out the potential housing capacity. the federal environmental study had it at seven story option and five story option. current zoning allows up to eight. that is an additional 25 homes we could provide. for all projects we should encourage the maximum amount of housing possible. technical advisory committee i agree with the actions and comments this is a politically influenced group. let's debt politics out of housing. when we came out to 15 to 18%. 18% is the starting point. logic is 16%. process is political. lastly, one of the big incentives is the legal protection. if somebody gets sued they are able to recoup the feeds. we should look at that for the

local program. it is a big draw to the state program. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> goo good afternoon, commissioners. peter pop doplis. i think that there are helpful components to this revision. thing in the area of streamlining affordable housing. there does seem to be, now, voices are important but there does seem to be broad support for doing that. we back that then, of course. we are concerned on other levels. what we see is potential for here and other places a whittling away of the outcomes that are hard fought for. we look at the context, yes, it makes sense over the state

density bonus. frankly we would rather that chances instead of weakening provisions on a local level that limit community safeguards in neighborhoods like the mission and limit the community voice that is where i want to direct the concerns out of the mission itself is where i want to comment. certainly, moving things towards administrative approvals limits the voice on projects where we feel we are consistently now seeing improved outcomes. there is this recommendation to move to 23% which seems like a real improvement. my understanding it looks like we are moving from 25 to 23% in some neighborhoods. wwe are still tier 1 shaving off points. we are moving away from low income numbers the mission feels

it fought hard to get. these are key numbers. it is important. in terms of voice, the mission does not feel like it has had much of a voice at the board of appeals. i see some smiles. not only can't i remember the mission groups winning at the board of appeals. i can't remember the groups getting a vote at the board of appeals. people are concerned about that as an avenue. they would like appointed representatives to weigh in on the projects. they would like that capped. wherever we go with this, i think that is what we would like to think about. how do we maintain the safe guards in place and not diminish them and maintain each avenue for a community voice and keep that very low income affordable

housing number in place? >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. commission neighborhood centers. i would like to say that on behalf of mission neighborhood centers we feel the proposed amendments diminish safeguards and take away the voice of the community in the process. we feel if terms of affordable percentages proposed. we have the same concerns for sba35 and 37. we shouldn't ignore complexities and pressures in vulnerable communities. this paints a broad brush across the entire city and council. it would be more sensible to

make similar adjustments that would be the same as the prop c legislation which including the safe guards of the vulnerable neighborhoods and ensuring the mission and other neighborhoods hard hit that those safeguards hard fought and done in collaboration with planning and city agencies and supervisors that those standards be maintained and allow to amendment dubin other parts of the city where it would be more feasible to do so. along the lines what peter mentioned. this takes away the voice of the community at the board of appeals process. it undermines the tools in the community and before the board of appeals. we have not met with much success. we feel that we would like to see that maintained then

additionally i -- that is the end of my comments. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. united safe commissions. i want to speak about one thing there. is no use it or lose it provision. currently where i live at 1875 mission there are two projects 1924 and 1900 mission. as soon as entitled they were on the market. i am concerned we are going to streamline the process for project sponsors to just go through the process and not actually build but either it is on entitlements or put entitlements on the market. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good afternoon. i am not new to this.

i am new to understanding home sf. i have seen home-sf present three examples then asks to lift or reduce the number of restrictions usually processed by the planning commission, such as yardage in the backyard or set backs or height limits. then lastly, eliminate commission hearings where people voice their concern. this really makes me nervous as someone who has just seen three examples that don't represent my neighborhood. then i imagine once this procedure gets evaluated as pilot study it will simply transfer the procedure and policy will transfer over to the rest of the city where home-sf wants to build up a couple more stories on top of the normal standard four story building,

and then the neighbors and neighborhoods won't be able to express their concern. this is just shocking to me. that is all i have to say. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i think our biggest concern about the legislation is any legislation city wide is a brig broad sweep across the city. every neighborhood is different and unique with different needs. we are particularly concerned about lowering the amount of low income housing for the mission which is our greatest need. for latino family of four the average is 44 to $45,000 per year. this will reduce the amount of affordable housing for that population in the mission which is a population that is very much in need right now for

housing. thank you. >> thank you. any additional. go ahead. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners. i don't represent an organization, but i am a senio, long time voter in district 5. my main concern is protecting seniors and people with disabilities who are increasingly evicted, pushed out of the city. they have no options. when we are talking about home-sf, to me it was developed last year to obtain the most housing for the people who are most in need. this version greatly reduces this objective. it reduces community input, if we are going to make a carbon

copy of the state density bonus program, what is the point? let's stick to what last year was could lab boratively hard fought arrived at and stick to our principles. one of them being appeals to the board of supervisors. the other is emphasis on low income needs. i just want to remind commissioners low income dividing line is now 11 $7,000. that will take care of a lot of middle income people. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i won't repeat what ms. petty just said. i agree fully with what she sasaying.

being with senior disability action i am very concerned about the number of units that would be built in terms of what we had all agreed to as lower rain did say, hard fought, inclusionnary numbers, and it is very true that we are all throughout the city not the same in neighborhoods. income levels are not the same. we need to make sure we are keeping in mind for whom we are building. who is included in that housing, and yes get the housing built. we need to be sure we are part of that discussion and we have the right of appealing at the board of supervisors whom we have voted for. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners.

kelly hill, you nighted to save the mission. we want to make sure that this does not take away the community safeguards fought for and make sure it doesn't under mine the tools for the entitlement process including working with developers for true community vision as we have done in the mission and vulnerable communities. we feel like it should be adjusted to the prop c legislation where certain neighborhoods like had mission, tenderloin were at higher inclusion rerates are higher. the broad brush needs adjusted to local areas. i think it should be use it or lose it. we are seeing more and more projects going straight to real estate markets. they need to be built or

expired. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the neighborhood council. i am going to start with what i find truly disturbing dovetailing to what we have been fight anything the past four weeks or maybe more with process improvement geared to shut up the voice of the people, the public. i believe this removing of the condition use authorization is a terrible idea. i am also going further by asking why are we doing this? president hill, as you yourself mentioned a couple weeks ago you have yet to see any home-sf projects in the planning commission. you see plenty of projects,

plenty of ca condition use authorization. i do not believe that is an obstacle for developers to take advantage of the program. there could be other stuff. this is not an obstacle. condition use would allow people to come in and if this is going to be an impact on their live ability, this is a way to express that. also, i am finding what the department has used for example like lucky penny and to russia quite interesting. lucky penny, of course, was a totally different case. i do not want to get into the details. you know that was a different case and different reasons that the developer didn't want to use two floors. it was probably easier, cheaper and more ex speedy yet to develop just within the height

that exists on geary street. one other thing is the ami reallocations. i believe this is a bad idea. we oppose that. if we are going to give bonus to developers to go up or have density de control, i believe that we should stick with the same ami allocations we have had. lastly, the idea of having density de-control. i find it very disturbing without giving back because density de-control should not be about the number of units. it should be the size of the units. they could have 100 shoeboxes for common people and you know, palace of fine arts for the rich

people. please keep the condition use authorization. i do not recall any case where the common people won. ususe it oruse it or lose it. thank you so much. >> i want to echo is previous speaker about use it or lose it. that is something that has to be part of this. you know, i have seen the community, the city that i have spent all of my life in, change so much in the last decade or more. it has been my community that has been screwed over the most black and brown. developers are coming and imposing changes as if they are all knowing. they know what is good for us

and best for us. in the meantime, people like me who are part of my community that i have grown up with are leaving in droves. the black community is less than 3%. people know what is good and best for us. that being said, if there is anything that is going to reconfining you are the ami limits, categories that is going to make for less affordable housing, i am definitely opposed to that if that is in this plan. i do work with seniors and people with disabilities. many of the folks have been valuable members of our community for a long, long time. paying rent and getting housing is hard enough. for many of these people walking down the street is hard enough. the bar den of being physique --

burden of being physically disabled is work. it is not as though they are doing favors. these are people that contributed to the fabric of the city. we can do better by them. bottom line. low-income people need more housing. somebody was talking about politics, use this this as a political game that is nothing new. they are using this as politics all of the people. it is black and brown people that suffered. i am not saying white people have not suffered. we are not here much any more. that being said, community input and safeguards are important. we can i ll afford not to have that? >> additional public comment? we close public comment.

>> i would ask the staff to come clarify, if you would, the provisions. the way it was originally adapted it did not apply to plan areas. iowan to confirm whether or not any is changing? >> this is not changing where it applies. it dozenly does not apply where the zoning was changed to be form based. where the density is not based on the size of the lot. there are several parcels not rezoned. they are within the planned area. i should also say any parcel with existing housing is vast, vast majority of our pasells cannot use home-sf. this does nothing to change that. >> where we have changed to

density de-control is most of the eastern neighborhoods. rh1, 2, 3 this does not apply? >> does not apply, correct. >> if i may. a couple over items. the reason staff is concerned about the 120 daytime limit is because the way it is written and may be we can confirm this. it is not based on completion it is based on application submission. after the application submission it would be 120 days. is that right? >> that's correct. that is how it is drafted. there is a little disagreement between us and the city attorney what constitutes a complete application. at the very least we want to make sure that may be draft it in there as well. that complete application is when th the sequa is completed. that is used throughout the code

in other ways. when the application is complete, not the document is complete. that is the reason we are there. the projects could require an eir. there is no way to do an eir in four months. i want to be sure we are on the same page respect to the timeframe. >> the legislative aid. our intent was after the component is completed. at the analysis is completed. >> the issue that happen so we get the sequa document at the same time. a lot of these are smaller scale and wouldn't require expensive process. if it did not require a full er there is a date and timeline that could work.

i think, you know, it would be -- i think you don't do that serially, sequa and application, you do them at the same time. >> if you choose the 120 day limit clarify the starting point of the 120 days. if is it the end of sequa process that is certainly different. >> it doesn't require it. you know. >> it can require it sometime. i would suggest it should be the end of the process, not the beginning. that is what i am suggesting. >> okay. commissioner. [please stand by]

so when you -- one of the unintended consequences and i think about these as well as good pieces of the legislation, we have projects that are entitled sitting there that don't pencil out.

i have talked to them and they say, we have concrete that costs more money, can't find electricians, whatever. we need to figure out if we make things pencil out by passing this legislation, which i think is well-intended and ask, what happens to the resources that would have gone into what i call zombie projects. so the electrician that goes on to the new project will not go on to the project and it will not pencil out because the rates -- you cannot import more electricians. we need it look at that as well. i keep harping on the projects are entitled but not pencilling out and they're going to sit there. i think -- to spur the production of housing, what about the existing approval project, existing approval timelines and the way we do things are preventing units from

getting built? and that's an underlying question i have. one of the concerns i do have is, board of appeals versus planning commission to board of supervisors. we've heard nobody stand up in front of us and say that they feel like the board of appeals is a great way to go. we've only heard neutral to negative things. so i would not support having an appeal go to the board of appeals where it now goes to the board of supervisors. it's a high threshold, but i think people feel -- at least when they come into this room -- that they get a fair hearing, whether they win or lose. i guess the question -- and i think the community also feels that a tool would be taken away, instead of having it go administratively go to the board of avenue peels. so that's one of them. we heard about safeguards in neighborhoods of advanced state of gentrification where there's been higher levels of b.m.r.

units and affordability requirements. i think it's a great idea. the question is, how do you put that in practice? if a project doesn't pencil out on one side of town it, will not pencil out on another side of town and only adding more burden to it -- you will not get anything. if we're going to incent production of housing, a use-it-or-lose-it provision is necessary. if we're going to get the incentive on cost, make sure you build it. as i did talk about what the process improvements. i'm worried about demolitions and i see -- i wonder -- i understand how section 317 applies. i do see in the -- in some of the findings, there is an additional criteria whether the project would require the demolition of existing

buildings. i read an article on the cost of hawkins ballot measure, i believe it was in the sunday or saturday paper, and they talked about examples where existing houses on the westside, where there are about 30% of the people that rent, don't have -- the price control portion of rent control on their homes. some without rent control on the buildings, the rent is raised, they can't afford it, they get out. and the landlord buys the building next door and then has five buildings and has castro theater in the middle of the neighborhood. we want it look at the impact and have findings because if we do have it before this body that we can make some findings on health and safety as it pertains to putting people out of their existing housing. and i think that's very important. i support the gist of where it's

going, but i wonder with the way commodity prices are going, labor prices are going, if we find ourselves here next year or the year after and things have doubled but we reduce the requirements by half, at what point, will we say, we're absorbing all the cost increases going into housing and all we have left is just housing. there's no community benefit. there has to be a point in time where we have to say, okay, we have to figure out a better process. i like the intent of this. i do have some questions in the details. we do have to spur housing and we have to get it built. >> vice president melgar: i want to make one thing clear -- demolition of housing is not allowed. if a parcel has one unit of housing, including a single-family home, it's not eligible for the program. so the reason that demolition of

buildings, a finding that exists within this modified c.u., is if you are demoing a commercial building, a gas station, it's not -- it's just to say that the project has to efxplain what wa in that building. if it was a commercial tenant, what did we do for that tenant? i want to make that clear. that there is no demolition of housing allowed. >> commissioner richards: thank you for that clarification. >> vice president melgar: thank you for that clarification. >> i don't know if the mikes are low -- >> vice president melgar: i just turned it on. sorry. i had several questions. first, let me say, i'm generally supportive of this legislation and its intent. but i do have some questions and concerns over the nuances and perhaps i can get some clarification. so the number one is to staff's recommendation 3. and i would like to hear from

you and ms. mohan because i perhaps misunderstood. i heard you and supervisor tang that you had opposite, you know, opinions, but the same reasoning i heard her say she was opposed because of it financing and you are for it because of financing. can you clarify what you mean? >> our recommendation is to allow -- if we could put the screen back up, if we look at this, for example, the closed captioning is covering the part that i want it look at, but right now, home-sf requires the three tiers of affordable units and it's -- and they're not flexible. you have to do 10%, 5% and 5%. you can't drop the affordability

of that middle tier down to make them more affordable and still qualify for the program. you have to do them at these a.m.i.s. we were -- we were recommending that you be able -- you allow project sponsors to drop down to a deeper affordability because there is this sidlac, which says, if you do a deal and your building is 20% affordable to people making 50% a.m.i. or less, then the state sort of kicks in this -- gives you an incentive, basically, on your financing. if it's another way that projects are providing higher affordability for better financing option, our recommendation is to allow that. >> vice president melgar: ms. mohan, can you weigh in on

that? it seems that you would want that for project sponsors to have access to financing, making the projects more feasible. >> when we worked on the many, many community meetings for outreach, the component that was important to us was the middle income piece. so we wanted to preserve that in the middle to make sure there is enough middle income. when the projects provide the lower affordability, there's less middle income. we're not in favor of that. the original home-sf is to ensure that we get that middle income -- >> vice president melgar: i get that and i'm supportive of that, but doesn't this give you a flexibility to choose either/or depending on how their financing works out? >> i think with the sidlac, they would have to provide -- and paulo can correct me if i'm wrong -- 20% of the lower and so we want to make sure that the

project has enough middle-income housing. >> vice president melgar: i understand. it seems to me that if a developer has financing elsewhere that pencils out for them they don't need sidlac then they can choose either one, either option, and still get the benefit of the project. am i wrong about that? of the program. that's what i meant. >> if -- that's what our recommendation would be, yeah. but, yeah, again, on tier 1, for example, the requirement is 20%, so if you dropped all of your units to 50% a.m.i. or less, you would be eliminating the upper two middle income tiers, which is what the supervisor is concerned about. >> vice president melgar: thank you. the next several questions that i have are for ms. mohan. again, i'm supportive and i just

want to make sure that we are on the same page. the first question that i have -- and i will go through them and about the timing and hearing from director ram, are you okay saying 120 days after ceqa? >> yes. >> vice president melgar: okay. that's great. the other thing, i'm worried -- we heard from several folks about the issue of community access. and that's something that i take really seriously. as somebody -- i'm only the second latina to sit on this commission in the history of san francisco. and i don't think all communities have equal access. to me, having not gone through a conditional use in the mission

or the bayview. so i'm wondering -- and i think that this is intended for middle-income housing development in places that have not seen development. and i fully support that. it's an equity issue. so i'm wondering what you think about, you know, tinkering with this to provide, you know, access where access is needed. and then expedited processing where we want things to develop that are not being developed? and what i mean specifically is neighborhoods where we can see on the map have been red lined and where there has not been community access before. it's the mission, bayview, and figuring out how to expedite things along commercial corridors on the westside.

so that's my question, what do you think about that and have you considered some language? and indexing to inclusionary. we have spent a lot of time during the negotiations around prop c to phase in and we were really thoughtful in sort of the timing and how that related to the numbers. and so having just a straight percentage without being tagged to the inclusionary and how it progresses, we're kicking the can down the road without thinking through what that will mean 10 years from now. so i wanted to hear thoughts about that. and, finally, the issue about affordable housing projects, that had never occurred to me before. it's the first time that i heard about it earlier this morning from somebody in the affordable housing advocate community and i still -- i'm raising it because i don't understand what the technical issue is. i don't think this legislation was intended for that, but if

there's any way that affordable -- 100% affordable housing projects can get any advantage of it, why wouldn't we? those are just my questions. >> sure. we answered the timing one. in terms of community access, i want to clarify, there's still a planning commission hearing. it's not like when the legislation was -- the planning commission still has a hearing on the projects and we're not supportive of the recommendation number 5 which asks that tier 1 projects be approved administratively. that was not in our legislation and we hope that the commission doesn't support that legislation. i think the legislation is quite complicat complicated. i think it's something that we could look into. and in terms of indexing, i want to remind the commission that the tiers are a pilot program.

it's dependent on the study that the technical advisory committee does. it would be appropriate to have them look at home-sf. in terms of affordable housing projects, i think it's more of a staff-level question in terms of what's happening, but i do want to remind the commission in aaron starr's report, the board passed the improvements that allowed affordable projects taking advantage -- yeah, taking advantage of the program to be approved administratively. >> vice president melgar: thank you. >> president hillis: a couple of thoughts. one, i, too, am very supportive of this. i think it's being skewed a little bit as we're trying to reduce the amount of inclusionary we have in projects. we're trying to increase it from the 18% to 20%, to between 23% and 30%. and we're seeing -- i

mentioneded that home-sf projects are not coming forward, but they're not feasible. people are doing what is allowed by code or doing the density bonus. so i think this is great and am supportive. i prefer -- i think the l.p.a. is where this should be. it's what we have in planning. it's what we have in the mission currently. this will make it equivalent and other areas that we're not seeing a ton of development, the westside, in making the process in those neighborhoods equivalent to where we're seeing the majority of development. if we want a level playing field, turning this into an l.p.a. helps that process. folks who are nervous about not being able to appeal to a body,

environmental documents are always appealable to the board of supervisors. it would being approvable to the permit appeals, but we see a lot of appeals where there's controversy of the environmental documents to the board of supervisors. i think this puts that on equal footing. so i'm supportive of that. i like the 120 days. again, this doesn't say, if in 120 days we don't approve the project it's approved. there is not a huge amount of teeth in that. and that's a secret. [laughter] it's not like it's approved. go build the project if we don't approve it in 120 days. if we look at what is in the mayor's directive -- under 18 months, that's a goal that would require a.i.r. i think we shift 120 to 180 and call it a day and not try to peg

it against ceqa the city has a lot of control over ceqa. and i think we'll take more time if we do this in a serial fashion. if we peg it to the mayor's initiative, i think 180 days works. most of the projects that we'll see it happening, again, will be relatively straightforward and not require i.e.r.s. so i'm comfortable with 120, but as a compromise, it could be 180. i agree with commissioner melgar on affordability and we want to encourage flexibility. i think it's great. i would approve it with all the recommendations, except recommendation 4, but make it 180, and without recommendation 5.

>> since a number of people raised it about the use-it-or-lose-it provision. what you've done in other cases, if i'm right, after the three years if the project is not moving forward, we would schedule a hearing for you to consider revocation. it wouldn't automatically mean that it went away -- >> president hillis: i'm not a big fan of use-it-or-lose-it because if the economy dips -- everybody thinks things are not getting built because of construction costs. we'll just be back here with projects again and making people go through the process. it sounds good, but i've yet to meet the developer that's not

building their project becauser that just waiting around for something even better to happen. i think it's construction costs or the economy dips. i think it's the rare case that -- it's just not great. prices are crazy. we can sell for a lot of money, but we're not building it because we think it will get better. i don't know. there's a lot of building happening. the use-it-or-lose-it makes the project worse. >> commissioner richards: i don't think it's that we'll take it away. you have to come back and tell us why. we'll check the records and see if the project was on the market the day after we approved it. >> president hillis: so we'll have a hearing on why construction costs are high? >> commissioner richards: selling it is a different thing

entirely. >> president hillis: we already have a time limit. >> commissioner richards: we did that on 2918 mission, remember? i think we did two years. >> i think we did the three years -- >> commissioner richards: i think we cut it down. >> okay. i don't remember. i think it was that it would come back to you for consideration. >> commissioner moore: i think it's a great idea to try -- it would be better for me to see a side-by-side comparison, because ultimately, we would like to position home-sf as preferable over state density bonus. not having the one used more frequently right in front of us makes it a little more difficult to really, succinctly respond to everything that's been proposed. generally, i trust that people

are trying to do better. yet you don't want to over or under sell because at this moment it seems as if we're trying to use home-sf as a pilot, given the expiration date of december, 2019. it's a short time frame given how we set up through p.p.a. and everything else, which any of the projects has to go through. so could somebody explain to me why the time frame is so short for the pilot? >> one of the reasons that we wanted a short time frame, we know that t.a.c. is reconvening in 2019. so we hope that they will also take up home-sf as part of their work and set rates that are feasible at that time. so this is in response to what we're seeing now. we're not seeing a lot of projects use it. we've seen some project sponsors

express interest in using some of it, not the whole height, but more affordability. so this gives them the option to submit their application, take advantage of the pilot and then we hope that the t.a.c. will reconvene in 2019 and set new rates. >> commissioner moore: would you mind answering -- does this track the inclusionary for the rest of the city? >> the current legislation in front of you does not, but we could ask also the t.a.c. to look at that when they reconvene in their study. >> commissioner moore: for a pilot, that's fine, but for ultimate effectiveness, you would like to take it to permanent if it succeeds by not indexing it you are letting it fall behind after 2019. and i think that would be unfortunate given the time that you are now trying to tune this piece of legislation. the other question i have, have

you looked at what -- have you compared what the state does 100% affordable and what you are trying to do when it comes to more flexibility with states versus home-sf? the provisions and technicalities that are settled, but that's why a side-by-side would be to me for what you are doing. >> our office did not look at projects using state density bonus as afford to affordable housing density. that provision around 100% affordable housing was passed on first read at the board on tuesday. >> commissioner moore: my hope is, and i'm saying this honestly, i hope that home-sf can give us a better tool as the

uncertainties of density. as we're moving it forward, i hope that the commissioners' comments can help make that happen. >> i can speak to the state density. the state law only allows 35% extra density. if your density limit caps to you 10 units on a site, you can only get three or four more units from the state law. home-sf in many cases can give you double the density. home-sf gives you potentially a lot more density than the state law, but it requires a lot more affordability from the state law. so that's the main thing, i think, that would push a project towards home-sf. the state law doesn't require as much affordability. so i think that's a lot of times why we see projects use the state law.

so that's why this piece of legislation is trying to respond to that reality by offering these kind of tiers, which still require more affordability than the state law but give more than the state law. i don't know if that fully answers your question. we're trying to strike a balance here. we want to have control over projects. we've want projects to look conte conte contextural. we're trying to reflect that with this legislation, which the state law says, do whatever you want, because the -- so we're striking a balance. i don't know if that fully answers your question. >> commissioner moore: it does. as a commission, you know this commission is sensitive to public comment when it comes to

the limits of public voice, should dovetail, broad brush, need expire clause, those are important comments for us to hear. i also resonate with the idea that it may need to be applied differently in different neighborhoods. the director explains that it does not really apply to certain areas. i would like to see a map of where it doesn't apply because i need to be reminded that it does not apply everywhere. there's a subtlety of legislation and legislation knowledge here, just by reading what you put in front of us, it's not at my fingertips all the time. that sensitivity comes out of public comment and that's why we're seeing here to reflect

back on you to ask that it's being built and listened to and that's being built before it moves to the board of supervisors and being reconsidered, as you are trying to make it, indeed, a more preferable way of how we do -- how we do housing affordability and densification. >> commissioner johnson: in general, i'm supportive of the legislation. we need more affordable housing. home-sf started as a great idea and initiative and i appreciate just trying to be responsive to what we're seeing in the market and trying to craft legislation that will incentivize people to take advantage of this. in general, in addition to being supportive on the modifications, i support 1, 2, and 3, evidence -- editing 4 to 180 days, i think it's a good precedent to

put ourselves on a timeline. well, not precedent, but good practice. and i think also without recommendation, 5. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: how do you feel about the 180 days versus ceqa plus 120? >> i think we're open to that. >> vice president melgar: in that case, i'm going to try to make a motion. let's see how this goes with you guys. i would move that we approve this with staff recommendations with the exception of number 4, changing that to 180 days, and not number 5. but also asking the project sponsor to specifically request that the t.a.c. include is thin their work plan. and a use-it-or-lose-it

provision of 2 years that's my motion. >> second. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i'm supportive. you said have 5 be l.p.a.? okay. i support that. and use-it-or-lose-it would be to apply for building permit for two years, not build the building? >> vice president melgar: correct. >> president hillis: and if you lose it, you have to come back. i will vote for it. i have concern about that. i think we've seen a lot of projects because of construction costs that are not here and we'll just end up -- although we're -- we are going to mauck it take more time. >> commissioner melgar, what was the additional condition regarding t.a.c.? >> vice president melgar: that the sponsor considers specifically requesting this to be included in the t.a.c. work

plan. >> president hillis: the issue about -- >> vice president melgar: the home-sf. >> president hillis: to reconsider all rates of home-sf when they reconvene in 2019, along with inclusionary? >> vice president melgar: yes. >> commissioner moore: i would like to see additional disclosure on where it doesn't apply, so there's more certainty on the corridors where it does and doesn't apply. >> do you want us to put it in the legislation? >> commissioner moore: how does one do that? >> what you approved last year is the same. nothing is changing with respect to where it doesn't apply. it does not apply to plan areas where we got rid of density limits. >> commissioner moore: could that be repeated? could it be restated?

>> president hillis: i think the zoning districts where it applies is listed. it's generally non-rh and non-ct districts. so i think it's calling out where and what zoning district it applies. >> commissioner moore: i would like it explains why there is uncertainty of where it applies and where it doesn't apply. i would like to hear that, so we can properly respond to that concern. >> i think that not only in the mission is there a lack of clarity, but we know it's in certain n.c.s and not others. there are certain islands, but we don't know where they are, frankly. i would love to see a map. that would put some people at ease. but there are other neighborhoods that we hear from, tenderloin, where we believe it will apply widespread to those communities. we would love to see it mapped,

if we could. >> the tenderloin is excluded. north of market, s.u.d. that's in the planning code right now. central soma, all of soma, basically, excluded. they're density decontrolled i was trying to pull up the zoning map, but i don't think this computer is connected to the internet. >> commissioner moore: i think it's a simple question to ask so there's clarity of the background and which background is this being reflected. if we don't have that in front of us and have to ask each time, i think it will help everybody's proper understanding of where and where it doesn't apply. it will save a lot of time, a lot of pushback that's not

necessary. the more clarity the better. i ask that it be added. if you have the maps, reference them and make them available as an and appendix to this legislation. the other issue, indexing it to the city-wide and when i brought up that question, you said at the moment, it isn't. can we make that an additional request? >> president hillis: yes, ms. melgar asked for that. >> commissioner moore: i didn't hear that. i must not properly listen. thank you. >> commissioner richards: you had the 30,000 parcels and took out this and that and layered it, so i know they exist -- >> yeah, the maps, i believe, are still available on the san francisco planning website. i don't have the ability to make the maps at supervisor tang's office, but i'm sure that paulo can pull them up.

>> president hillis: and people should contact the staff to know where it applies. they do get tricky in the zoning districts, but it will be in places where we're not seeing a lot of development. those that we are seeing development, we've lifted density controls. if you are concerned, one, it's probably -- there are maps that exist and you should contact the planning staff. all right. is there a second? a motion and a second. >> commissioner richards, did you second that? >> commissioner richards: i did. >> vice president melgar: no, milli did. >> apologies. there's been a motion seconded to approve this proposed ordinance with staff modifications excluding item 5,

amending item 4 to 180 days, adding -- >> president hillis: taking out any reference to timeline. you are not really amending, but you are amending it to make 120 to 180. 4 takes it out, just to be clear. >> okay. recommending that the sponsor require the t.a.c. to reconsider all rates when they reconvene and include a use-it-or-lose-it commission for filing a building permit application within two years of authorizization. >> commissioner moore: what happened to the maps? >> vice president melgar: that's not included in the motion. >> president hillis: i think we have the intention of doing that. >> commissioner moore: any understanding is that the maps are not available. and i think --

>> they've been on our website for a year, commissioner. i'm not sure why people think they're not available. it's on the website. i'm sorry. how is that -- i'm a little baffled by this issue. it's been -- home-sf applied to the same areas a your ago as it does now. there's no change to where it applies. and those maps are on the website. if you want us to print them and give them to the board, we're happy to do that. >> president hillis: do you want to change the motion? >> vice president melgar: no. i don't see how we would change the motion to include maps in the legislation. >> commissioner moore: it's in the supervisors' interests that the maps that were able remain available and part of the legislation as being amended. >> we're happy to print the maps and bring them to all the districts. so we can make that commitment now. >> president hillica