co-authored lay out to make sure that 0 san francisco truly creates admitting community benefiting resident at you'll income lovely the inclusionary housing will create 6 thousand affordable housing to the housing stock this is 6 thousand households that we can keep here in san francisco the inclusionary housing for

all sets the basin at 24 and 27 percent keeping supervisor peskin and my commitment to voters to both look at what is technically and file number feasible for the vendors to build in san francisco but taking take a look at the changing landscape with the significant new state law the density bonus program that allows the developers to build 35 percent more units using the state density bonus and equalize the financially feasible basin standards identified by the controller this approach insures that onsite with 40 percent affordable to middle-income families desensitize for the bonus unit our ordinance sets the offsite and onsite at thirty and 33 percent

as mandate by the voters inclusionary housing for all reverses the low income requirement to the 2012 level alm that advocates and families have fought to make the housing at 15 percent for household at an average of 55 percent of area medium income our proposal expands that nlz there are households that are a little bit below and above that we adjusted that to define low income housing to be for families that make between 040 and 80 percent of area medium income with an average at 60 percent we add a new category of low income housing not seen in inclusionary housing and we set that nothing above the 50 percent we've won many years ago with the advocates our ordinance acknowledges and

encourages the building not only of more locating housing but the building of more middle-income and more market-rate housing in fact, we want our developers to take the state density bonus we think that is a good thing we know our city needs housing and hope that our be developers take advantage of this incentive to build for market-rate and then more middle and low income housing without pitting people against he each other we want to build without pitting and teachers and nurses against janitors and paraprofessionals and hotel workers we know that and that's why we proposed this original before you today, our inclusionary housing implements a tiered system to make sure that the developers who choose to opt out pare and the controllers make sure these fees are increased to building onsite

units we know that offsite in lui fees is low given the cost of construction and hopefully to work with olsen lee and the mayor's office of housing to update those numbers to adequately represent what it really costs to build housing and this resolution the category ultra luxury are 300 feet tall are a significant impact an see harassing in the fantastic of the city they can create more community rather than segregating to the inclusive on classifies us bank they can't build as much we keep them at 12 and 20 percent the 2012 numbers but we do recognize via on the reports that came from the controller's office or controller's office and the

articulation c the land prices we have the 12 point plus without impacting the development outcome based on the astronomical land prices we allow an annual indexing specifically for this category of housing between he will 12 and 25 that allows them to come into compliance by the affordable housing that will provide long term certainty and finally a conversation that we have been having over the last year i want to thank the planning department staff for the report on families and how we create more family-friendly planning ordinances here in the city what struck me the most was we know the enumeration studios and one bedrooms in san francisco i was #45e7bd to see by the data we are maintaining a

constant line but woefully although, the production of one bedrooms and two bedrooms and beautiful your requirements for the minimum that developers build 40 percent of two bedrooms and 20 percent of three bedrooms we are not a sustainable city if we're not building for families we know the developers what include that mix into our development that is what a the competing ordinance which requires 25 percent two bedrooms and 10 percent three bedrooms mix our ordinance did take into account the fiscaleasibility but not dictated by the market we know they can do much more than they say and often could this is not just the examples i've offered but today as at the we harder

van ness where the developer without up zoning is committed to comply building 24 percent and 15 at the low income spectrum and 10 percent at middle i think i mistakenly said that van ness developer will be the first to commit to prop c i was mistaken the first developer was 1515 south van ness and the lennar go multiple family months ago committed to building 25 percent of affordable housing onsite complying with prop c without up zoning he, he we know that developers can do that given the overwhelm percentage of voters that voted for prop c that we keep to our promise to voters and maintaining the max feasibility that is possible will take into account go not only

that but the feasibility of our families and san franciscans to stay in san francisco that's the balance when we look forward in negotiating with the inclusionary proposal inclusionary housing proposal before you here today finally before i bring up and co-sponsor supervisor peskin i do want to recognize a number of the community groups that helped draft this ordinance with us over the last couple of months and recognize the community housing a human rights committee, bill housing program mission economic development and chinatown development center and tenderloin corporation and united educators of san francisco, co-the car and todco wouldn't have been possible without the input you have been our housing experts and organizers that worked with the families and resident struggling to stay in to and

planning commissioners thank you so much. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> well supervisor peskin. >> members of the commission and director rahaim and zoning administrator sanchez it is a brewery mr. nuru to be here as we are grappling with a remarkable complex area of public policy and very much look forward to working with all of the members of the board and want to acknowledge my newest colleague supervisor safai who has grabbed this thing with both hands let me start with a accountant of historical complexities first of all, we have altogether over time made great strides i acknowledge what is absolutely objective we're in the middle of a housing crisis i don't want to say at all income levels not at

the highest luxury income levels but for the middle-income and the low income middle-class in the city and county of san francisco i want to say one thing that is important i keep on hearing the words working versus low income and let's be clear lower income people are mostly working people so many people in the town and families town that make 55 percent of area medium income or less we can quibble and if you're $600 over but the facts are the facts all over the place in fact, as director rahaim before the board of supervisors on tuesday had statistics about families it is what we know go the rich are getting richer and poor poorer >> the families making 50 thousand are shot up and the line of

those making less than 35 $35,000 shot up i up, up that's; right the way it is and not saying this lightly we've taken strides in fits and starts i think that 15 years ago i introduced the first, we call them in-law unit and then secondary and adu's now i introduced the notation of creating more adu's and delighted that many a decade later we're pga it and continue to pass it is i was president of the board of supervisors that voptd the rincon hill and the zoning of the hunters point shipyard that championed residential development in the c-3 and with that said, there is a huge need but as we look at the issue before you

and i very much labored look forward to hearing our conversation ultimately supervisor president london breed and supervisor safai and my colleagues supervisor kim and the other members of the board or going to grapple with in the months ahead we're not that far apart not that far apart i'll do more historical context as i discussed with director rahaim yesterday occupy to 2002 the planning commission before section 415 had a guide for inclusionary housing at the 10 percent which was a guideline and when people that are connected didn't want to adhere to it it was not adhered to in 2002 my then colleague in his incarceration as a board of supervisors

mark leno passed the first inclusionary at the 12 percent i was there development the residential development community said the world was going to end the sky was going to fall and when i left that progressive majority board 8 years later we dropped the threshold from 10 to 5 unite. >> increased from 5 to 10 percent in 2012 in a grand bargaining coming out of the recession prop c was put on the ballot and created the clths and reduced by 20 percent it is not all 15 to 12 percent with ncts that may have been the right thing to do this shouldn't be a static piece of

law as housing and construction prices go up and the labor costs go up and the cost of housing fluctuates the inclusionary numbers should move around that's why prop c i think was a remarkable thing because as supervisor kim crafted it it acknowledged that we should have vicinity third party maximum economic go feasibility e feasibility study and review and that colleagues is a what we're grappling with today it gets more complicated is not 18 for rental and 20 for sale we have the other issue of density bonus program and the controller and nobody is requesting the controller or the technical advisory committee numbers saying if you do

bonus and get it extra height the numbers are 24 and 27 how do we deal with that, i building that supervisor kim has dealt with that by saying let's use those numbers let's assume that everybody uses density bonus program and if you look at our staff report page thirty to 32 you'll see that actually will build for affordable housing units the question is a question that will be revisited every 3 years as we do new economic faeblth assessments but the question the larger question over time is what do we want this town to look like in 10 years in 20 years and 50 years i acknowledge the middle-income is getting squeezed the working-class are squeezed and did poor is beyond that but what do we want this town to look like in 10 and 20 years as it

is richer and becoming wider i fall on the side of let us build the most what we call low income housing as we can this should not be a #1kr5ub9d formula but indeed in prop c where we return that 20 percent, 12 back to 15, if you will, we latter in that 10 percent from middle-income which you now see is being worked out shown as feasible what drives the market land costs you need predict and stable outlet if we stick to hire numbers the market will adjust itself i absolutely building that if you set those numbers too high we wouldn't build anything not

market-rate or low income 0 nothing i'll be happy to patios a law that says 50 percent i know that is not economically feasible that's why we created this mechanism we're now grappling with today, the issue of density bonus program is complicated and not yet settleed not yet settled remember - well, i'll back up when we putput prop c on the ballot the house that was the end of the world the good news the controller say we can raise it 18 to 20 without density bonus program the are vendors got a free holiday for 5 years 5 years they made excuse me - a bunch of cash it is now time to figure this out and my hope is

that we do not steal from the lowest income brackets but we add to the middle-income or ultimately you want to know we're not that far apart perhaps assembly bill 9115 that honors our inclusionary will pass and we'll could this in a way that honors be buildings that are within our existing of existing zoning as 18 to 20 and do - density bonus program at 24 a 27 it is unresolved he look forward to the conversation it is i have to say as somebody that i've enjoyed watching with the community with

stakeholders and with my colleagues and finally i would like to let you all know you have a huge number of people for public comment in the north light court i hate to see that respectfully suggest mr. chair let them talk before you debate this is obviously your colleagues and your board to call. >> we recognize we have a lot of people that signed up for public comment and anxious to get to those. >> i want to see this is you've not had 4 members of the board of supervisors on one issue in my memory 17 years back. >> and for the benefit of the members of the public the north light court has no chairs but a scene he learned that room 416 open this floor with chairs has been opened to to

accommodate those persons who will prefer to sit. >> okay. we'll end the supervisor portion of the hearing and go to staff presentation and then to public comment oh, maybe we wouldn't. >> mr. chair that room is full thanks. >> commissioners that is obviously a complicated question were there a lot of people to speak but we believe that is important for the commissioners to hear from staff on this 3 proposals and the differences we'll to proceed and recommend you open up for public comment and then after that do our normal commissioners dislikes i believe olsen lee from the mayor's office of economic workforce development. >> and we'll hold our questions or comments after public comment. >> thank you i just saw olsen. >> oh, there he is okay.

>> i know this is complicated do we have a time we can set to get through this portion of the hearing. >> we have a 30-minute presentation and cut out one question and come back so we'll make an effort to abbreviate it we'll put up 10 minutes and try to do it as quickly as possible i apologize in advance for my voice. >> why notnot slides please. >> sfgov there we go. >> okay so one the things we wanted to do just toto provide some basic information about we're talking about when

we talk about this in this chart we identified certain individual and their incomes and falling within 1550 and 20 this is not new news but describes sort of the you know the occupations of who we're trying to serve when we debate the question about how high is too high or low is too although the important thing about this chart is not that a housekeeper makes 34 $34,000 a year but what happens when we have a partner or what happens what they are two partners or a partner and two kids that's the next chart so this is you know this is a

little nerdy. >> it is nerdy. >> you guys got it all but this really gives us a sense when we talking about not all household are one person household that is what gives the commission and public a sense of what that combination might be so a area medium income individual is going to be at you know we actually don't have area medium income but someone at one and 80 percent of ami is 20 percent but the family of four at one and 22 the specific numbers again, don't focus on that unless we understand what the household might be our next slide the rh n a renée those are the goals that the council sets and this chart really talks

about what the goals have been and how close we have been to achieving those goals overall people have debated what the reiskin no are the most reasonable goals for the housing production but they're used and compare cities and ourselves to those goals overall and as you can see we've done not reached the goals for the very low we are very behind in our 50 to area medium income and even more behind in the to one 20 and the moderate or above one 20 we have exceeded our reiskin no goals in turn of affordable he

supervisor president london breed talked about people leaving the city that is an example of where people have left the city overall and then the change in composition of the city not new news to you you've heard those issues before but this is sort of an illustration of what those are the lose that came in terms of the income groups overall it is similar to what you've heard in our family households discussions excuse me - >> so what have we built you know we as the city not just because the mayor's office of economic workforce development we've done an extraordinary job of creating affordable housing and done and

in part because the city has really put putting your money where your mouth is; right we have a market-rate housing developers that do affordable housing and have all worked extremely hard to build affordable housing which is the envy of cities across the nation with that said, what type of of affordable housing have we done the most of we've done the majority of our affordable housing has been at the 50 percent of area medium income and below for two reasons one the public policy is trying to serve low income people and two that's the area we leverage on the resources you know we as say office other people's monies whether the low income tax credits or the state

funds or other funds are capped to the 60 percent and below we have tried to take the great advantage while creating xhuld in the portfolio the work we've done recently in the public housing and again, this is really a credible achievement for this city overall because most cities run away from public housing and this city embraced public housing and #240bd because public housing is now going to get whacked and our public housing is not opportunity by rental vouchers and hopefully the administration but we're in a better position to serve extremely low income people under the housing and this commission has worked on

the entitlement for sunnydale and potrero and over time we will achieve the redeveloped of entire public housing and wouldn't have been possible without the family overall and the coordination of our affordable housing developers. >> the program you'll see that based on this chart 82 percent of the housing in my portfolio are asset manage portfolio for individuals who are families at 60 percent or below and we d vdo have excuse me. some moderate income units that is a hodgepodge and in part because the good the moderate income unit not a way to fund it other than to fill the gap between what a moderate income resident

could afford to pay. >> what it costs to build we could a have low income housing benefits so what we get done over 30 years of affordable housing which precedes me we've done inclusionary in some form the redevelopment agency did that at 80 percent of area medium income we've worked with south beach and bay village to extend the affordability but basically on inclusionary development through the use of both the e a from the redevelopment agency and from the low income housing tax credits at that time. not low income but tax and bond taxes those were tools not available to us now and really what are the issues

we're faced with if we can't fund to directly as a city to make that work the question is can we put that responsibility on the development community to do this part of their development obviously the answer is yes and at what level this shows you what we've done and clearly the moderate and middle-income areas what we've not done as much before and this next chart is a question about affordable housing need and again, this is just another emphasis on the areas that are at least served and lastly the point of the question of subtraction or addition when i go up to the mayor's office of housing we were in depth in the session and just refunded iuoe all the inclusionary fees because

projects didn't go forward and really thirty $30 million in our coffers through the work of the city government and voters we've increased our funding more affordable housing in our pipeline tremors the housing trusting people have seen in the past provides a steady source of funding for my offices it stepped for another 27 years and created the leverage of other sources in a tremendous way and that amount of affordable housing funding will steady what we typically have will go on in the past in an up and down cycle with the inclusionary housing fees not to say is it is not important but more money and spending more money that than ever before on affordable housing so the question before this body

is we not talking away all we're doing in terms of building housing for very low or middle or whomever we've tried to increase the housing production four you'll who need affordable housing and for this body is you know really the levels in which the max and minimums of allocations between the two we've increased the level of affordable housing for all because this city talks and walks the walk thank you >> thank you, mr. lee. >> commissioners thanks for having me sarah with the office of economic workforce development forming with the planning department and staffing the inclusionary housing program i'm here just to give a little bit of context one note i'd like to say the office of

economic workforce development is lead on many of the agreements you'll see later this year like mac u mission rock many of those will get high level and thirty and 40 are percent we're pushing them as far as we can go i want to note they include do major up zoning and use of the housing linkage to set the record straight we're here to talk about the calling for a conclusion but rather than a bread and butter project with the zoning a couple of points it provides right now 20 percent of the low income housing that is the city is building and booster the fund elsewhere it provides onsite in realtime and it has a lot of flexibility with unlike the fund that olsen cited that are

wholly #2kek9d to low income whether 0 onsite revenue is free of those restrictions we can meet some of the needs we can't meet for other sources i think you've heard this from the supervisors a critical function i'm mostly going to hear from this you've heard from supervisor peskin and i'm available to answer any questions i worked on the last 12 years of it. >> and then lastly we want to make sure you're aware of nexus we did the first nexus study with the 2007 and revised the nexus we're at 37 .6 percent maximum for fee percentages for sales and condominium and 31.8 for rent-controlled units just to brief on the nexus a legal maximum that

applies to fees not onsite not go feasibility you'll hear about that from jabbing but any questions i'm available to ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, sarah and olsen for the overview so i hope you're feeling warmed-up and may feel like you've gotten all the numbers and tiers and others memorized but want to go through in with a little bit more comparison between the proposals so we can get both public comment and have an informed discussion with the existing planning code as amended by the passage of pros and cons the program applies to promotions that have 10 or more units and prop

c established whoops whoops established smaller projects from 10 to 24 and more 25 or more that's not what we're saying has changed but that's what we're talking about between residential development and paying fees or choose an alternative mainly onsite to build the bmr or build them in a different location this slides summarizes with section 415 if you choose the affordable housing fee and smaller projects you're paying a fee on the u eventual- your paying 33 percent of your unit and per unit fee it is a development chooses the offsite the requirements are the same to provide unit offsite rather than paying

the fees the onsite are lower the small projects a project choosing onsite will choose 12 that's prior to prop c those are all low income prop c established for large projects and higher requirement of 25 percent onsite and established a feature of the onsite program those units are mixed between low and moderate unit 15 low and 10 percent moderate the finally the key feature the program who are we serving with the i'm available to answer any amis as i said we have a low protect and area medium income they provide the onsite at the lower tier that is defined as 55 percent ami for residential or condo developments for large projects the same target for the low income

tier for the large projects but provide an additional 10 percent that one hundred for rental and one and 20 percent of area medium income for ownership projects so i've heard about the feasibility analysis from the controller's office telling was here a couple of weeks ago to give on overview i want to emphasize several of our legislature this study was required we prop c with the entire process and the purpose of study to determine the maximum inclusionary requirement the name of the game we're talking about today so what did did controller study it abides by 8 meetings the advisory committee and first of all, the controllers study was the

rental and overflow room project handles different rates to handle that higher than the rental projects you'll see we have a row for rental and ownership here what was the maximum onsite requirement that the controller study concluded for rentals that was a rage from 14 to 18 you might say why is that a range that reflects what the team provided to the text and discussed talking about of the different considerations for the different prototypes and looked at the impacts of the the land value and this what about a squeamish i didn't green light or red light anything below 14 or 18 percent is feasible not a standard lower but above 18 or 20 percent was needed to be

infeasible especially for the typical projects if i can't emphasis you enough you how much it focuses on difficult projects and whether those projects will be economic and feasible if you go above that the second set of numbers the controllers study provides us with the fees onsite numbers so the max is 18 percent the e vanilla eventually is 18 percent the ownership maximum onsite is 20 percent and maximum is 28 the key findings from the controllers study and the idea of annual increases that was a lot of discussions about the impact of the land market the key feature of the development and economics so the idea here rather than having a sharp jump to a higher requirement to spread that and phase it in so it unite adjust

as the requirement increases the controllers study asked for won hafone-half percent over 10 years they briefly talked about basically no specific recommendations go to point out that was something that the effectiveness of fee will change with the economic conditions this is a good idea to revisit and making sure we're capturing the cost and that's with the below-market-rate housing as you've heard the controllers process is about the long slot so there was no question amongst the controller study that the state density bonus will impact the inclusionary our user outcome; right? a buns for market-rate housing and the state law in affect the percentage unit

goes down however, the recommendations of the controller we can't accurately estimate how often the projects will choose to do that we can't assume they're all bonus will get the maximum bonus of 35 percent under state law given that the recommendations of the controller studies with the project when they don't use the state density bonus that 18 or 20 percent maximum that i referred to earlier for a condo, however, the study recommended that the projects that choose to use the bonus will pay the affordable housing fee similar to how we charge impact fees. >> so i'm not going to go through that side to side but before diving i want to give a brief summary of what changes under the proposals and also

some of the new provisions the proposal will bring section 415 that applies 10 united or more still large projects through both proposals that's the say of relief are the inclusionary requirements quite a bit is changing the onsite and offsite percentages will increase from what it was before prop c and in some cases decrease under the proposals and both proposals will keep the requirement for overflow room per the controllers study and changes to the way the affordable housing fee is calculated and the way it is sliced also income levels quite a bit of changes new definitions defining them as averages within a range of ami rather than a set number that didn't succeed the ami level and

identifies the residents also new provisions that have not been section 415 both have's a form of schedule annual increases as to the controllers study both have provisions with the state density bonus. >> law and both proposals have additional unit mix requirements so with that, i'm going to skip ahead a little bit to slide 31 in the interest of time and those waiting to speak before the commission we can come back if those details are unclear at any time the first, the project feasibility within the charge of prop c and the purpose of controllers study that is the name the game the question would either proposal to become

economically infeasible so this table compares to the controllers study that was the first set of numbers on the left looking at did 18 and 20 important onsite those are the maximum feasible amounts and under the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin proposal a in this prelgs that was introduced in september and reintroduced if february we have rental onsite above the 18 or 27 percent for owners above the 20 percent you've heard mentioned those numbers are an assumption the state density bonus will be used for all projects in san francisco at bonus level of 35 percent the second proposal that was introduced by supervisor safai, commissioner london breed and supervisor tang referred to presentation b in this presentation set the maximum level from the controllers range 18

percent at 20 percent for ownership as you can see the fee alternatives we provided for there is actually our next question okay. so the onsite ranges if you set the offsite ranks as we have in the proposals would there be an incentive a financial incentive this boils down for both proposals for rental projects not a clear financial incentive because the fees are pretty much set at the thirty to the onsite requirements the environmental impact is the same for the overflow room 416 the proposal if supervisor kim and supervisor cowen is the onsite rates a little bit more cost for developers to pay the fees you have a slight preference for the condo under the proposal to pay the fee rather than go onsite and to emphasize the policy

recommendations were there should be a recommendation a matter at our discretion to debate under proposal b by is commissioner london breed and supervisor tang no incentive for the projects you have the fee and the onsite that is pretty much the same environmental impact i want to point out with the proposal from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin the use of the state density bonus will impact this calculation which we will talk about more. >> all right. another policy what is the impact on housing production we heard if the legislative sponsors there will be higher production of bmr unit under the different proposals that is true the controller study with the model to estimate what science housing instruction u production over 15 years of a range of inclusionary rates and as

it gives up for bmr units but a net decrease in housing production overall in san francisco further unit than otherwise passed this, of course, in terms of the model under the controller study will lead to an increase in costs for households not in the bmr so in terms of if you're a household and move you'll look at a higher asking rent or sales price because there will be fewer unit this is true in both proposals proposal a has higher requirements a fact that amplified at 50 percent large decrease in costs to households under that proposal that is really just to give a relative comparison on a very complicated kind of topic the controller was not good enough to spend a lot of resources to give some

information on this what households will be preferred under each proposal proshl the implicated part what ami and when are you talking about the range the top or bottom so many ways to look at it now so what i tried to do to provide a be single afternoon sfrj to compare so looking at the smaller projects under the proposal from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin we have smaller projects providing units that are within a range of i'm available to answer any amis but average for 55 that's under prop c and please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, the commissioner london breed and legislation we have a point for small projects audible need to provide those at 80 ami or 100 percent for ami

for ownership in the large projects under the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin proposal we do keep above and moderate tiers in prop c however, rather than being worked out defined as this and that ami those tiers are defined as an average within a range of ami the numbers you see 72 or 98 percent of ami for other projects not within the legislation that is simply the weighed average with the low to area medium income that the equivalent of 72 ami for rental i want to do put that up to make a quick comparison to the proposal from supervisor safai commissioner london breed and supervisor tang that directions the unit is an average of 80 percent ami that's a lot of numbers 72 and 80 for rental not terrible

far apart the ranges are similar by a couple of members of the board of supervisors for the ownership project that there is a bigger spread 98 under one proposal and average slightly one 20 percent ami for other proposals so we briefly showed that little band of affordability earlier to indicate where we think we have the least served need taking into account the current resources available to us to build the bmr is one to 20 range and not nothing below we're trying to zero in on an area with needs the point of slide where did the proposals land within that range and i'm sure that is hard to see the triangles but basically passenger seat into the area

where the at least set of needs where supervisor peskin said i agree we're not that far apart great to keep in mind as we look at those proposals in the range it is true that proposal b on the bottom triangle supervisor safai ask supervisor president london breed and supervisor tang goes up to one and 20 ami level average for condo while proposal a has a tighter range, however, as mentioned those are the averages there will be a permitted range and as a matter of fact the rage goes from 45 to one and 40 ami for proposal a and 50 percent when you take into account the full range their covering a similar range and proposal b is absent hire more in the middle of the average range the affordable housing fee changes from

the way it is applied from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin keep it the way it is for fees and proposal from supervisor safai, supervisor president london breed and supervisor tang are the mayor's office of housing assess the fee on a square footage basis so that that will be proportional to the two bedrooms or is three bedrooms or studio it is based on the square footage how will it be #k4r5uk9d i want to emphasize under proposal a from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin that called for the may i to calculate a fee for 3 different types of 55, 80 and lower buildings and would have that $6 figure fees sprild by the different you types of units thirty fees by the mayor's office of housing i think the key policy

implementation concern here is that it will be difficult for the mayor's office to calculate it not because of numbers but the idea did mayor's office of housing charges a fee that a covers the cost to billboard below-market rate we actually built in mohcd didn't have those in the pipeline over 85 feet not common to have or inform mohcd is unable to say at at this time what type of building i'll spend the money on 5 years director dodd we need to look at this one more closely in the mraemgs challenges and in the proposal b again like i said the fee to match the cost to constrict a minor fee to give moe more flexibility to get that number right and my understanding from the mayor's office of housing that will #1y5i9 more revenue by changing

the fee calculations stewardships 3 policy questions before us first of all, should we assume that everyone leaves the bonus like i said, it concluded we can't assume there is the construction type they have to have a higher building to get that bonus and ceqa is state law you have to follow the path no matter how you got to that type of building the sponsor might not pursue the bonus and if a project takes the fee or choose to go ought not provided for onsite but keep in mind we can't assume that every project will choose the unit sometime advertise 50, there are particular site constraint and we've heard from folks the large project might are hard to sell

that's a reason not to add 35 what's her name and few projects to date okay so what if at the choose the program that's a great question with the project get the maximum 35 bonus the assumption behind supervisor kim and supervisor peskin department staff looked at the types of bonus and their complicated by basically neither will get to 35 percent but they're a lot of fun to calculate neither gets to 35 percent 35 percent ownership does much worse in terms of the maximum bonus with the ami levels more moderate but the state density bonus is set up to reward the higher onsite this is what you'll be so with the projects take all

the bonus we can't assume that if they will will they get the maximum they wouldn't if they follow the ordinances before you and that's a great question so what how will this impact each the proposals well, for the first proposal like i said a difficult project to remain economically feasible will have to receive the maximum bonus that is essentially a requirement in order to retain economically go feasible under proposal b a typical project will remain economically feasible the rates are set at max of 18 to 20 percent, however, the proposal b is the recommendations to charge the fee when a project does that we're almost there additional legislation which you heard

home sf formally known as the density bonus program and this is to provide for more for the family housing in the neighborhood and will have you know we have to ask for public question how it will interact in the program so i wouldn't touch on that the simplest way the one proposal if supervisor kim and supervisor peskin that relies on the state density bonus to achieve to maximize density and the housing proposal b on the other hand, is not relying on the state density bonus it will compare with home sf to maximum extent and provide for families housing in the neighborhood finally speaking of families both proposals take be a little bit of a different view the first from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin apply only the onsite bmr unit in a project that choose onsite so

let's say that 24 percent that 24 percent needs to provide large bedroom size pr what are that he 40ers, two bedrooms and 20 percent three bedrooms a total of 60 percent for the onsite under paroling prop a the proposal from supervisor safai and schooepd it will apply to any residential district not covered by the mixed use requirement so everywhere you'll see a requirement for 25 percent 0 two bedrooms or 20 percent three bedrooms and that will be done by adding a section to the planning code that will technically live outside of 415 what are the considerations to have more families we don't have recommendations food for

thought but more two bedrooms and three bedrooms that were built since 2005 are not opted out by families we can't control the family bedrooms they're less affordable whether bmr it is a consideration for the household that move into the unit and have quite a bit of anecdotal information and they a - the market as a point of reference is producing about 30 percent two bedrooms, 10 and large so 20 percent 4 and 3 and implementation challenges with the proposal from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin but it applies to the onsite you have to have bigger units but have another it 415 says we need the distribution for teachers of the market-rate and bmr unit this is something to keep in mind a

clean that is the route that the board goes and finally as the board of supervisors and the committee of the whole heard on tuesday a lot more on the bmr they focus on the mix and other features that can be included for more family-friendly housing briefly a consideration i think we've heard i don't know if anyone said this is pretty much the significant change to the program since that was created all the leverages and the definitions are changing and the numbers so there's a lot to keep an eye to be able to have clear information for the public and sponsors we're looking at your adoption hearing that is schedule for 3 weeks from today to designate the tiers and afternoons and ranges and also to you to designate the bmr within the

unit list and another thing to keep in mind we're doing to overflow room we have to track that closely and have a conversion fee from condo we want to make sure they're meeting the condominium and rental and prop a has a conversion in that the affordable housing inclusionary housing keep an eye that and basically put this on the ramp i'm sure we can handle it mathematically and keeping an eye on the quote/unquote grandfather provision and on the sometimes higher requirements in district we keeping an eye and looking forward to answering my questions and as we move forward but with that, that concludes my presentation. and i'd like to hand it over for public

comment. >> thank you, very much. >> so we will open up for public comment we've got a lot but we'll still keep the public time the comment period to 3 minutes in if i call your name (calling names). >> go ahead, sir speak. >> first of all, i want to obtain to ththis descriptionsy practice and claiming affordable housing for people in the city and county of san francisco this is been going on for years every brand new apartment building

context is put together by the mayor's office of housing and also every brand new apartment building that comes to the before supervisors they as set the requirement of affordable medium as 50 and 60 percent of hud income scale earlier the spokesman for the housing said the 50 percent is $4,000 per year it is $37,000 per year you use a low income hard working low income person as your pitch point by using a house cleaner a house cleaner makes that much money that's not true they did with a proposition d a female living in aa in-home care position and act

like she is qualified to move into a building at mac that 50 percent of the medium is a discriminatesy practice by excluding low income people at 40 and thirty and 25 and 20 percent of overall scale for incomes that is used to calculate people that are inevitable for building complexes now the board of supervisors and the mayor's office of housing attendance mr. olsen does that repeatedly even when you have a brand new building complex and advertise that it blaefrtd you make the requirements at 60 to 70 percent of medium so with that that means is that people who is income below the 45 thus plus is being worked out excluded from even

politically and putting in applications to be a candidate in those building too much discrimination each one of the supervisors and mayor's office of housing is deeply involved in their sdrimthdz you discriminate against people with the same income as yourselves but you can get you, your in violation of the equal protection under the law providing opportunity for high income people will you not for low income and in violation of the americans with disabilities act because the majority of people that are on street have physical and mental health and don't have the opportunity to apply for those buildings that you acting like our helping - thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,

commissioners mark are teamsters joint council 7 our organizations representatives thousands of working men and women in san francisco but i'll say that even thousand more by manyfold who work here and are moving farther and farther out but findings their employment being worked out really shut out in a way we're aware of workers who are as far out we saw the zip codes moving further and further east they're taking catnaps before they go to work on the freeways and in the stretches of the students about they go to their service jobs we fully port the inclusionary ordinance as proposed by supervisor ahsha safai and supervisor president london breed we believe that this is going to allow for closings now and it is so,

so important that we achieve this because very soon workers who work in service industries in hospitalities in the commercial office building and automotive industries bus drivers you know about public and private sectors will not be able to do those they'll not be able to do that they'll find other employment and has an effect not only on their livelihood but the city we strongly urge you will look to find a solution for as the slides talked about those that are at least everyday our sister crafts to find find economic improvement and continue to achieve our mission to find economic improvements for working people and find them also within the inability to afford to move

into the city of san francisco is unintelligible we hope as you make our decision you'll consider what working people need to stay here really if i could echo on everything that commissioner london breed talked about earlier it was so utterly important and you'll thank you for your time and consideration this matter. >> thank you, mr. dbe son. >> next speaker, please. >> >> peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. i think the brother spoke mad good points and you know there is a troublesome narrative in city hall i was there in 2002 when the original ordinance was passed now it seems like we're using inclusionary housing one tool to create this very

diversity class conflict it is very, very troubling what i'm handing out to you a statement of principles on inclusionary housing that didn't prop the policy solutions but addresses the conversation that is happening about who deserves affordable housing we need it it calls for un1100 grant avenue it is how we'll find a solutions that works for everybody we have a un1100 grant avenue narrative 25 signatory organizations a number than the california how nurses association and you community tenants and many will speak safe the action and homeownership san francisco the community services and mission and economic development and (calling names) the list goes on we have a labor

community coalition opportunity to figure out it out but as a device to pit folks against each other that is a terrible environment we have a couple of highlight we shouldn't be pitting low income san franciscans there are as commissioner peskin's a lot of them workers no reason to be pitting themselves against each other and there is no question a lot of us agree no question that the affordable housing expansion to it workers that's a new realty we don't a solve it by taking resources away from others we think this in terms of the pie the immediate political conversation how do we cutup this thing in front of us one of the key pieces the staff talked about is the ishgsz we can grow the inclusionary resources over time and set that as aggressively the

controllers novels one percent increase 50 percent is an arrest - i can decide when to start that to supply it starts in 2020 you can start 2018 think about the dimension or growing our pie and spreading to the folks in this room that's how we goad to the end of low and middle not quibbling over and pitting one against the other thank you >> thank you, mr. cowen. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners i'm lauren a senior and i'm one the legions that voted for prop c i feel like we set the

inclusionary housing goals we wanted to see in the large development 15 percent available for low income and 10 percent for middle-income both i think we voters clearly wanted more of the unit to be volleyball to low income ramp the higher income i can clearly see which one the plans prosecute you today keeps faith pace with iowa we intended 9 supervisor kim and supervisor peskin proposal the closings for all it in a meet intention of prop c because it allows be developers to build with a lesser amount of affordable housing and give those fewer

unit to hire income people please keep in mind low income people as supervisor malia cohen's and mr. cowen noted are working people i'm one of them and working families will benefit much more highly in the supervisor kim supervisor peskin proposal than the alternative please let's not pit malcolm x housing against locating housing we need both thank you. >> tu nepthank you. >> next speaker, please. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> good afternoon,

commissioners i am representing the association one the largest grassroots tenant organizations in the city today, we have brought over 40 members with us today 0 who are most of which of low income resident and seniors because we're here to have some

concerns about the inclusionary housing proposal that is currently by supervisor safai and supervisor president london breed and supervisor tang. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> affordable housing

shortage in san francisco is no secret to anyone and prop c that was passed by voters in last june improved that voters agree that developers need to have the higher inclusionary percentage when they're developing their projects but now this proposal that is being worked out put are forward will potentially put away the proposition that was passed housing shortage is not something that effect one level of income but effects all income levels of residents in the city but at the same

time those are hit the highest of the lowest income of families and seniors and so the city shouldn't be - it dpoong that the city is taking away resources from families of the lowest income but rather to figure out how to expand opportunity for people of all income levels. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> just keeping on building

now private investment without including any affordable housing units in the projects did not do anything for the community and in fact, reducing the below-market rate requirement to 18 percent will actually hurt both sides of party weird strongly here to to reallocating the requirement to 18 percent and strongly maintain that we should be kept at the 24 or 25 percent levels thank you very much. >> while the next speaker is couple of i'll call additional names (calling names) . >> good afternoon,

commissioners welcome my name is rodney co-founder the social community-based organizations in the heart of hunters point i'm a member of the hunters point host community and a department of a local extortion for local partnerships we turn goals both outcomes i'm a lifetime resident of the city and county of san francisco and more importantly hunters point in san francisco the work noncustodial parents the single working women the single working fathers no children we all deserve a fair and inclusive housing now, when it comes time for those of us in the income bracket between 60 and 65

or 95 or one hundred we need this policy like the janitor and the teamsters and carpenters the nonprofit community those workers as well myself we deserve that and it should be inclusive again, the current policy has put other the working hard people the african-americans remove the city because we can't afford to stay here unfair definitely when we are working in the city you have city departments like dpw and the mta that is doing major recruitment for local hiring and doing a great deed for the city those folks have permanent jobs yet the backlash they got to move to la

jolla or richmond or oakland had i had to travel over two bridges to get here unfair to the city unfair to the people that i've serving unfair to the community that i was born and raised in bayview hunters point now again, we the middle-income the hard working minority the african-americans the single working women and men all the noncustodial parent we're asking for a better inclusionary housing policy and in conclusion we know that whatever you preventing occupy your thoughts will magnify in our life i want to home and working hard to make that happen i need you guys to help ousted thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. hamilton. >> next speaker, please. >> (clapping.) >> >> good afternoon my name is

gail and i like to say i'd like to see my children and others live and work here okay important and so, please make housing policies be fair thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> (clapping.) >> >> excuse me - folks please refrain from the clapping. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you forfor thank you for the opportunity to come before and thank supervisor safai, commissioner london breed and supervisor tang this is a conversation that we have had in silos only too long in the city we have bleed people of color and

bleed simple be mothers of children and bleed the franchisees population that once thought that was an opportunity here we we have watched that bleed our labors brothers and sisters that built the city and continue to keep the city running they had to leave they come here to work they pay an extra amount of money to get to san francisco to work and not to mention childcare and then they have to go back home all of us that call san francisco home what we see here is not what the vision held are for us many years ago even 20 years ago we redevelopment was mr. glover through the city we thought we had an opportunity the opportunity began to diminish please understand that behind all the languages and culture lie people community much like yourselves everyone in the audience would

love their children to grow up and choose to work and live in san francisco as we did as it stands now that simply is not possible ami of one and one thousand dollars a dollars you believe a two family household is with only person leafs we have another person that becomes homeless and many have my daughter once she got on they are feet she is in the medical profession doing well but makes too much to benefit from the program to afford a home in san francisco it takes an annual salary actions from the people that actually have had to endure the policy and culture of lack of housing within san francisco i think that worth moving forward and working on i want to thank you for your time

and i'm implore you to keep in mind we have done many things this the city we've never followed through - just like the african-americans out migrates panel came up with reasonable and solid sluktsdz housing amongst them nothing was done i implore you to keep in mind and toe listen carefully you here pleas of passion and pain and hurting thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello how you doing (microphone feedback). >> once again how you doing i'd

like to ask you guys to please make san francisco housing policy inclusive i'd like to continue to be able to work and live in san francisco. current programs that in effect right now seem like they're for the rich or struggling black poor you know when i was working for the labor union you know i'm a long-term lifetime of hunters point you know, i thought it would be great to tell my daughter the place we live in is where we build but the principled were not kept i make enough not to get accountable income but not buy matters of i'd like to see that change will about the middle-income that is disappearing and really no more

middle-income so you guys in the meeting please think about us and let this be a real thing thank you >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners dan policy director at neighborhood commercial district cd chinatown people from the light court downstairs they got carries a hopefully, the next time we're able to accommodate for osthose - we'll be attending the next meeting on this matter i don't want to mix word but be contrary from our perspective the proposal that supervisor safai and commissioner london breed and supervisor tang are put forward a step backwards from the stand point

of inclusionary housing program that has expanded opportunity and tricks the amount of calling for a conclusion i agree with what people said about the housing crisis but we shouldn't do it on the backs of poor i think we can move in that direction with supervisor peskin and supervisor kim's proposal and i hope we have a conversation for those who are maybe on the other side of the #0i8 let's come together in the coming weeks we need to make our policies strongly we absolutely agree for inclusionary housing and so i again with without repeating some of the things the speakers said the line we draw the voters have a maid that clear expand the affordable housing for

people and not go backwards and defeated a promotion overwhelmingly that was a measure that basically was similar rhetoric about the housing crisis the problem that our affordable housing program didn't set income levels high 90 enough if so not causing the shortage of housing in san francisco but if we move forward when people follow-up with more detailed letter with respect to it let's across the board there are specific items troubling in the legislation if supervisor safai and all for example, we are concerned on the projects the 25 units and below that they're raising the income ami level to percent and many neighborhoods that is gentrifying our community those rents we the existing resident can't

afford let's not move backwards let's make sure that we - let's have a use it or lose that the developers shouldn't be given 3 years to sit on those and see what happens to the market they should build foe let's build now and up to include the middle-income and include everyone. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> tu nepthank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners my name is jones i'm the executive director of arts band i represented e represent 12 hundred artists trying to make a living no inform i i don't envy you we're one community and if every plan - the controllers data speaks for

itself that the proposal put forward by supervisor president london breed is more and more tenable we're using federal standards to decide what happens here from the sunset and it is important to think about san francisco has been a unique place and have a great economy in many, many ways and if we think of new voices and new ways of solving our problems that will rep help you have respect for supervisor kim and supervisor peskin he has been around for 20 years we're in a situation we vote in prop c and then don't hit the goals in that and proposal a from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin is not looking at a 5

percent that divide more housing this is incredible we vote and it didn't work and make legislation bans hopes and dreams didn't work i think that the prop b or the proposal b is realtime real now i find it to be the memoranda and middle-income class my husband and i were evicted last year with office of economic workforce development m ii serve the san francisco and the artists it is difficult as an artist and not to fall blow but well, well below-market rate the $1,200 are from even if ethic, possibilities from immigrants all over the world and many, many of the artists fall between this underserved and the market-rate we ask you to

please again think about those proposals and look at the controllers information and note that we really do need to solve the middle gap that is happening in san francisco and please make sure that it happens quick and expediting and the law la serve us for two, 5 years not come back again and again and look at the hopes and dreams but look at the real numbers that serve everyone, everyone deserves to have a home thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello thanks for thank you for your time for comments i appreciate it i have a new found respect for listening to everybody so i'll be quick i'm an artist living in the city i'm relatively do well, for myself and answer supervisor peskin

question he said what do you want this town or city to look like in 10 years if you drive auto the artists that are doing okay. it will be gray it burglary be boring so as an artist working here i'll say i go against the #34ig9 not all artists are out of work i have a family and a wife that works for an education organization and a 7-year-old the boy i moved here 15 years ago i'm not good at any time i can make art i turned it in a business with the arts organization that are here i was here talking and today is actually, my third year of doing that as a full-time job now want to own a house i make too much

to qualify for low income housing and in that dark forgettable spot i think if any wife was not working for a nonprofit we would be okay but we're just scraping but we're scraping by a in a town that is constantly pushing more and more challenges and more and more things we'll not be able to own something i'm speaking for the f a example ii and commissioner london breed proposal that is a respite in a dark place i don't feel it robs peter to pay paul thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners this is fernando i'm an artist first point we want to reiterate we can't

be pitting one workforce against another when you talk away from some to give to the on that is simply not fair it is the this similar to prop u the voters rejected it looks like a skunk and smell likes and skunk it might be a skunk i think that there's a possibility here to move to towards something that really tries to address different workers needs but are in order to get that we have to understand who wore talking about so here's some general numbers i might be a little bit off hotel workers eastern $38,000 permit holders in the unified school district $34,000 and just a few minutes downtown 34 thousand labor oh, somebody correct me so i'd like to hear where that

is hiring or lower per laborers 348 to 50 thousand who earn to 50 percent of area medium income for a one to 2-person household one person earn who earns from 60 to 90 percent the question facing you all and the supervisors as approach a and b are you going to be able to look at those union members in the face and say i'll vote for a proposal that takes away half of the unit so with, build for unit at a higher level this is a possibility to do both to continue to serve the workforce that is represented by hotel workers and janitor and paraprofessionals in our

schools and add it that additional leveled for the teachers and nurses the way you do that is by inviting the density bonus program saying this is how we'll do that and i think jabbing correct me if i am wrong when i understood from the controllers report that the feasible what they if you know had a hard time figure out how to do that supervisor peskin it assumes are your faced with density bonus program proposal you raised the question how can it be our hands are tied what can we do you've not be the only city west hollywood and western edition a density bonus program is going to be taken that is the right way to serve the entire workforce thank you thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners joseph

commissioner president dwight with the human rights committee no question that market-rate housing is affordable inform people that make at least one and 50 percent the area medium income we see that problem paying out every day the question is whether we should hold the vendors to participating in solving the problem of providing housing at all income levels the voters heard a number of policies but it is important to remember about the housing balance ballot measure passed a couples years ago when the voters said to at least 33 percent of housing to be affordable to low income and 50 percent to be below-market rate the it supervisor safai commissioner london breed proposal does exactly the opposite it requires the below-market rate requirements 80 be shifted so

that the affordability moves away from the most in need and the affordability to middle-income rather than southern california the problem of housing balance i'm not saying either proposal goes far enough but the supervisor peskin and supervisor kim proposal actually pushes the envelope of what might be feasible this will not solve the how to hold the market-rate vendors petting those against with the moderate income but in order to chip away at the issues we need to push the envelope what the developers can provide supervisor kim said we need to increase the pie and the amount of percentage that we're holding developers to provide for low income workers and the lower income taxes families.

>> i'll call additional speakers (calling names). >> commissioner i'm betty i'm with senior be disability action we represent low income seniors and people with disabilities and this is a group that is being worked out evicted at the highest rates in san francisco why? because the seniors are aging in place and in units that are low income and speculators comes in and wants them out to the point that is reaching elder abuse you heard compassionately about a man in his 90s facing evictions that literally after stress of it died in his bed at home one hundred-year-old women being worked out evicted and two

proposals before you one for inclusionary housing one of them at 18 percent maximum, and then divided into 3 parts makes the lower one of percent while the voters you've heard numerous times through prop c at least 15 percent for the low income i think that is plan before you that we need to keep at any time 15 percent for the low income people and also, if these developers as supervisor kim said can be pushed i perching think that if they are can build millions of plus condos they can add in the one to two had had thousand to those and give us the inclusionary we need in san francisco thank you. >> tu nepthank you>> next

speaker, please. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> good afternoon. >> my name is gloriaes pens >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm a member of local 87. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the work i had a very hard. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> as well as the lose. >> ma'am, i'm sorry to interrupt you would you use the other mike. >> with all the existing laws i can't live here. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so the majority of my

colleagues and other just a few minutes like myself are pushed out to oakland or richmond. >> richmond. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and that's something i had to recently experience personally. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it's really go incredibly difficult to work only to pay rent. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it is to o so unfair we

don't qualify for low income housing. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we need a pathway an opportunity or access to be able to have that type of housing as much as not just for adjournment ambassador carpenters and other construction workers and other industries to have that pathway. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> to qualify for those types of programs. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i support commissioner london breed and supervisor safai. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it is in you're hands

whatever it should be. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so we can have a home here in san francisco. >> thank you thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening 37 years old i grew up in san francisco and recently had to move out i work 3 jobs i'm a janitor i work for a tech company and work part time at a nonprofit living here is really hard and expensive if you're low income your bar is here but don't qualify for housing we're in a gray area we can't live here but we can't afford it working

3 jobs i shouldn't have to cross the bridge i have coworkers and 0 others who don't live close by in sacramento someone lives in modesto and commutes here i understand that they're saying yungs we're taking from the low income we're not consider us and think about us i support workforce housing i support commissioner london breed and supervisor safai proposal i worry about you guys will consider it. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody i'll keep it quick i wanted to start off

quoting matthew poverty two freedoms to profit for rent and the freedom to live in a safe and affordable home my concerns with supervisor president london breed and supervisor safai proposal sorry (microphone feedback) thanks my concerns with supervisor safai and mr. reid's legislation as shared by the labor council the prioritization of the affordability first, i'm concerned with the calculating fees based on the developer costs instead the market-rate housing favors the developers over real market conditions second affordable housing based on the ami proposal as specified proposal a effecting

marginalized the working families and crowds them out of affordable housing since developers can successes the average from a small ami unit in the majority of high ami units so some have raised that supervisor safai and supervisor breed robs peter to pay paul i don't believe so this forces peter and paul to fight each other over the pie i don't want to live in a city that makes they step over others. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jeffrey i'm a full-time janitor and i work part time at the flee market i'm the

guardian of my 11-year-old sister and we live in a small studio unfortunately i don't make enough money to afford a house but i don't - i make too much money for to be able to apply for low income i feel shamed i can't provide a house or place where my sister and i can call home and i hope this commission gives the support to supervisor president london breed and the supervisor ahsha safai because i believe this this proposal will be a solution for me for working families and for san francisco

san francisco needs thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is tony rodriquez represent the local and a native of san francisco my parents came in the last informing working hard one a warehouse man in the city and the other one worked at schlage and raised the four of us i will 32 years ago bought a home in san francisco and raised four girls in the city you know, i said a representative a workforce of skill trade they get paid a living wage with benefits but they can't afford to live in the city to give you an example like bernal heights houses are sold for 9

had thousand their gutted and put on the market for 1.5 and people without three $300,000 your pachldz are 7 or 8 hundred with taxed what i've hearing for years and i've been in the trade for about 35 years hearing about workers forced out of san francisco because we can't buy a house their rates here and have to move out someone said having to leave homes at 45 clock and get home at the 8 o'clock at night this is wrong so epic that people are you're taking away from peter to pay that all my thought i've not heard anything done for the middle-income and when

i hear from supervisor president breed and supervisor safai at some legislation that will help the disappearing middle-income stay in to i hear if supervisor kim and supervisor peskin is depends on density and that's not guaranteed this is a thing for the middle-income i ask you to consider this this is a set up a positive thing for them and the alternative is what our hearing people having to move out and spend outs u hours on the freeway and have an opportunity they go away they can't do it anymore thank you au. >> good afternoon you commissioners here to point out a minor issue that has smasz for projects of 21 units or less a few years ago prop c went on the ballot and was passed the

discussion around praublg there were supporting document and data to suggest that those smaller projects can stay at status quo a few years later supervisor safai and supervisor president breed legislation which directions the benefits of the inclusionary program to hire ami levels when you combine the two together you have a lowering of the burden for those projects i i didn't believe that was the intent of anybody i'm here to say we're dedicated and committed to working with the shareholders and the elected officials and that once this dust settle and once we know what the final ami levels will be we'll action quantify this

difference and then b establish a mechanism to contribute that to the small site program thank you au . >> good afternoon commissioners my name is ken i'm here representing the units educators of san francisco we are the teachers and the par educators of this city we've heard a number of folks speak for the trust of teachers i want to give you a little bit of background where the educators that is teachers and par educators of stand on housing in san francisco and the issue of affordable housing years before the battle over inclusionary housing appeared on the landscape just as the housing crisis was breaking and sf was dragged

into the housing fight with my decided back then we'll all in this together. >> within tsthe - the main thing i've named them their par educators we were refused to have teachers and other professionals in the schools pitted against the interest of our lower interest brothers and sisters working alongside those in the classrooms of san francisco and further the meaning we're all in this together in way no morale foundation for the brothers and sisters and the teachers in the city can abide we'll pit clamor teachers against the very low income students and their families that sit in

our classrooms the idea of 15 percent inclusionary housing for low income people for us and none ca can speak in the name of teachers again, after this discussion is over will lower housing for teachers and at the same time lower the ability of locating san franciscans to find a place in our fair city everyone is intensely involved in the initial or issue it cares again san francisco we're here a sweet spot between the inadmissibility and finding that sweet spot but an example people talk about teachers in the schools we have a member nora who was won the human rights teacher educator of year award she's a par educator i

don't know what she is making but in the thirty thousand the teachers at galileo high school were certainly do not want their housing needs and what a lose to lose her or others par educators you guys are a tough. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> and good afternoon carpenters local 22 we're not here to take a position but want to bring up a couple of points i hope you'll consider and the board of supervisors will consider first of all, the great unspoken thing maybe mentioned we simply need

for housing part of what the supervisor kim the numbers are based on is oh, worry about full thinking is prospective and hopeful the resistance that my developer in the town gets generally speaking layer a density bonus program we know what will happen this commission seize what happens when any project and the fight to model legislation and outcome bans one 100 percent is not the way to go but have a sensitivity analysis if only a quarter of developers or analysis to see what that looks like if we look corridors and or try to be more thoughtful and second of all i've noticed

amongst the proposals it the 10 to 25 units is pretty much hands off this is the thing the larger projects we're tagging those higher impact fees they hire the union workers and stay healthcare and training and develop those people and working with citibuild to make sure that the people that are our desire workforce is trying to get opportunities while those 10 to 25 units projects pay less for car and storage and pay way below area standards and contribute into the health and puts that cost back on the city but we're keeping our hands off p of this so i think that as we focus on the various projects 5 00 units in

the pipeline that are basically you know that are escaping for lack of a better word and rodney hamg to that your citibuild is designed to take people from the southeast from low income community to skilled construction trades to get middle-income careers a carpenter a second period carpenter will not qualify for housing we're talking about rob peter to pay paul and give one hand and taking from another we're pitting people in a situation they can't stay and i hope that is a. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm abraham i'm a father of 5 kids

i'm a husband a full-time student seeking to be a affirm maker i used to live here in san francisco but having 5 kids living in nine hundred 900 square feet was a nightmare we tried to get affordable housing but they rejected me i had two or three jobs and wish to come back to live in the city where i grew up on market street to ts the embarcadero i miss being worked out close to my work not crossing the bay bridge everyday my kids going to golden gate park every weekend i wish i could be soufrnd with the great 0 society we need workforce housing a solution to my family i support supervisor

president breed and supervisor safai proposal. >> tuhank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon hello, i'm 25 years old i'm a full-time janitor and i'm a member of local 87 it is hard to stand here and share what my any man my age would be shamentd i'm homeless and have been living in my car for the past month i current come from la too i choose san francisco to work here hard because i know there is a lot of potential in san francisco than in louisiana is pretty much dead now i have i have a difficult life

i struggle not to good job but hard when you don't have a place to call home i earn to much more affordable housing but the to pay 4000 in rent i know that workforce housing will be a good solution for young people that are trying to work with dedicated in a spiritual we're pushed into everyday i hope you'll consider a solution that helps workers like myself and a cancer survive and support supervisor breed and supervisor safai thank you thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm tray i work at senior disabilities action and live in north beach what i know is that we voted for prop

c what i know as a city that is what we voted inform as a city we voted done proposition u i'm sorry by supervisor safai, mayor tilly chang proposal sounds like you what i know is also living in north beach i see that the workforce there on the wharf is now traveling from the east bay and beyond to get to their minimum wage jobs many of them and that the wharf is having a hard time hiring people people can't afford to live here we're talking about a workforce those people that live in my neighborhood with a 10-minute commute commute for a much, much longer time and paying the additional fees that involves i

know that the seniors continue to be displaced to be evicted because their long term tenant is there is no where to go they want to live in buildings mixed income include their income being worked out although the retired construction people the retires carpenters the retired janitor are low income we need to think about in the future those same people that are here today as teamsters as carpenters as etc. that when our time comes that retirement we need to be sure the same housing for you and make sure the housing for those who are retired again, i'm very concerned and support the supervisor peskin supervisor kim legislation and don't want to pit one group against another so, please please think

carefully thank you thank you >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. we're reviewing both pieces of finds legislation don't have an opinion at this time in the conversation of feasibility the projects that were brought up we want to clarify a number of things that supervisor kim that mission rock project is one and 50 percent ami 15 hundred 00-unit it is a significant up donning for that the one and folsom used public subsidies one project and 5 m has land dedicated important free religious are not apples to apples comparisons what we are talking to be perfectly that

honest frustrating when we dive into the numbers. >> talk about the differences neither one hits 4 hundred total subsidized units and neither one hits 1800 units per year we talked about how 60 percent of san franciscans qualify for bmr 60 percent is 4 hundred and 80 thousand people 4 00 units for 4 hundred and 80 thousand people in need that's so far from reasonable and should be talking about the total dpfs between the proposals are 72 bmr unit between every year supervisor kim and supervisor peskin 72 total bmr unit per year that's what we are arguing about what are we trying to get to audit outing of all of that we circled the unit

5,000 units the data says that housing crisis will go up and same rate as inflation we need to build 5,000 units per year consistent production is addicting i'd like to get to a point to have a reasonable extension how much labor and 2011 we built 4 hundred huge, huge impact on job is that will building all the city and making sure that everyone is pare and contributed or put all the housing in one part of city i think we need to be tracking this stuff and quantifying what success looks like one of the ways to look at how p pa and quarterly updating to the make a prediction to get ahead of that thing and be as smart as

possible at the end really, really, really when this comes to creating shelter for people and providing that basic right we have to stop arguing bayshore crumble and figure out a better way to build a pie thank you. >> tu nepthank you. >> next speaker, please. >> a bigger pie i'm laura clark and i represent the members of the jury the pro housing people neither one of those addresses the real fundamentally underlying problem we're not building enough housing that is arguing over the crumbs left on the table and deciding whether that will be for middle-income people a few crumbs or crumbs for the low income income and get to address the underlying problem that is a third of the city is zoned it

single-family homes only and is untouchable, of course, we can't address those problems as long as we're a playing this game we prevent that inclusionary zoning can address the need we need a lot more housing everywhere we can getting into the weeds if you had a full density bonus program under the supervisor kim supervisor peskin resolution all the 24 percent has to be at 50 percent ami this is a small technicality not going to workout it will be used for misrepresent income with the density bonus program the point we're waste of time arguing over peanuts those are peanuts and the faster through other argument the better we need to address the undermining crisis underbuilding

housing for decades decades every time we spent a lot of time at the hearings arguing with each other before the three or four units on any given project another will months we are adding to the housing crisis people need homes they need them now 9 entire process needs to be speed up up dramatically i want every single one to take that as you do everything you can to speed up the production of housing not just in you, you know community already dealing with a lot of gentrification and changing but your job to demand that our wealth it neighborhood pare and see physical changes that wewe purposing create neighborhoods thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'll read more names (calling names)

please. my name is brad i'm on the board of harvey milk lgbt democratic not is an official position but one thing i want to ask quickly before i say all the things i want to say what do you mean to be a pro housing organization and which is not pro housing here this don't make sense to me it is housing for who london breed said quote we can't keep on failing people by selling a false narrative but who pays for the money and the real estate speculators the money that is poured into many ftof the

candidates campaigns where is the money they pay come from san franciscans that is x trademark from is this city and the middle-income and low income people in the city so if we don't want to promote a false narrative talk about supply and demand and stop promoting the idea of promoting more supply will decrease the demand if we provide more supply we create more people to live here and kids and more people will keep on living here who do we want to protect we can't put middle-income and poor people against one another but the idea that we do that it is sort of interesting no one is talking about the fact we need to sort of be 0 not necessarily having unity but a

critical conversation about those who are benefiting from quote/unquote middle-income and low income earns a single teacher is a low income earn so many people who the motors or the people describe as middle-income have actually low income earns and i think with when we in the supervisor peskin and supervisor kim legislation the idea that we are protecting more of the middle and low income earns and the city we're protecting diversity and people that who have been solid out by real estate speculation in the city so a long time i want people to be critical of the idea we need unity over critique people say we need to have un1100

grant avenue they're asking for compliance with the money interests of the speculators and then please, please, please fight for middle-income and lower class and don't put those people at odds with one another. >> thank you he. >> next hank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners, i work for local 87 i used to live in the city 4 years ago and for us it is like - unfortunately in a couple of years the family needs a three bedrooms we can't afford that we went totto the low income

housing and was told the income is too high we tried to rent a three bedrooms we can't afford that we drove owe we are drove out from the city because of problems i live in oakland i traffic one and a half and traffic back home to see the family to do the homework with the kids i'm here today to support the proposal of the workforce that proposed by supervisor president breed and supervisor safai so the community can live and work in the city thank you very much thank you, thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hello

my name is olga the president of the y i u and the secretary of the council we sent a letter to the supervisors with both initiative and the board members to come to a arrangement i appreciate folks that have spoken today, there is initiative although different not too far apart and supervisor peskin himself said here about here and said (laughter) they're not too far apart can work on something together it is key to the initiative to want to work on something as a daughter of a single mother with the children i representatives 4000 just a few minutes the crisis of not

just the contract were negotiating and the obligates of organized labor railroad obligation not ending and bargaining table but the crisis is how to represent our members one the worse examples was we were fighting a building owner that evokedicted one of the members he recently had a heart attack and the person his mother was in low income housing senior housing in chinatown we if you do that offense that somebody who was a millionaire that can own reports in san francisco has the auditions to have access to low income housing we're not saying that we are opposed to low income i want to be able to ask can you are members please stand. >> (speaking not one is a millionaire not one thank you

i'm not here standing a millionaire all the brothers and sisters within labor we're not going to plan to pitting one community go another we're working families whether we are meet a threshold we're all we own property unless we won the lottery i don't see anyone that stood that forts the proposals is a millionaire otherwise they'll not have the problems we have for all of us this is near and dear and face it everyday the jobs we're asking you and pushing our supervisor to not pit us against each other i'll not play into that game a letter sent out by coalitions and community organizations i invite them to sit at the table to understand the stories and the experienced the members have been pushed out of and again, i ask

everyone here today to understand we're not trying to play into that game but workforce housing is necessary in san francisco. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners michael building and construction tradable right off the bat thank you, supervisor kim and done this this in the past for bringing this in the 5 m and want to thank supervisor breed and supervisor safai for bring it to the board on inclusionary housing we in the trades for a decades literally have complained about the process of taking in apprenticeships from under privileged places and see them pushed out of the city with a buck in

the pocket and want real homes for that themselves and families with that said, i know that while we grossly under build we under build low income housing as well and the as prior speakers noted the good that the inclusionary housing policy can limit the harm of poorly crafted housing is considerable and so i'll urge about sides in the beat to sit down and workout the inclusionary housing policy not damaging and also urge them to and everyone to begin to focus on the nitty-gritty of the policy on a whole set of particular issues that i might run down here would take a while that might bulge the dial thank you.

>> tuff. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is gina and i'm the executive director other bernal heights we're in the bernal heights district 9 in the enjoying in district 11 your board of directors has not taking a position regarding the proposal we have some concerns and felt needs to be part of discussion today we agree there is a need more affordable housing and affordable housing solution for middle-income families and what is described as a missing middle we're challenged and don't argue it should be at the expense of our other working group which is also low income families yes low income

families work there are our neighbors and community members living in one home where you can anticipate maybe three or four or more families in the excelsior that didn't seem for part of this discussion it is not uncommon that that occurs while they're waiting to quality for the low income housing for sustainable lives i'll challenge everyone what do we say to those families i've heard a lot about the families of the working class but low income families have the same issues we want all families to stay and live sustainable lives in san francisco i think we have a good discussion and an opportunity to do that without minimizing the mingle opportunity that our families have here

in san francisco thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> and i'll call more cards (calling names) i imagine going through those some people have spoken (calling names) wait a minute please. please. >> okay. thank you. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> hi, everyone. >> go ahead. >> hi, i'm angela i'm one of the working families in san francisco i'm a part of worker committee at a chinese progressive association they

include the low income workers and families in chinatown. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> whether you're a restaurant worker adjacent or teacher a nurse or a supervisor every workers wants a roof over their head and wants to stay in san francisco. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the proposal by supervisor safai has been pitting working families in different income levels and creates division and didn't help that the san francisco housing crisis is hurts the community. >> (speaking foreign language.)

>> so earlier supervisor safai and supervisor president breed talked about workforce housing you know the workforce those teachers and nurses and also restaurant worker and minimum wage workers our work to work part time jobs making 50 thousand a year that needs affordable units. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so our city should have

better solutions to really solve that housing crisis that impacts every single worker like prop c that was approved by the voters in june asking developers to pare so that we know working families can stay in san francisco. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> as part of city i hope the planning commission is a listen to us and hear our voices and support the proposal by supervisor kim and supervisor cowen is low income families can have access to 50 percent the unit and all working people have a chance to stay in san francisco. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so today there's a lot of of

us from chinatown that overflow room are here to support . >> is looks like we don't have speakers i'll call cards (calling names) good afternoon, commissioners. >> my name is charley i'm here to demand economic rights and i'm here to express in my deep frustration of the proposals by supervisor safai supervisor tang and supervisor president london breed i see that as not a bold vision is reduces the pie and divisive for the san franciscans and workers i'm sad i feel like the same politics of division is what we see in the neighborhoods

let me tell you why last month we were appalled by the sobering reality that thirty individuals made a home in the basement in the landlord been living there 10 years no windows and ventilation but makeshift pharynx when the city learned the housing situation the tenants were appreciative evicted the city asked the community agencies to provide assistance a navigating the affordable housing resources but neither the 71 nor the community agencies were able to find affordable housing for those residents now they're in shelters but no permanent affordable housing but the story didn't end to add insult to injure down the street is a proposed development where two preschools are displaced and the market-rate housing project

is proposed this master project on 675 ocean avenue is out of character with the surrounding working-class community and is the exact opposite for the kind of developments solutions we would like to see in response to the housing crisis we're putting hard working people one block way we're reducing the requirements for of the developers to create affordable units it don't make sense to me this proposal waters down the inclusionary housing we lose the qualities that make our city's and a place for families and working people and proud san franciscans and a safe haven for folks i'd like to speak to the proposal the second proposal supervisor safai commissioner london breed why are we settling for the loss it common

denominator a bolder rate for league of women voters inclusionary housing and why arey pitting san franciscans and workers against each other we should be expanding the pie to meet all the fundamental needs on the spectrum and in addition higher considerations for sensitive and working-class communities that are on the front lines and making sure that the community benefits is greater in those communities facing higher development pressures thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> of this commissioners osie with the noah neighborhood council we're in full support of supervisor kim and supervisor peskin's proposal while we're against what supervisor safai, commissioner london breed and supervisor tang have proposed the reasons are observe first of

all, the citizens of san francisco overwhelmingly passed prop c last june and the proposal that supervisor safai, commissioner london breed and supervisor tang especially will hijack this and another way to look at it is that what supervisor kim and supervisor peskin are proposing 15 percent for the low income and 10 percent for the middle-income aggressive government are protecting the vulnerable citizens who is more vulnerable low income people or middle-class it is observe that low income need more protection another way to look at it is this the difference between this supervisor kim and supervisor peskin are proposing versus supervisor safai is 80 percent ami for ownership versus one and 20 ami i have the numbers for

the one and 20 percent 90 thousand plus for one person, one and $3,000 for two, that people those are the families obviously this is more skew for middle-income while you leaving listened the low income working families more vulnerable today you saw many people coming here testifying a lot of them immigrants of different places on a personal note, i want to mention like myself supervisor safai is first adjudicator iran american and no doubt people coming here starting from zero upon arrival and so you'll think he would be more sensitive to the needs of low income families so i'm here before you asking

you please give supervisor kim and supervisor peskin's proposal more consideration that is what is the right thing thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners it's a long afternoon i'll be brief i'm doctor lee the president of the liberty hill association our association supports the inclusionary housing proposal that was put forward by supervisor kim and supervisor peskin an overwhelmingly port when voters passed prop c requiring developers to commit 25 percent affordable housing onsite it is not perfect it does more to demand the developers provide more housing for our city's workforce and low income earns

does more than competing and very divisive proposal by the mayor as supervisor safai and supervisor tang and we've over built high-end luxury units the city policy needs to focus on those who live and work not give away to the developers the mayor's proposals reduces the number of units for low income people we urge you and the board of supervisors to stand with supervisor kim and supervisor peskin and support real housing diversity for those who live and work this maximize it for low income and middle-income residents thank you thank you very much.

>> if there are any persons left in the overflow room make our way to room 4 and submit your testimony. >> good afternoon anastasia from the noah valley council prop c inclusionary housing for all passed in june requires the developers to commit to 25 percent affordable housing units onsite the inclusionary a law has been improved as supervisor kim told us with the analysis by technical experts and community shareholders the mayors supervisor president london breed and supervisor safai have a separate policy proposal the facts housing was crafted with the community to maximize middle affordable housing the mayor's legislation was written by developers to maximize their profits

the mayors measure reduces the amount of affordable housing overall here are the numbers 5 thousand 8 hundred plus units of affordable housing unit is cut back to 4000 plus that that is more than one thousand units the nuke number of unit for low income decreases to one thousand 60 units developers can build 25 percent affordable housing it has been proven it is happening housing for all incentivizes by raising in lui fees versus waiting for the mayor's office to piece together packets of funds director dodd housing for all maximize for low and middle-income residents that

need it now thank you thank you good afternoon, commissioners my name is jesse i'm a community organizer for folks in district 11 that is increasing the final refuge for the low income and immigrant that families that remain in san francisco on behalf of the janitors and teachers or security guards who are union laborers we say not to delay reductions in the inclusionary housing this is a sentiment shared by 55 percent of voters that gave us 25 percent inclusionary with the passage of prop c and a sentiment doubled down when they voted down prop u not pitting community against each other for much, much needed housing in san francisco yes, we

need to be visionary and be a pro-active in finding solutions the city itself has brokered inclusionary deals as high as 55 at mission bay and reservoir so we need to continue to be adding rather than taking away if low income or working-class folks that are hit the hard it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> if there are others that want to speak here or in the overflow room feel free to please line up on the screen side of the room. next go ahead.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> hi commissioners i'm a member of the collaborative their 5 hundred and 50 families by us in sro buildings in the city and 4 hundred and 50 of the families i actually in chinatown we're families with young children 18 and under i myself and my husband we are working family he's a sales person i work in a small hotel

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> okay there is well little affordable housing in the city i like other families have tried to apply more affordable housing but we didn't get it that's really little chance >> (speaking foreign language.) >> thank you. >> so the proposal from

supervisor safai and supervisor president breed will only cut down the number of affordable housing everyone in the city i urge you to support supervisor peskin and supervisor kims proposal thank you and keep the 10 percent for the 35 percent ami thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi there before i start the words on the screen are not popping up in case those hard of hearing the words are not popping up. >> thank you for letting us know i'm a community organizer with the people organizing to demand economic rights i am 26 live in the mission i wanted to thanks a lot of the community

members that are here addressing this issue of not having a place to live or afford san francisco we heard from am brackets if 20 to our elders and parents folks in their mid you know, etc. we have many people coming out obviously that is a very sensitive important issue to all of us here in san francisco so i'll also disheartened that the supervisors are putting this forward and we're kind of fighting which is better for each other and voters overwhelmingly voted for prop c saying we want housing for middle-income and don't want to pit housing against each other we know we need it and folks living in cars and people traveling from oakland and antioch to work here and not trying to pit this against each other we see the developers

proprietor riggs low income and prioritizing and middle-income and are victims of the greed of developers and they're only goes to prioritize profit over people we're trying to prioritize people ero profit we need a higher percentage for low income and middle-income because the developers - whoops who that i'm passionate developers will not prioritize that for us we know that lets give a higher percentage we're not arguing offer crumbs but we should be requiring them to build for low income and middle-income and not arguing how much do you make and i have this job and who that makes more than what we're desiring of housing and deserving of roof over our heads and i support increasing the percentage to what prop c

requires i know that kim and supervisor peskin do 24 i hope we can get to 25 percent he support this as possible 25 percent 24 percent i'm sorry yeah. i want to support making sure we raise it search for supervisor kim and supervisor peskin and really want to further talk about this further with the communities thank you very much for your time. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners director rahaim peter and here on behalf of the mission inconsistencies development agency you've gotten a lot of testimony i'll keep my comments to specification but want to i think will add a discussion i hope that all neighborhoods are not the same keep in mind as we're looking at this

there are neighborhoods like the mission and others certainly that have different needs than other neighborhoods that is a sensitive idea makes sense in terms of the numbers and i think that as you heard earlier today there are already developers in the mission doing 25 percent so the discussion of feasibility should include what is happening on the ground and what is possible in certainly neighborhoods in terms of the overall picture, of course, we would like to see the higher numbers that are possible we're seeing them in the mission already and the market will adjust as supervisor peskin said that does that will evaluate upwards and changes possibly based on that require but once that is 235shgd them we'll move forward together and obviously don't want to see the very low income piece of pie

taken away from the mission numbers like other neighborhoods speak to the reason that the mission promised that 7 percent of mission families are earning right now less than $35,000 dollars taken into the survey a certain very large working-class latino basis is there and in each the neighborhoods you'll have very critical cultural fabrics that is what we're talking about we certainly like to see those protected in the legislation when you look at the homeownership moving those numbers will decrease opportunities for that portion of the community by listing that number much larger and again, we're certain this is true in other neighborhoods so as we go forward i think that a solution

can be found the market can adjust and taking a look at the difference of each of those neighborhoods thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everyone my name is chiu i'm a community organizer we are concerned there, there a proposal to change the ami more affordable housing requirements we think this is a backwards move versus moving forward out of crisis itself city should be focused on helping everyone to have stable homes not pitting income against each other peter and paul are purchasers don't make that so we can't afford to live here thank you. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,

commissioners my name is t g or j with south of market addition network i want to make sure the message is heard we're concerned this proposal will change the inclusionary percentage of ami for the affordable housing requirement we think this is a backgrounds move versus helping mofus out of affordable housing crisis the city should be focusing on helping everyone have homes and not pit incomes against each other yes more opportunity for hard-working middle-income folks but not on the backs of hard working low income folks thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> hi good afternoon. i'm kathy a 40 year resident of district one apartment teacher

at u.s. health and city college for 37 our board didn't read the e-mail fast enough to get this on low income but we did it by this morning i think was i want to make sure you know that and this is not an a f t statement just i think that is debobble to pit people against housing everyone is struggling to live here the big question why is the mayor not the first time show clearly with the jornt the san franciscans want and in the mayor's office comes up with some other plan and one that from my perspective is often much more divisive i think the big question is who has the mayors area more than the people that live in san

francisco and that is the only question i have other questions listing all of this and no answers but that's the top line i'm old enough to live in ohio and watching the developers saying you should move to the suburbs and now i'll old enough to live in san francisco everyone used to be welcome and who has decided everyone that can afford it can live here while the people that live and work i'm in the category of people that are working by i'll be in low income in a few years and i'm a city and county of san francisco employee for 37 years i'm thinking i'm not welcome here no more i'm looking at where do we go from here i know the - i wa

supportive of supervisor kim supervisor peskin resolution this is something we've been struggling as a service provider for people applying for the bmr the range of 55 but 0 to 80 and starved up higher for moderate income so that's is an important change in the bureaucracy that makes it on for people we need you as partners to hold the line when you allow the grandfathering to move out those unite good get built with that goal in mind when you look at the changes to the bmr's thousands of people we serve that apply for the housing units they will - they'll- your

cutting it down to less than 10 unit to compete against different times in the year we worked very hard with our coalition to have prop c passed with the understanding of 50 percent a bacon and all else to the moderate ideal that bacon is very, very hard discussion to have over the past year and it is a reasonable discussion to have now not to kind of get it and have a different proposal with no discussion and didn't include any of the clients that are looking for housing and no market study of unit in the unit members are represent in our clients a let's be clear $40,000 is a dignified middle-income

salary thousands of people get good salaries and excited about being able to pay their builds bills and get into the reality i can't afford to pay for transportation i can't afford childcare and that's the thing we're talking about i get that one and thousand dollars salaries are suffering but not for people to ton suffer in san francisco. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm carolina i work for the veterans equity center my job there is so actually help people to apply for inclusionary housing he drop off the proclamations of abhorring applicant for the regional office or help them online to help them complete an

application in this fiscal year we've helped file over 16 hundred applications and so over thirty advertisements take into account from thirty ami to one and 20 percent ami if you've never had to apply for concluding or assistant none in applying i recommended you look at the local 104y results because the lottery results talk about how many people are applying they tell you how many people are in mediate of when is accountable it is hard the recent bmr development 62 units at the 55 percent ami over 41 hundred people applied and rentals for two bedroom unit one two bedrooms at thirty percent e-mail over 5 hundred and 60 applicants one at twinkie it 50

are percent ami three hundred and 11 applications received and most recently 660 king 3 studio had one and 9 applicants; right? this is according to the lottery results that is posted on our system and so while the numbers may not necessarily representatives the number of qualified applicants it speaks volumes for people that are looking for the level of affordability we have clients with us for years not successful state penitentiary lottery but simply not enough affordable housing for low income to middle-income and to not advocate for more low income housing is a disservice to our clients we support supervisor kim and supervisor peskin proposal it provides an occupant for mode people to own and at

the same time not taking away there the thousands of people that have been applying for the development and not turning away from communities who have been fighting more affordable housing for decades thank you. >> thanks very much. >> next speaker, please. >> buenas dias. >> (speaking spanish.) >> good afternoon. i'm a member of the community of with meta and with the other organization. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i'm here because i believe in dignified housing a right and necessity for all families. >> (speaking spanish.)

>> this kind of housing is necessary so our chancellor can deputy and not have emotional problems and have a stable place to live. >> (speaking spanish.) >> having to live with our parent in a single room and lack of affordable housing creates a situation that creates emotional problems for children and difficulty in learning.

>> (speaking spanish.) >> so we want you to support anywhere units of affordable housing that given the rents many parents are having to work two jobs in order to pay their rent and not spend time with their children. >> (speaking spanish.) >> affordable housing shouldn't be a luxury but a right and necessity so all of us can live well. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> bups buns. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i'm a member of the organization and meta in the

mission district. >> (speaking spanish.) >> we are here we fight for human rights. >> (speaking spanish.) >> and one of the human rights is the right to a dignified home. >> (speaking spanish.) >> and we can all pay for it. >> (speaking spanish.) >> these proposals are just creating confrontations and not solutions if you look at outside half of people of san francisco living on the streets.

>> (speaking spanish.) >> so it is difficult for us to find housing that is available for us who are middle-aged in the community. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i think we're all in agreement we all deserve dignified housing that is affordable for all. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> >> (speaking spanish.) >> good afternoon. my name is

anna a single mother and difficult to find a home that i can afford. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i ask you to mr. will in the reduce of number of units for people with low incomes. >> (speaking spanish.) >> for me difficult to find a home i can afford to pay. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i want to be able to find and home i can afford stability for my son. >> (speaking spanish.) >> right now, i'm sharing with an room with my son we share as a kitchen is the dining room.

>> (speaking spanish.) >> please i ask you is to help build more housing for people with low income. >> (speaking spanish.) >> i want to continue living in san francisco and be able to give my son the stability so he can continue in his school work. >> (speaking spanish.) >> it is not only a problem for myself but many mothers that are single have to work day to day to support their families. >> thank you thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> and if there are other speakers here or in some of the overflow room line up.

>> can i get fernando to translate for me. >> i'm from the north of market a friend of south of market community action network i'm a friend of christen that was on the commission for seven years and for seven years i saw she carried big binder with her is it within your discretionary to reject both of the proposals you know the problem obviously the problem of getting middle-class housing there are so many reason the inclusionary housing is one tool i don't know if people are keeping that in mind part of the problem the surrounding community surrounding us $30 million they're not building enough they consider middle-income housing not acceptable or unpleasant or something i mean let alone low income hours it is a part of 0

problem building more rail service in san mateo and marin what is on the table is you know i don't think we - also think it should say a wedge issue and not reflecting well on bonding and if you're it will come back to haunt you i will say that i also question the assumptions that controllers report was making that somehow middle-income housing is the biggest problem i mean it didn't add up you see middle-income people are they sleeping on the street are they dying i think the second problem with the assumption they cleared the

housing stock but not including the housing stock that is the whole bay area when you throw that in you see the low income has a greater need i mean, you can't walk down the street and not see the need so i'd like to close strong i heard someone close strong everyone deserves a place to live that's how i will close everyone deserves a place to live. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is mel flores i've the thirty years plus residents in the excelsior and the president of the improvement association though i'm speaking as an individual although i think many will be in agreement i'm here to a speaker

in support of supervisor safai and mr. reid's proposal for workforce housing while i favor housing opportunity for all san franciscans obviously there are a lot of people that are supporting the low income folks and a lot of people advocating for the them i feel the middle has been overlooked and squeezed out of the city with the housing opportunities need to be created for the workforce families thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. flores. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am here and making a question like how many propositioned you got a lot and propositioned prop c mandated when people vote it is a mandated 15 percent for low income in inclusionary housing i

don't know how somehow two supervisors didn't get the prop c that that it will change the mandate on the people of voters in san francisco i don't understand how it will happen but i'm in support of supervisor breed and supervisor ahsha safai proposal not for the people and the working-class people in san francisco i'm helping the latino to apply for the opportunities and in the program we had seen like for 17 unit 680 indiana more 2000 applications. >> what i see when i help the latino apply for the lottery people are in the range of 15 percent and a few go farther and a majority that don't get there

why are we changing the percentages for the housing question want i to have respect the voters for prop c thank you thank you, mr. romero is there any additional public comment on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and open up to commissioner commen comments. >> commissioner fong well, i appreciate staffs support, board of supervisors are report and public comment many truths spoken here also with that been many complications and twists and turns and misinterpretation of what is at stake interesting the proposals are not that far apart and obviously when you boil it down not that many units we're

talking about it effects the whole inventory of san francisco for the amount of time we spend on it, it is important i'll continue and don't have to form on opinion at this time but hopefully those will come close it together and the board of supervisors will reach an agreement and less pitting one against another in san francisco. >> thanks can i ask a couple of questions on the state density bonus? >> and also the overall percentages and i think that may be helpful for the next presentation to get kind of an apples to apples comparison obviously supervisor kim and supervisor peskin they show

higher percentages but that assumes there's - that projects take the density bonus program i'll say that it is i think a bad assumption one i think that we haven't seen the state density bonus though it's been changed in the last year to allow it to be taken advantage by the developers one i don't think we've seen is overwhelmingly used and two we don't want to currently it especially in neighborhoods where we been aggressive on setting height limit and density controls if we encourage the developers to take the density bonus program if in the case of supervisor kim and supervisor peskin's the only way to make their project feasible to take the density bonus program i think there are a lot of cases the density bonus program may be allowed will not be the

preference of neighborhoods on this commission so i'd like to see these numbers - if you then assume that someone takes the density bonus program what do the percentages say in the rental large projects turnout are they they same how different are they from the supervisor safai, breed legislation. >> so that was essentially the summary they find the considerations they've laid out but the numbers that we have for large project the 18 percent talking about 18 will onsite under the supervisor safai proposal that was the maximum from the controllers study take into account the bonus of 35 percent the equivalent of 35 onsite that is a correct comment that you have in the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin legislation the 24 percent is u equivalent of 18 percent in you bet the

bulls. >> if you took the bonus you'll be at 24 percent but on the supervisor president london breed supervisor safai proposal 18 plus the state it will be roughly u haven't but less unit and that fee will build or finance the affordable housing. >> low income. >> and not at the moderate levels but the low income and that work outs for ownership good those rates tend to be the same and at the higher level. >> yes. >> okay. >> and he ththat is important one is a give away i'll agree the highest feasible level the controller kind of allowed for was keeping those projects feasible and you'll agree that that that is the case.

>> yes. >> with the exception the fee percentage set to be equivalent and the legislation from supervisor kim and supervisor peskin will be infeasible that higher rate you don't get a bonus but correct on the onsite numbers only but a little bit of a disconnect what fees is u equivalent let's have that fee what the bonus apply but not at the state level. >> we're only need to not get into this on the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin if you took the full density bonus program you couldn't do moderate income it has to be lower technically that makes the project infeasible but there is overly complicated just the fee for the density bonus program unit is just a more eloquent

solution to this is simpler and not an incentive to take the density bonus program i think in some places we should encourage the density bonus program it maybe appropriate a south of market and places but on mid market on 24th street or hayes valley or on van ness street it may not be appropriate i don't think we want to currently folks to take it but again, it maybe good but going back to it it if their roughly u equivalent to the percentages the supervisor safai prevention has more hire more moderate income does that affect the burden on the developer because they're targeting more kind of 100 percent or 75 percent than the supervisor kim legislation.

>> yeah. i mean that's a important question so important to look at what the controllers reports assume they came up with the income split on prop c 50 percent low income and 55 and 10 period of time moderate and kept that ratio no matter what the onsite percentages so that comes out to 73 ami i believe on the rental under prop c right now so you see the supervisor kim and supervisor peskin is city there on rental and the supervisor safai legislation going to percent on average so, yes it would have an impact you know we have not run the numbers you but theoretically it would make that so the onsite numbers can go up. >> a little bit higher. >> reasonable they're not that far apart the reason we have that range the way the maximums there was a significant amount of discussion and not - had was

consensus on the range but not where of the maximum because folks are different concepts we want to emphasis it is at the top of the range as it is and then on the issue of kind of i mean this obviously we obviously are hearing every week we're noting building enough affordable housing at all income levels to that me i don't view prop c as the sacred i think that prop c said is they're not violating prop c prop c left it up to policymakers to you felt that to skew towards the low income or moderate income; is that correct? >> yes. that's exactly right the prop c called for the study the study called for the board of supervisors to take action to set the rates that's why we're here and the temporary rate at

25 percent one thing i go note in the presentation we abbreviated it alleged of the ramp, if you will, it is proposed by supervisor safai and commissioner london breed and supervisor tang it will be end at 25 onsite and 33 fee which are the monument many prop c right now so essentially that proposal is kind of marrying with the proposal from the controllers study to phase in but ultimately at the end at the prop c oh, okay. and. >> we should skew affordable housing whether to inclusionary housing to lower income taxes so we're not producing that housing or that higher percentage of ami and fact of the matter we're not we're producing less of a percentage of need and we are for other income levels the question i agree with commenters

we should increase the pie when the pie is increased we there the productions the same for example, the city passed a bond initiative those funds are used for the the low income housing and i think that is appropriate because those fund can be leveraged to build more low income housing than if we used them for you know for more moderate housing and this is a function of kind of the financing tools that the city has available more affordable housing inclusionary is one of the few tools that get at that you know more middle-income level i have a question i don't know if this is for you where we showed kind of what we have in production or current

advertent or the 340r8d income to are in inclusionary a big chunk in the mohcd program how is that built we're hearing non-financing tools where are the unit. >> we've heard from olsen lee and from housing earlier he pointed out that part of mohcd portfolio that is in moderate income a legacy of the redevelopment agency this is how those were appreciative achieved essentially inclusionary deals; right? but not 90 under the 415 program so the redevelopment agency no longer exists we've heard earlier we used to be able to do that but section 415 is the only game in town for directing the unit at that income level but.

>> we'll get it straight from the source. >>

- that will have 40 percent home ownership but not a lot of home ownership opportunities in terms of opportunities to serve moderate income in the group in the current pipeline as we know it today so the bulk of home ownership and prior inclusionary unit. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. thank you, president and thanks to everyone that came out on both sides a lot of good discussion going on here i want to touch on the mayor's office of housing report very

informative talking about family housing i was wondering if we can 30b8 take a closer look of who is occupying the family housing so we can get a pulse on what types of families are something to think about are they more single parents or married coupled parents how many children traditionally with living in here just to get aggregated information a great report as far as the proposal a and d i've often throughout the middle-income and the working-class have been overlooked decades ago more people used to live in 2 to 3 and take the bus it was a sustainable economic back then

over the course of the decades the tech and certain industries have come to the frrmentd we're not making as much bread or bottling coke so those jobs not only the businesses depended but the workers that worked those jobs are more likely to be displaced too so again, we need to produce more housing and a build more bmr and build more middle-income housing there is a couple comments that are really recessed nationally with me phil ginsburg mentioned citibuild that is an important workforce development program here in san francisco is trying to doing the right thing and giving people careers to stay in a city their

born and raised and once their completing the programs and assembled into this program with a good career their it is difficult to find a place to live and should be comparable to stay here to continue to contribute to san francisco and mike mentioned we're under building inspection the affordable housing but grossly underbuilding middle-income housing i think a couple of points that resonated with me and interested in hearing about those. >> commissioner johnson so thank you to the staff and supervisor kim, supervisor president london breed, supervisor peskin and supervisor safai for making the time to come today great to meet all of them don't get to see too much of them that's why we're glad

that he made the time thank you for the staff for a great can say report to clarify the proposal like other hearings over the years this has a lot of thavkz and two proposals that like everyone said not that far apart that would be helpful to have that table to compare so a number of people i guess want to hear us ask questions and make comments to add to the discussion i'll try to do that today and we'll i have a lot of things before us and sparked by public comment i'll try to keep it not too much disjointed so i'll start with the last year in the table and some of the discussions we talked about you

know what is the average i mean, like the average ami of fundamental work out for a project under different scenarios and caution us relying on that sort of language too much because for any give me individual or families ami has 3 data points income levels over and over other income levels like my salary is not an average a dollars figure so i think we need to be sure that we're making sure we understand who it is that projects are serving recalled of what they're adding up to so caution about stepping right away away from the ami so i think that is one thing how we are describing the proposals so you'll jump into a few

different things the first one top level some people are referenced specific projects that were able to grade their affordability one during the process; right? and we've talked about a few of them today and in days past i want people to understand there is a larger set of stakeholders not always in the room that we're talking about when we have project sponsors and developers that are working with the performas to create affordable housing whether middle-income or low income only a few levers they're working with how much does the land cost and labor and building construction and the cost of financing this is what we're working with here and i don't know how much we're going to be able to do

that but people in the forgot some of the stakeholder that control the levers that own the los angeles police department that is purchased by the vendors and in control of capital and the financing that is supporting those projects those stakeholders doesn't always have an incentive to budge or compromise when we talking about the performas and making the project feasible you know or know there is a set of stakeholders we're not speaking to and don't have a dog in this fight so a bigger picture than just talking about the developers and can and cannot do so that's a little bit of soapbox for you guys moving on commissioner president hillis sort of i think you kind of said in the discussions about the state density bonus and how it interacts without get into the weeds i don't think that is not get into the weeds it is

important the state density bonus law as i understand it does require that projects provide the affordable units to holder with 55 percent ami or below so internally inconsistent to have a proposal that states that a project needs to take the state density bonus to pencil out but if can't provide moderate income housing if it does if it takes the full buns with 3 concessions that's angle internal inconsistent i don't feel it is in the weeds but needs to be resolved if i'm wrong here i'd like staff to come up here or the board of supervisors when they're supporting this to clarify that but as a current understanding in the case report from all the

literature you've talked about over months with the state density bonus and how that works to me those to things doesn't make sense but require the projects takes the state density bonus in order to pencil out. >> commissioner because you asked what you described does need to as a presentation and information that you have but there is a nuance the state density bonus law actually allows for additional buns based on a range of affordability you asking can get a buns for other things but for only one income category in our offering two categories you have to pick one in order to get the bugs our local program allows for all but the state law is not.

>> the state law for the zoning maps if you're picking one income educator i'll back up is it all-or-nothing can you get one floor the density bonus program i think that is kind of where my understanding of it is heading. >> the next thing if they have to pick affordability levels they'll pick the lower affordability level they'll get a bigger bonus and the middle-income unit will be provided are not achieving any bonus the way the supervisor kim supervisor peskin proposal is written don't have to go to the low and middle put all of your affordable units on the low income but likely from the developer is trying to achieve affordability but using that they'll slide the unit down to

the lower income and that will maximize the state density bonus. >> i'm sorry we'll go back to this let's say supervisor kim supervisor peskin says you can have here we go 15 percent low income and 9 percent lowered and 24 percent total in order for that to work you're building a rental project take the stewardships get the couple of extra floors for that to work. >> if you calculate your bonus based only on the 15 percent of low income for the 50 percent ami you get a partial bonus. >> would get a partial bonus but as we've heard in order to reach a feasible project you need to

achieve the maximum bonus you might not choose to do a bonus if our numbers are accurate. >> we're saying the same thing a projecting is a project if you're building your performa this proposal says you need the full density bonus program for 2 or 4 or whatever for the full bonus you need it to get it full bonus and you'll not get that if you provide 15 unit and others for a percentage of ownership so i stand by my comment that is extraordinarily inconsistent and needs to be worked out at the board level philanthropically i only have a few more things i agree with the idea of making

projects have some sort of bonus to you go up in the air to create the density in other words, to accommodate everyone we can't you know slice us the piece in terms of the envelope of zoning so many ways we can slice that pie we have to find more pie go up-or-out he be more dense and density bonus program are a woo to do that i believe the best way to have our own density program that reflected the value of san francisco and in the neighborhood whether or not that is the density bonus program last year or home sf support by supervisor katie tang or supervisor tang whether that ends up a version of the local

density bonus program i think the philosophy of having them illustrates a density bonus program to pencil out throb will end up getting us more units and not takeaway take away from peter to pay paul i question i question if it gets us there it does not mange to me but hopefully workout at the board so that was sort of my big thing and have a couple of other things that is important so one thing is this is a little bit of a smaller one we have inclusionary requirement for ownership i think is good i've talked up here before about sort of at least my personal

thoughts on the homeownership opportunity for inclusionary and affordable housing but i really think that there's no discussion of the full freight of inclusionary ownership and i hope that there can be some sort of analysis or commentary 0 on those costs of hoas we've seen this in the downtown and the southeast we have inclusionary onsite inclusionary we applaud and then as the building is being worked out finished the projects are finished out oh, wait the hoa is getting more than the subsidized mortgage and in some cases we have to go back and allow the developers to pay in lui fees to create that housing as we're playing with the inclusionary percentages i hope

we're talking about the freight for the inclusionary ownership opportunities one of the main reasons why i am really a propensity of matching up inclusionary with stewardships to create more units seems like more housing is because i do think we need to continue to make the plug for market-rate housing staff showed a chart of households that we're losing i don't know why nobody showed do uptick in the light blue household macro 40 percent of ami and above that bar was up and the folks focused on the others percentages. >> so when i have the rent for the one and 40 percent ami based on the 2016 not the 2017 it should be updated the market in

most neighborhood is well north of that you end up having moderate and structurally foreperson and professional reasons and leaving we saw the uptick of blue bars i don't know why people don't think that is the problem i don't think we need to increase the ami percentages for important affordable housing or some public sources but we definitely need to be thinking about creating more unit and not lump market-rate into luxury it is not a luxury if our struggling month to month that makes no sense i like i think those are some of the big thoughts that i have i do have some thoughts about the bedroom requirements and the

fact i apologize i'll ask staff one more question and turn over the apac the bedroom requirement both proposals change the requirement citywide between having two and three bedrooms unit and we're proposing a unit mix citywide i apologize again staff can we all talk about what those bedroom requirements do for affordability you know, i know the controllers report if focus on the type of units but has they've been any analysis or staff have thoughts how that three bedroom requirements will affect the affordability of unit. >> we have not run the numbers that is something we can try to bring back for april 6th in general information from the mayor's office of housing and even maim households that have

qualified for the three bedrooms bmr have qualified for the two bedrooms it is cheaper and the same logic for the howard street market-rate housing as well that's correct the controllers didn't look at the issue my understanding that the prototype the consultant study included the bedroom mix we have here in the planned area so basically 35 percent two bedrooms and 5 percent three bedrooms so we have the one proposal if supervisor safai and commissioner london breed and supervisor katie tang that creates 25 percent bedrooms or that or the? we have not studied with the proposal a we have 40 percent two bedrooms that is from the controllers and 20 percent three bedrooms that will go above and beyond you know essentially change the number

for the controllers we'll have to look at what impact that will be for the development economics so generally our understanding yeah, we'll double up and go into a smaller unit we've heard that testimony today, we want to look at what the smartest family-friendly package in addition at unit sizes. >> one last thing i'll say in commentary i personally support having the bedroom count mix whether the percentages are right across the two proposals of two verses 3 and two and three or two or three when percentages required i think there can be work done but i like the citywide requirement it has short time perks for new development and large units are more expensive the unit in the future a future version of

rendering and someone have a two bedroom we agreed to have that count today you that's what i look at the future and finally last question i apologize. i promise the last one we have this discussion when we talked about a couple of state density bonus or at least one we have the diversities between the base project what bonus and the actual project you go in and do the layout of what you're providing and in some cases, you, have a difference your base project says the minimum requirement or liveable unit in terms of bedroom sizes and all those things that would be helpful in not having to set ourselves up to have legislation to fix

things we're dmaeft between a base project and the final project looks like when we are talking about the affordable housing housing fees i think i was going to ask mr. lee to comment on this i guess i still will i gather that supervisor peskin supervisor kim proposal produces really complicated method of calculating the housing fee i'm not sure that planning staff or mohcd will be able to sort of accurately do on a continental basis if you can comment on that and then i'll continue. >> olsen lee director if a the mayor's office of housing we've complicated it by having the tiers that complicates it in terms of how you would implement

the program in terms of the pricing of the unit and the regulation and the developer and margaret of overseeing unit to help people to fall within the budgets the complication about the supervisor peskin supervisor kim legislation is that the fees are different based on the construction and - excuse-me. so >> so sorry i didn't want to make you talk. >> the circulation is the feeds are calculated based on the construction type and calculate the fee based on the cost of construction for that particular construction does and have to utilities those fees or

construction of the same construction type whereas in the current program the feeds flow into the affordable housing and fund the projects where they maybe in a neighborhood fund a wood frame over other building or find an 85 point building we don't often find the high-rise building; right? that's the circulation of you know of things that can be resolved through the modifications of the legislation in the future there is - what i've tried to avoid is low money for specific very, very specific - whether construction types of or small geographic areas so having you know money for new

construction of a high-rise building means i'll have to save of money up to the point i can fully finance a high-rise building how long will it take me to garter the fees for this purpose i mean, i would have to go obviously buy the appropriate site it reduces the responsibility and increases the complication of you know doing the calculation and the identifying and looking at the buckets and it is different how the current program is run in terms of the fees and how i used the fees to finance the affordable housing. >> thank you mr. lee sorry to make you talk. >> i was going somewhere else to calculate the fees and mix with the density bonus program but you bring up an excellent point we definitely need to

maintain the flexibility you know there are a type of funding of the pipeline and anything that complicate that is not good for the city thanks very much. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards i feel i'll come back to the density bonus program hearing just the oz things are concurring concurring concurring and interesting enough the proposals that to the the confirmation study the end point but different ways of getting interest that's why we're close but far apart each one has points i like and don't like the recommendation we think a cafe is good we can do this and that and this is like for short-term rentals with that said, some of the questions those are rhetorical the first two and get into bigger questions with time points but

what kind of a city do we want to have this is what that is trying to answer we go about it in different ways and two where is the sweet spot which one gets the sweet spot what we're trying to do through polly think the next thing i asked which we have the briefly of for the executive committee i'd like to see those ab over time 3 or 5 or 7 or 10 years what will they look like the production and i challenge staff the mayor's office of economic workforce development and laura clashgs mentions this with all of this we're not looking at the bigger picture one the status was the 40

thousand units entitle but not built we have there treasure island and elizabeth how many units are we entitle and the bmr unit held housing shortage hostage you add up the totaled existing units in the city someone mentioned the housing production and the housing balance and talked about illegal eviction and increases and decreases in the population that is a big model if you do that in 3 or 5 or seven years you get a picture of how it fits into that that is a mind-blowing exercise what do you want the city to look like we want to point to this one a, b, c, or d the interesting thing - the other one a dropped housing linkage be informational that is in the mix so here we are creating jobs at

the same rate for the past 15 or 20 years it is something you need to consider when i say and don't say this lighting that is part of a large solution we need more we need this to be part of something bigger i do worry - on the modeling what strikes me this discussions of is it low or moderate boom, boom, boom this one or that one the director's report has one and ti percent production over the above moderate we're on the okay job arena on the mooefrts but moderate and low 13 point low moderate and 15.8 below not that good 23 percent if you add treasure island that is 19 we're still got two people fighting over 4 or 5 hundred unit to be

products it is crazy we're arguing over that we need to get those both way, way out and how will we do that and we're relying on the developers to do the job we know that and we have 4 hundred units in the mix 14 hundred thousand it is 5 percent i'm a little bit tired not much i do the state density bonus is like the bad employee i have to keep on changing people's jobs because they'll perform better the state density bonus needs to change i'm sorry it is from 1979 clearly the world passed away and some communities have it we clearly have but all the things about how to get around that bad employee that don't want to do their job we're trying to make it to

neutralize it right so my criteria which one are gets the most coverage and the highest rate which one gets the most value captured what is the easiest to implement and the unintended consequences we talked about and the close to public policy and now i had a question mark prop c will prop c said it will change prop e and u didn't win but - i think from a most coverage and discrepancy i have a question so many things back and forth the averaging i'm having a hard time getting can anyone explain that we have to make a certain amount don't

armenian have a bigger if i'm in the lottery and have 606060 does that leave room for 40. >> i did not mean to have you speak. >> i'll try to speak if i can't i have staff that will fill in so i think the question about you throw out the number 60 what we have done in the past is to have the income limited and the maximum but maximum income and a maximum rent at the same level and basically people who are below that level didn't you know or probably had a harder time qualifying for those units and

people that are one dollar over so i think one of the goals of the changes in the inclusionary program to set the 3 tiers again more circulations of proposals have tiers but to look at the questions of averages so you allow someone to be a little bit over arrest under the average and qualify for that unit we don't have the hard income cap thirty or 60 percent maybe a little bit over or under and part of that goes to the whole question of implementation so that you don't house somebody to dream that thirty or 60 percent only rent to people that are at thirty or 60 area medium income and 59 area medium income that you allow to go lower based on the and what we'll encourage

up to 50 percent of their income goss towards the rent so in this case potentially we're looking at someone in the so 50 to 45 percent rank being able to afford that lower in addition to someone above that obviously we have to establish some sort of minimum contribution to the rent. >> go ahead sorry. >> that -- excuse me. that would avoid the cliffs for the household you know regardless you know it is a - sort of mechanism to implement regardless of which proposals he

choose we hear the stories of how individuals who are you know not dollar $500 over and not constitutionally different than the people in qualifying for 5 hundred and one dollars less right. >> i like the flexibility the thing that scares me someone that will be paying 50 percent of income to have a roof over their head because something will pop up a car or medical experience boom they're out. >> we committed strildz to think about i'm doing the cough drop to water what we asked do developers to look at the payment what payment history as one the forefront

things that he look at if they're paying they don't obviously most developers love to have people paying the lowest percentages of their income retried very, very hard to see who the program serves and push the community to look at rent payment history and paying 50 percent of their income towards rent but consistent for the past 5 years at a higher rent who is to say that again they'll not be able to make it we push the development community on those issues and that's what we do throughout our marking plan and this whole notion of an average rent you know has the flexibility with it will be implemented through the procedures manual this commission will see in the future. >> great thanks.

>> i'm very uncomfortable with the requirement for that forces the state density bonus to be taken on my development period the reason we've sat there this the neighbors came in with pinch forecloses and they'll rather have a - i don't think people it is weird to hear people in those h bp saying we don't want one we're and this hearing we're requiring it it makes my head spin i want the neighbors to understand what that looks like it will impact the neighborhood character and the affect on all the neighbors behind it and all that stuff we not through with the h pb and allow them to buy

out but make sure there is some type of when the development happens so that will be online requiring it to be on a base project it is the higher fee just i don't know i'd like to have more flexibility not as flexibility e flexible the other question i have the density bonus program there was a law that mad it as of right around no review process no, i thought they strengthened there was like no review you got it. >> locally or the state level. >> state. >> at the state level the governor proposed that but you know didn't happen last year there were pending bills this year. >> do very a development on 24th street to say hey you want

to take the density bonus program but i'm looking at our base project we have the ability to say to the developer we don't want the base project undercover officer therefore density bonus program we don't want to give you the shorter building we'll pay a smaller fee and kate connor the base project no flexibility or discretion as far as you like it or guidelines to have people code compliant. >> there are competitions and you things like that. >> so especially for bigger projects harder to achieve. >> it starbucks the base and the bonus can take advantage of the waiver. >> thank you. >> a couple of more things this issue about commissioner johnson talked about skyscrapers

you know somebody said rh-1 zoning is consideration segregation i think the skyscrapers will be that wave of the future you know we want to put affluent people in the skyscrapers and people can be pay the homeowner association dues and rich people living in the skyscraper i had a question i forgot it sorry. >> i have a couple of more here i'm weirded out on the initiative for 33 percent fee over the 27 onsite i get the gap should be closed - i'm also a little bit concerned with to things on proposal b the smaller projects

are the gift away to developers we had someone saying the cost of land and higher margin yet we're going to go back for a higher level of ami having a higher i saw shawn get up and absolved himself okay. that's how you wanted to be treated like everything else the large project gets closer to prop c a delta within ab on page 33 it seems like why is there a difference i want to - see the average served of 75 percent on prop b or 80 percent i don't know what is that supposed to get them to - get them to change behavior or we are trying to achieve with the higher walk

away values on prop b and large project for prop a where prop c landed at the end of time it will meet the prop c? >> yeah. with the proposed annual scheduled increases proposal b is cutting 25 percent onsite for condo and 25 percent is prop c. >> will serve on the ami. >> the average was 73 percent total for a like a. >> the supervisor kim, supervisor peskin proposal. >> and tow percent on the b. >> the ownership was further apart. >> is there a public policy seems like to again, we're trying to get moderate income so we're talking about the different confirmations for the

ownership the ownership has the higher ami. >> just the yield to the developer that's what i'm questioning there's a big difference over one or the other so maybe narrow the gap. >> i'm almost done. >> on page 36 proposal b natural to conduct the affordable units that is the supervisor safai are mayor proposal with or without tax credits. >> we have people think this is cheaper they leverage the ability to get tax credits so proposal b the net of tax credits it is okay on construction type 1 for proposal a with the thirty different things and construction types if i'm going

to buy a secret in a high-rise on the 36 floor with a great view or 6 floor on a wood building my yield is higher on the high-rise is there a modeling why it would be a good way to go. >> why the square footage fee would be better. >> the construction. >> not the construction but tracking the consideration that emerges when you set the fee of a three bedrooms it can be whatever 4 hundred whatever but charging for the square footage is directly prosperal. >> that's proposal b i like that and open a how does that work. >> we heard. >> it is complicated it is important to. >> 55 feet 80 feet one plus

feet. >> those are for the mayor's office to build those. >> notify build i'm building on a high-rise i pay a different set of fees. >> exactly the way it is written you would assess the fee on a per unit basis and look at the or 85 above. >> we have to have pools of money. >> we can commit that money. >> this goes against the ability to building market-rate. >> the policy and the community context he highlighted it for points so people can not come with knives and pitch forecloses and the state density bonus proposal a for the property owner to achieve was from that is commissioner johnson mentioned has to be

fixed or otherwise shoot yourselves in a foot some made a comment who found that data point that says that's the case. >> we are doing a lot of work to understand the housing stock that was provided to the boards on tuesday and actually have the slide from that report here is our best guess from the acs data. >> that's okay that's okay it is coming from and 50 percent of three bedrooms families and 50 percent didn't and 40 percent hat families. >> that is amazing we are creating housing for families and two or three families is for the majority. >> remember that figure as we see that figure handed to us thank you a lot of work can't

wait for the hearing some good things and bad things i've proposed. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you it is late and i think we're all tired and hunger i'm not going to residency somethe commissioners made i will just is that you know philanthropical we're dealing with a tool state density bonus but that's what we have and folks are going to be in terms of density what we all own it should be for folks at the lower income spectrum i see a good idea in both proposals we have to work out things and i'll say that having worked at the regular tar of ththis

i'm weary of making things complicated you have unintended consequences that are at the extension of the low income people and that is in terms of requirements you know for verification of income and sometimes all the ideas sound good but operational wise things get funky i'm looking forward to the discourse in having both proposals and hopefully get to something better with that said, i have to say and i've said this before i don't think that being worked out more housing the only tool we have i want to stop preventing this is the universe of schools that will solve the housing crisis it will not and in fact,

when you go higher on the income prejudice more choices in terms of how to get to that gap anything from providing capital for 0 construction i believe that the accelerator will provide us with more tools and more ways to incentivize housing especially for people because i don't think that the restricted bmr housing is a restricted tool people have a little bit higher income have more choices including outside of san francisco and not just the equity that are strings attached foe in turn of assets when you passed away and want to leave our real estate to our kids there are restrictions who

you get a mortgage from and what kind of families have that and how many bedrooms i think that if we're going to be serious about middle-income housing i am very proponent of middle-income housing we should stop open this is the only tool and perhaps you know work on other tools and that are outside of inclusionary housing and you know use the tool we have for the folks that is most appropriate for and you know that need that the most so thank you. >> thanks commissioner moore. >> thank you to all commissioners for the discussions having sat here a long time the focus over the last 10 years has on, on affordability and low income ami that was the largest things we've

done and while i strongly building that middle-income has moved to the bracket of consideration for housing in a major way protecting apparent just in the last 2 years and notably only after we took on prop c that was primarily to support low income housing in the more acceptable way in a nexus study that guided us to where we are toy the introduction of inclusionary housing is necessary and desirable, however, for the time being worked out makes pie in front of us significantly smaller the reason i'm saying that is that the two proposals police car the supervisor kim supervisor peskin proposal grows out of the struggle of last 10 years and via

supervisor kim fighting toothed and nail if projects which myself speaking as one who's been here the longtime and seeing what it took for affordability with and not hidden attempt for developers to increase the density and became a discussion that basically you'll get more and more aa simple formula and take 5 m and one 60 folsom by which that scale was fight project by project and that commission supported it didn't create the results but all the strong acknowledgement of affordable housing on much of it further lefrngd

to the successful full hands of those go to a narrative around doing that that is represented across the united states the one big question i don't understand it and none has told me what prop b supervisor breed and supervisor safai shifting the increasing the income articulate that is the one thing i did not understand by doing so actually there is a subtle i assume shallowness to bring bmr on the market what do you mean what is the money in that move going in a way i have to sense

then we're getting less on that particular end of the spectrum that has been the most important part of how this discussion this is to say low income housing is for me the most important thing to abld there is a balance struck in the supervisor kim supervisor peskin legislation i do like the range of to 80 with an average at 55 i'm concerned when that particular focus is shifted upward to a single number a number that is a large number of uncertainty i hope the parties we are only making comments today they'll come closer in the end we're responsible to what i believe are the position of c which is all ever us the problem is not smaller but

large and it is not an action the market will is passed the site to realize any of incomes thank you. >> one more question really on fees i apologize on the if you're paying the fee in lui fee and we've had to debate we're trying to encourage onsite in lui fees we can't necessarily dictate one or the other but set the fee for an envelope for onsite in lui fee without going on into the details dot proposals do that set the levels that kind of encourage onsite? >> we had both proposals in terms of financial incentives the equivalent

impact the 50/50 and in the case of ownership units under supervisor kim and supervisor peskin proposal a slight vantage to paying the fees for the condo units for providing onsite based on the ordinance. >> for me i'd like to see that fee set at a level in trying to encourage onsite i think that is a policy but told we can't say make that requirement and then when the city does get the fee is the use of that fee split smith and wesson moderate income and low income how is that fee used. >> it split in the percentages. >> paramount fees for the units at the 55 percent. >> okay. >> that's why i think this -

i don't mind skewing the inclusionary housing to do more moderate obviously we need both but there are not the tools commissioner melgar said find the tools a pile of cash land in our agency we'll want to skuskew it you get more bang for your buck but here if you set the rates at the right amount as is burden on the developer we can do this. >> excuse me - >> it is really you know for households at 60 percent and below as i said in the opening presentation there are other source of bonds that are trying to take into account that level of affordability and so our money gets leveraged you know 2, 3, 4 in the case

of rental system in the program leveraged 20 times not one city dollars that's great but the level nia fee no leverage on the funds so that's a question of putting the burden on the developers so you know to basically subsidies something that is more difficult to us no denying that. >> how about we talked about multiple perplex. >> if it is a small program and the affordability range like the range this is proposed now it has an average ever 80 percent of area medium income and the program is applying to the existing rent-controlled units for the people in those units today if they vacate with the rents

and affordability levels the average gets to that is a building it is sustainable over time we've had you know we had the the half press conference we had a woman that lived in that unit for 20 something years less than 40 percent of area medium income and stayed there we're able to do this mix of incomes so balance but the economics of that building and that range is very, very similar to the ranges people are proposing here we even have market-rate for the individuals that is who's in there who is there and basically, we don't want to displace anybody even is a market-rate person but utilities to represent to balance out the knowledge to sustain the rents that are available for the lowest individuals that

is the one program you know the one program we have been able to use the cross between the market-rate to balance out the operations of that and with the capital we're doing that it is just not us and the sustainable first mortgage and xhertsdz to middle-income housing it is sustainable for small projects. >> thank you seeing no other comments thanks to the folks that was enlightening and thanks to the staff policy this information and it is extremely complicated and the supervisors commissioner fong said things seem to be close every body got the right intention so thank you very much we'll take a break about

good evening and welcome to the san francisco planning commission i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off thank you. and informational presentation claudia planning department staff today an office to conversion within the latter cords or c-3 last november the planning commission held had had

project on 22 stewart street the project requested a conditional use authorization to convert approximately 12 in house square feet at the third floor into office space after deliberation the dimension continued and to work the mayor's office of economic workforce development to return with an informational presentation to help guide the review o of those conversions plaques i'm joined by the mayor's office of economic workforce development will walk you through through the findings of their research. >> good evening hello commissioners i'm lisa direction of policy and planning at the office of economic workforce development and thank you for including oewd

no retail to officer commissioners within is union square that claudia go references on the past decade oewd i've been the liaison to the hospitality district for the department and ♪ capacity worked or worked an visitor and hospitality inches and many public realm and property owners and shareholders including i worked on the important expansion of the union square business improvement district from 10 to 27 blocks in 2008, this is my colleague will join in the presentation and share the presentation with me he's a policy analytical in the department and led the analysis we're going to present to you today and also be able to stay

longer than i might, i have to after the presentation catch a flight he did did analysis for the department if you have any with that - so union square amazing world-class retail beloved by all of us has incredibly walking and shopping and dining it is very assessable by transit and an amazing hospitality district one of a small how often of urban shopping district in the country and it is a very oh, excuse me - a very sponsor part of our economy union square generates 37 percent of san francisco gentle consumers goods tax and all the sales taxes dollars

extremely important this is the area our focus was on our study focused on the union square zones c-3 r and over the past month we analyzed data sources and information from studies articles the planning code and interviews with experts and stakeholders you are study area is locked on the map it is within the union square downtown area in parts of chinatown and yerba buena the boundaries as you can see with on the north side and east side and south of market and west street and powell and we'll review the findings with you and provide you where a background information on the union square c-2 r zoning and about national retail and local retail trends local markets trends and review

the role of what we're calling retail complimentary resources and provide information so the downtown area plan was passed in 1985 a series of zoning district what was union square what received the c-3 r distinction and per the planning code it is a regional center for shoppers realtime and direct services within the district continuity of retail and consumer services is enthused with the pedestrian amenities the district zoning emphasize preserving union square retail sales over office space and the cu is required a cu for blow ground for non-retail services

on retail and now i'll get into the continuance it trends it is growing at a faster point than brick-and-mortar amazon the number two, apparel retailer in the country and openly online is consumers having online other peoples money for the same produced through the technology the department stores and large format are cross-out do if competition nationally and locally retailers are able to survive now and pro per under the climate including a smaller inform footprint and smaller that floor blatancy for the convenience of their customers and convenience to shop on 12

levels with a consumer experience with fair share better and now this in storing online hybrid in retail and increasing they serve as a portal to the selection found online and if you don't find 0 something within the brick-and-mortar the marrow can order to hurry house this is the direction it is heading other pressures nation wide also include easy assess for customers now a disease to many options in regional retail malls or outlet about couldn't offerings lots of choices for the customers the other pressure we considered and looked at it was you know the strengthen dollar what impact the designates like union square which rely an

international tourist to con assume to purchase retail goods and from the dollar strong they'll have less consideration fund to buy goods what their traveling to san francisco for example, >> so my colleague bryan will present the next slide that goes into the detail about the data we analyzed. >> good evening, commissioners this is my first time in front of of the planning commission an honor to be here per so as the slides show union square is a special place in san francisco you'll expect it to equip with properties are special when we see here is union square is will retail historically sfeetd e and we did encounters and over the

last two years the retail rents in union square out pace their citywide enclosure parts a couple of things happening less activity and volume available in some cases we'll talk about advantage but the average size on the combination bargraphy on your right will show you that while the rates are up and lease rates are up the footprint is low in many ways lower people have paying anymore to get less they'll leveraging all the technologies that was mentions to maximize what has been there let me go ahead forward

vacant is low in the region overall but if you look at the trends recently, there is a little bit of concern brewing in our discussions would be stakeholders across the city we are hearing some of the same stories and we'll share those but union square vacancies were two percent that is microscopic in 2014 they've committed to 9 percent that is slow important a nation wide vacancy number but stop and ask why this trend is growing and the consensus when we speaking with shareholders a pressure on the local retail market it is harder to say harder to do

business as their businesses are configured in large misrepresent retail and some pressure there in fact, in 2013, the budget analyst calm with in conjunction are oewd and found factors that effect vacancies and just wanted to put those out for consideration normal turnover and disability assess and failing for building owners to market their vacancies and also some change from family type of owners to institutional buyers that purchase those retail properties at high prices and one can remarkably infer they'll resist lowering their lease

rates they're going to not bum in the short time after they've paid the dollars and more properties in the c-3 r that fit that profile and a couple of other factors this report will be refreshed in the future we'll see when that happens i think one of the takeaways that is for the final citywide retail remains amongst the lowest vacancy rates in the country this has new york and chicago and la and moses and the numbers from san francisco are just consistently beating all those parts this is really something to show there is still a confidence in the market that even some other markets that are hyper hot like los angeles not

as hot so - one the ways we in our study measured the success of the retail financed in the yard we look at want sales tax data as mentioned one to 3 sales tax comes from union square one in 6 delores overall in sales tax receipts comes from union square you know that small footprint is generates a lot and that share has diminished a little bit over time but really not diminished much the last few year the data shakespeare accounted for 6.6 percent of receipts a slight dip but still pretty strong

the up shot while it grows not growing as fast as the city as a whole is growing the city's sales tax is growing at a robust rate since 2010 since the one of the someone of the things of the recession the consumer goods are 4.2 hers and he chavez yard is 3.9 is good indexes r indexed begins the rest of the country but notable one the economic immunes of city is somehow a little bit slower than the city morality on line outside of union square there is a very it is walkable

within the area and allocate thing not discount the construction on the subway that come mentioned and not finished until 2019 has effects shifting that are not robust and open at the moment it is reasonable to infer the storefront will not be open for a little bit while with that said i think that the short term and long term definition distinction so pressure it is after considering the data in whole i think that really needs to be reinforced at the fundamental strength of the san francisco retail economy are strong and as strong as anywhere and with the regional and

international designation for shopping, restaurant, hospitality and i think that some of the options that we've presented in our memo and lisa will take over to keep that going in the future. >> so this slide talks about what we looked at we looked at the business opening and closing data and we're going looking at you know what are some of the retail district environmenty uses that might be compatible with above ground floor one thing we believe that it is possible for a district to maintain an eco system of environmenty a variety of use

that support and reinforce union square as a retail center and we say complimentary business types those are uphold the downtown area plan for the first and foremost to provide consumer services with encouragement of pedestrian interest and amenities and these types of uses include the retail sales but include you know jewelry repair, production, public serving, permanent are administrative and entertainment and art addressed restaurant and hotels amongst another uses not just traditional retail that helps the district bring in people to do errands and do office space shopping other floors are challenging for retail it is difficult to get a

consumer to make a multi floor the ground floor generates a type of pedestrian volume the next highest is the second floor or the lower level and stores want fewer floor plates for the convenience of their shoppers that is easier to shop at the two or three levels we understand the concerns of the traditional large floor plate retailers third floor is commend a lower lease rate because they don't have the same assess with that said, the compatible uses including public services that don't need a ground floor that is traditional to university

floors many of the uses can't support the traditional office rents many of those firms can join to occupy a large space by sharing floors or splitting a floor plate into two or more for retailers if there were space available to move into the union square the retail complimentary firms has doubled from seven hundred and 78, 15.4 have closed during the same period this is interest in businesses of those types opening we believe that the spirit of downtown area is the upper level capable level in a c-2 r with the smaller retailers and

fabrication and public special and administration services art and entertainment and restaurant hospitality uses and still relevant and alive could i vacancies in the c-3 r should be prevented their problematic for attracting the consumers and others retailers to the retail district when they are clustered within a single block and sitting entry for expended periods of time is problematic for the retail district as a whole so we're very cognizant of the concerns of property owners not who want their properties to be vacant not only for financial reasons but not good for the district the reason can vary they're often out of the property owners. >> am i out of time. >> that's okay. go ahead and

the projects to convert retail sales and services to non-public serving office use and the following recommendations so the first recommendation is compatibility with the planning code and downtown area plan the second recommendation considering the building location itself footprint the floor plate ate the current uses including do number of levels and square footage of levels to be retained alternative used for the blow ground floor level and looting the services we've talked about earlier since of the business and the use in the union square retail mix and the proposed use on neighboring zoning district as

explained that integrity goes to the adjacent neighborhood so you know the folks in the adjacent neighborhoods are concerned about what is going on and how it effects them we also recommend that one look at the local real estate and retail interferences we've tried to explain has pressure it is real but the ground is not falling out of the san francisco we have a thriving union square and so, yes it is not doing as well as two years but compared to national you know similar districts it is still doing well so i think we need to put into context for the concern with the market reality we need to look at vacancy rates and clustering if there are multiple vacancies in a block that creates a

feeling there is a problem with the block and then defers people move on in and the construction like entry and other public infrastructure go projects you know what kind of impacts with happening the good thing to bring more visitors to the district we this we need an uptick once in terms of sales knew in the meantime, i'm sensitive to the challenges the small businesses have been facing during the construction process and we've met with them in many, many times i understand the concerns the other recommendation we have is to look at the national retail dynamics like consumer preferences and policy on data

as much as possible and with that, we're here or brannan is here to answer technical questions as claudine and i'm sure public comment. >> okay. thank you lisa and bryan as mentioned reviewing an application for non-retail and service it is the planning code requires the commission to find the proposed use not dethat's a great question as an area. comparison shopping and retailers at the hearing in november the department proposed policy for which will jefferson maintain at the third floor and below while the department recognizes a bright line like the planning code provides guidance - the department building the protection by the downtown area plan continues to be relevant in today's economy

recommends other conversion applications on a case by case basis the planning department staff will welcome guidance from the commission in order to enhance and act in consistency to the review of the fort coming applications thank you and i'm here for questions >> thank you open this up to public comment two speaker cards tom and claude sorry if i screwed up your name. >> good evening, commissioners i'm tom of reuben, junius & rose as you recall it 22 stewart's u sutter thank you to address the commission. >> thank you to the commission and city staffing staff and oewd staff to your careful consideration and the example

hard work for this decision today we will feel the oewd report race thoroughly researched and carefully analyzed as you recall in connection with our cu application we submitted a market study considering today is economy at union square that oewd report comes to the same conclusions the retail economy is changing to driving fundamental changes in the real estate needs retailer no longer need or want large multiple floor spaces never mind to keep union square a world-class designation city zoning district and policies need to rehabilitate those in realtime needs one of the facility issues discussed in the oewd report and brought that up there's this idea of complimentary business

types in the upper market floors as the report states to solve the problem of stranded upper floors those uses are listed in table 3 of the report and among them is graphic design and architectural firms we appreciate a discussion by the commission about had this aspect of the report and ideally have you show how you view those in instances that would be helpful at it 222 sutter. >> thank you for conducting hearing i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you one more speaker. >> i don't think i know claude he had to leave he is the representative from the union square bid. >> thank you they'll submit a

short letter and that would be great please mention that to him. >> good evening, commissioners thank you for staff for scheduling this item and oewd for a thoughtful report a couple of antidotes before i'll take the points of letter i have too young children was walking down polk street and getting out of the house and letting my wife have time alone towards union square and into one of my old fascists talked to a gentleman there had h a shirt he was visiting the city from walnut creek one of the things i love about this northeast part of city institutions like this and you know we've lost a lot of places but we'll not lose lefties and fast forward a

couple of months and lefty is gone gold dust lounge gone the issue becomes one of greed and one of when institutional real estate investment trusts buy corporate properties in san francisco at the simply say well, we can't rent it to a formula retail we can't rent to a super high passerby tenant so the retail is dead amazon as taken over we must have office that mite my friends is not the reality the reality is this year my wife and i celebrate 5 years she was shopping for they are wedding be dress went to a so-called strarnd floors to it

an independent minority owned wedding gotten retail that can afford to be in union square because they had one of the businesses and she shopped for a wedding dress i don't remember if she bought it there when my sister in law we can figure out as scott mentioned building a billions of of infrastructure project you think that is probably going to cause a disruption the world is not failing office developers have plenty of room in the financial district we granted bayview hunters point an open up for public comment from prop m have plenty of room i'm happy to show

vacant spaces on van ness we have let's not throw out world class scale designation to satisfy corporate greed of international are corporate investors thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> sue hester it is fun going over moe he agree with him so much my pursued examples in the - that reflect my experience i have had my office in the cpr on 345sh9 since 1980 i've gotten my hair cut and when you walk out of elevator those kinds of uses acquit in the upper floors

my building a flood building used be the consul general every consulate was in my building and gradually moved out and passports and clothing alterations we have offices like mine but we have everything under the sun and flood building is not that unusual i went through 5 years on the downtown area plan started by the guiding downtown development and he at the end we had rezoned the entire area south of market if industrial south of market street was industrial until the downtown area plan was adopted and beyond and out of that came a really conscious decision by the planning commission and the

communities that are around downtown chinatown the tenderloin and south of market they had to pay attention and mr. chair from incursion of office into their district so the chinatown is revisited for 27 on our calendar and south of market you got do release has been taken over by office space and tech big time and van ness avenue similarly has been up escalated tenderloin is fighting a valiant battle you have a hearing before i was watching that and you spent a lot of time dealing with people feeling extremely not as frustrated not the right word but vulnerable

once you on the floodgates to the retail district being worked out changed it go majorly impacts everyone one of the things i have done a lot is traveled around i used to travel a lot. >> and san francisco has a strong tourist attraction because a rightly rail presence that is very unusual we're a big international city and that is one of the reasons why the cpr needs to be protected as the written retail district thank you. >> any other speaks for the item seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i really appreciate staffs reaffirmation of downtown area plan one of the best pieces i congratulate and thank you all

the most important thing to remember the importance ever union square as the most visible expression of the importance as a city of international designation there is the bay the unusual location on the west side of the united states there is all the strong attraction for international travelers to experience the history as a multi cultural city dreaded e created by the people that came from somewhere else the pattern with retail not being worked out in shopping centers but basically remnant of european and south american cities make the city more than see than my other city from the u.s. with that said, what is the market realty the reality it large-scale retail formula retail is dying or revisiting

itself we hear the there's amount of reports that shopping centers are dying literally as we speak and suburb is get nervous because enduring depends on large retail centers for their survival with that said, we feel the pinch yes, a technology of online shopping, etc. but the nature of large floor plates is not going to