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