single-family homes. three years ago when the planning commission produced an a.d.u. manual, the options for a.d.u.s in single-family homes were limited and unattractive. the following year, california legislature enacted legislation mandating a wider range of practical options. sadly, san francisco failed to comply with state law. ordinance 95-17 announced the purpose of complying the state law. but, in fact, made no meaningful concession to the law. the a.d.u. manual was not revised. i must call your attention to the fact that the city attorney put its stamp of approval on ordinance 95-17. i have sent to you a memo by way of an email before this meeting showing that the ordinance is, in fact, widely in conflict with state law. now amending the san francisco

ordinance to comply with state law is only a first step. but the city attorney's position on ordinance 95-17 unfortunately bars the way to taking this first steptoe ward an effective a.d.u. ordinance and manual. as a lawyer, i would hope that this problem could be resolved by amicable discussion and the city attorney will participate actively in drafting an ordinance or manual complying with this very beneficial state law. >> hi. good afternoon. i'm dylan casey, california renters advocacy and education fund. i think this proposed ordinance takes a lot of steps in the right direction. i want to talk to highlight three points where i think that

san francisco's still falling short of the required state standards for a.d.u.s. first, san francisco's required to allow one accessory dwelling unit in proposed single-family home. this change went into effect in 2017 at the state level. so my understanding is that this will be amended, the san francisco ordinance will be amended, to prohibit a.d.u.s in new construction. and i'm asking that that not happen. second, san francisco applies communication discussion review to a.d.u.s that expand the envelope of existing single-family homes. i believe this is also contrary it state law standards that require ministerial review processes. so i would ask that the ordinance be exempts from

discretionary review notification. lastly, the way that san francisco applies the open space requirements is contrary to state law. they're not listed as permitted by state law and applies independently or san francisco applies a second requirement in the home and there should be only one requirement for the single-family home. i hope the board will consider making a few more amendments to this to bring san francisco's laws in compliance with state law and i am going to submit more detailed written comments that explain my position. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. george wooding, president of the coalition for san francisco

neighborhoods. a.d.u.s with the foot print of a house didn't require notification. supervisor's new a.d.u. legislation would allow a.d.u.s outside the footprint of the house requiring no neighborhood notification. additionally, a zoning administrator will be able to add a second a.d.u. with no oversight. bay windows, elimination of side setbacks, de facto pop-outs, conversion of freestanding garages and sheds were design standards. when left to subjective criteria in the design standards, that the planning department would apply with the design guidelines. anything will happen and probably will happen.

i believe we should, number one, retain the existing code requirements for front obstructions. number two, existing code requirements for rear obstructions. keep side setback areas as is. if square footage is added by projections, the maximum should be included to have accurate quantification. if it's not adequate, a new one should be created with meaningful public input in the review. thank you. >> good afternoon. jeremy schaub of schaub lee architects. first, i want to commend the three of you for working to help create more units throughout our city. at the end of this, we need to

focus on that that is our goal here. so i really would like to emphasize that, the idea of adding an a.d.u. in new construction should be the right way to go. i know there is some consideration at the planning commission, but that all resolved around demolition. we can do a.d.u.s in new construction if there isn't a demo. i have a lot of projects on vacant lots, where we could put in more units. i have about a dozen that i could think of off the top of my head right now. so i think that's something we could focus on, amendments to the legislation. and the one other piece is wanted to -- wanted to say that having a preapplication meeting with planning and building and fire is going to be re important to make sure that we have all of our code issues nailed down ahead of time. as you can see, we're trying to retroactively fix a lot of

things like who knew that street trees would stop prevention of construction. so that's where we're at. preapplication is the way to go. thanks. >> hello. i'm victoria pierce, one of the co-executive directors of housing advocacy fund. dylan, who was up here, said something about the requirements. it is a violation of state law, san francisco would be out of compliance, if it does not allow a.d.u.s to be built as part of new construction. the state law provisions say that the entire ordinance would be null and void. so it would default back to state law and it would be really disapointing to see the city of san francisco to spend time, energy and money to develop this only for it to go to waste because you didn't follow the rules. so we sue cities in violation of

housing law and san francisco might be coming up next if it's not resolved. it would be great if san francisco fixed this. we're in an affordable housing shortage and a.d.u.s is a great way to add some housing for kids, grandparents. it's almost certainly not going to be massive, big developers looking for a quick buck, but looking for housing and looking to make a dent in our housing shortage. it's crucial that it's brought into compliance with state law. do not pass this as it is tonight, otherwise there will be serious repercussions and there may not be nice actors out there. i want to be sure that san francisco is safe. thank you. >> good afternoon. rick gladstone, land use attorney in the city and have worked on a number of a.d.u.s. first of all, thank you very much for working on this. the amendment is very necessary. i, too, believe that you should

check with the city attorney to see if it's complaint to not allow a.d.u.s for single-family homes and the demolition concerns can be taken care of. second, i think it's important for the public to know why the amendment, which i support, is occurring that you can, in fact, do an a.d.u. even though there's been an eviction in the prior three years. as it is currently, there is an incentive for owners to evict people when they don't want to legalize a unit because the current law says that you cannot do a legalization of a unit if there's been an eviction during the prior year. so your legislation, quite properly, takes away that incentive for people to evict in order to get around the requirement that they legalize

an illegal unit. i do share the concern that the building department is not as up to speed as planning on what it means to have no path to legalization. so i wanted to be sure that your legislation includes a pre-op indication not just with the neighbors, but with the fire department and planning department. finally, i support the idea that there will be waivers for open space. i had an a.d.u. case where the a.d.u. process was not useful to a client because in addition to going through the a.d.u. process, he had to get a variance because there was insufficient open space and that is a very good amendment. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. teresa flanders, disability

action. i'm happy to hear of some of the amendments, supervisor tang, and i'm glad that you also, obviously, read the letter from the tenants unit. the difference in single-family homes, usually it's the owner that's there, so they're very aware of -- they don't want delays and they would be the ones inconvenienced and they can be on top of monitoring things, whereas in multiunit buildings, it's not the case. if there are existing tenants, it's those tenants, who are oftentimes dealing with the loss of laundry facilities, etc., and not knowing their rights, rather. so those of us on the ground advocating for tenants, i'm wanting to push that all safeguards are in place before this goes into effect, as well as an affidavit, i would suggest there be a copy of the buyout of

the laundry, the storage, or the garage space that had been part of the services and tenants contracts. for having a copy of that buyout filed with the rent board, means that that proof is there and it's been filed. i would also like to suggest that there be a definite size range so that if it's a space of 1,400 square feet, that not a large flat be built, rather a space where you could actually fit in two a.d.u.s would be great. my understanding of a.d.u.s in terms of in-laws, grannies, usually between 300 and 700 square feet. so to really take advantage of a.d.u.s adding affordable housing. we need to put a specific range in place. thank you very much.

>> good day. i'm anastasia yovinopols, district 8. i'm glad that supervisor tang announced that a.d.u. would not be part of this ordinance in new construction. the intent is to construct units that are rent-controlled and affordable by existing spaces at a property to add to the housing stock. i'm hopeful you will decide to limit the size of a.d.u.s to 1,200 square feet. supervisors, i'm not comfortable about exempting neighborhood notification to allow a.d.u.s to expand within the buildable envelope. issues come up during construction that affect surrounding neighbors and there could be unintended consequences

in advance of a project moving forward. depending on truthful disclosures, tenants may not receive the notification of a.d.u.s. as it stands, although the planning department is invited to participate, the tenants are not participants. wouldn't it make sent for tenants to be involved before the a.d.u.s are permitted because if the laundry and garage would be incorporated into the design of a.d.u.s or had to vacate the units during construction. the tenants in this ordinance does not deal with how long they will be displaced while their homes are legalized and the financial compensation to the tenants is unrealistic. in addition, the zoning

administrator must not allow more than one unit at a property to be legalized. thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith, on bee hall of the san francisco coalition action. in the sake of brevity, we share a lot of the same concerns with state law. as somebody who has not an attorney, a plain reading of it, we're potentially going to be outside of compliance for a long time. the city of san francisco has operated and operated like they didn't care can with what the state of california said that they were supposed to do. we saw another state density project headed to soma. we will not get the opportunity to use a local program with more inclusionary housing. more housing is good, but we can

get affordable by design, lowercase a, affordable housing. we want to be sure we're good to go in regards to the state of california. thank you. >> afternoon. jennifer fever, san francisco tenants universiounion. i'm changing my testimony, took the wind out of my sails. we had seen a lot of a.d.u. permits violating the rights of existing tenants. they're using seismic work to force tenants out for a long period of time and not compensating them and taking away services part of their leases. we hope that the discussions with the rent board continues. we had a case where they were going to put an elevator through tenants apartments and planning department staffers thought that was fine. so for many tenants, they see some letters from the planning department and they trust what

their landlords are saying and they don't realize their rights are different from what this official piece of paper is saying. they do have rights and they should be included whenever they will be impacted. i still have questions about how a.d.u.s if approved will take away services from tenants if they don't agree to that. that seems problematic. so we encourage you to keep working with tenant groups to explain the problem so we can find a good solution. thanks. >> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the a.d.u.s. i would add if a property owner has to displace a tenant, that the -- that property owner is

responsible for finding a comparable unit before the tenant is able to return to his or her apartment. and be responsible for the housing cost incurred in the period of vacating. thanks to ms. boudreau that suggested tracking of rental rates as units are completed and ready for occupancy. it's urgent as it's not 100% clear what units will be protected with rent control. if the tenants return with the same rent, new tenants without rent control would start at market rates. we have to keep that in mind that the landlord can charge whatever they want at the beginning of the new unit opening. so this would be prohibitively costly for most of us in the city. if that's the case, the a.d.u.

project is not adequately addressed low and moderate income renters. lastly, in district 8, there are 198 total a.d.u.s filed. apparently in an effort to streamline the process, the planning commission will not have over sight over any of this work no matter what the size. this means neighbors in the public are largely left out of oversight as well. thank you. >> good afternoon. ozzie realm, neighborhood council. first of all, supervisor tang, i would like to thank you for taking off the amendment to allow a.d.u. in new construction. of course, our concern was always regarding the demolition and whether or not the planning commission could reject demolition. so to the folks that are criticizing this move and the ones that are insisting that we

do need to allow a.d.u.s in new construction, i understand and i'm not against that. if we could have some sort of a compromise in the form of, well, a.d.u.s should be properly rent controlled, they should be below market rate. if we can have a compromise and gave and take on that front, i can see something like this happening. if you are going to allow a demolition and construction of a brand-new a.d.u. that will not be rent controlled it, will not be providing affordable housing. that's one issue that you may want to look into. another thing that i was going to bring to your attention, for the past three weeks plus that we've been looking at this, it keeps on confusing a whole bunch of activists because here it says to defines the envelope, which can different than buildable envelopes. so there's been a lot of confusion on that front and i would appreciate if you could

reflect the intent of your legislation, which is no notification on existing unbuildable envelopes. on that note, i would like to ask you to maintain notifications that is so important and, in fact, if you have agreed to allow a tenant to be notified, i would like to propose that landlords should show up for proof as to who is paying for the pg & e. it will show who is living in the building and it will make it easier to notify the inhabitants. thanks a lot. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kristie long. thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this new round of a.d.u. legislation. we're very pleased to support this round of improvements. since 2014, we've seen such a radical change in how people think about in-law units, which i find incredible and great

recognition of the housing shortage that we have and people seeing that we need to do something about it. this legislation builds on the prior efforts to address the barriers of constructing more units in san francisco. we support the legislation as proposed the planning commission have recommended many modifications, many of which improve, but we're disappointed that the new construction was removed from that. the fact that the new building could come back to add a new a.d.u. but at a higher cost doesn't make a lot of sense and it seems like there are other ways to navigate the legal issues and wanting to ensure that people are protected. thank you for the opportunity to share our support. we appreciate that san francisco is serious about making a dent in the housing shortage. thanks.

>> todd david on behalf of san francisco housing coalition. there are a bunch of things that we heard today that there is absolute agreement upon. it totally makes sense if a tenant had to leave their place, the owner of that should 100% be responsible for finding them a comparable location and pay moving fees. that's best practice in affordable housing. i know that mission housing, it's a practice they do. i think it makes sense the other thing is, i totally think it makes sense that we do limit the size of a.d.u.s. they're accessory dwelling units. we don't want this -- i think it would be bad for the housing world to say, hey, we're going to try to figure out a work-around and add more density, especially when a.d.u.s are supposed to be smaller and affordable by design. so having a maximum size and

minimum size, and maybe based on a percentage of the main house, with a maximum, you know, all that stuff makes sense, but i also do want to reiterate what kristie wine said from spur. i'm missing the reasoning behind not allowing a.d.u.s in brand-new construction. there's a lot of different ways -- the concerns that are out there can be addressed simply through a strong definition of what a.d.u.s are, size and suitable by design and things like that. so i do think it's a missed opportunity to not be adding immediately additional housing that would be affordable simply by its shape and size and that seems to be -- that seems to be a solution looking for a problem. i'm not sure why we're removing the a.d.u.s from new construction. thank you. bye.

>> good afternoon, supervisors, jenna new, speaking in support of this legislation and also to lend our expertise if needed to resolve some of the complicated landlord-tenant issues around a.d.u. development. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm rose, coalition for san francisco neighborhood submitted a letter on january 29. i didn't see it in the packet of received letters, so i'm leaving it here. basically, opposition to nonnotification of a.d.u.s to the required side yard. currently requiring 311 notification. also neighbors advocated for pop-out notification. so that went through. i will leave this because it wasn't in the packet. the other thing is, i

communicated with planning staff and i wanted a clarification for the record. legislation 7-12, in the existing envelope and allowed in noncomplying buildings. she meant nonconforming and not confined. page 14, 3-4, i asked about stand alone garage structure, with the size restrictions for dormers remain 90 she said the design guidelines for dormers would still apply. page 18, lines 21-25. 106.8, would a neighbor be allowed to ask for a pre-app meeting? planner responded, only the applicant. that's problematic if neighbors will be involved as part of the process. my comment for a.d.u.s, i know the size thing was removed, but

a 1,200 square foot size may not be distinguishable and building projects can bypass zoning, maybe one of the reasons for the removal of a.d.u.s from the new construction. this would occur when legalizing the numbers of a.d.u.s and a summary not differentiating. it was done in the 2016 farrell-peskin legislation. thank you. please submit this into the minutes. >> supervisor tang: thank you i have much. any other members of the public that wish to comment, come on up. seeing none, item is closed. i want to speak to a couple of issues that i heard over and over again and want to be clear. we will have changes at the board of supervisors to correct language in the legislation, specifically as it relates to the built envelope. it should say, buildable area of existing lot, instead of built

envelope or buildable area of existing building. also, i heard comments about how we're allowing the expansion of a.d.u.s within the buildable envelope without neighborhood notification. that's not true. i wanted to clarify that. and when it comes to filling in and creep eighting a.d.u.s underneath cantelevered rooms and/or decks into required rear yard, i will make that at the full board that there will be a mandatory pre-app. none of the things contained in the legislation completely eliminates neighborhood notification. and if planning staff want to clarify any of that, feel free to. also, again, i think i was -- marcel spoke to the tenant issues and removal of potential storage space, laundry space, parking space.

i would be very interested to see the outcome of the new, internal process. it's really important. it's not something that you will see in this legislation, but i'm glad to hear that a new process has been implemented. with that, supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair tang. i want to clarify a couple of things that i heard today. i understand the reservation that folks have regarding bullet number 11, regarding new construction, but it seems to me based on what i've heard, that could be easily taken care of by discussing it as new construction that didn't involve any demolition. as there's a lot of vacant parcels in the city where you are building, so that -- i know we've received some letters that we didn't want to encourage any demolition or displacement, that we could -- i'm wondering if there's a way, if planning wants it talk about that, talking about it in terms of new construction that didn't allow

demolition or displacement? >> supervisor tang:ly add context really quickly for why remove that for creation of a.d.u.s in new construction is because of what came up in planning commission. it was an argument related to the housing accountability act and if sponsors could say, they were not allowed to build a certain number of units. for me, the issues related to new construction involving demolition of an existing unit rather than flat out new construction are very different. we do have pretty strong demolition controls that would account forral of -- account for some of the concerns that were raised. >> supervisor safai: there's cases where a building is not deemed significant and you can get demolition or tantamount to

demolition and then there's a case with new construction or significant construction. so i understand some of the reasons behind the letters, we don't want to give an impetus for displacement or removal. if it's new construction, it seems to me that we can limit the a.d.u.s for new construction for three units or less that didn't involve any demolition or displacement. did you want to comment on that? i'm confused as to what the reservation is. >> i agree that the reservation is overall incentives for demolition and that was the majority of what the commission discussed. the idea of only allowing it for vacant lots also came up at the commission. in the end, didn't get into a resolution. i think mostly because there is an agreement that this would be

taken care of at a follow-up legislation that's around demolition. so it was discussed, but didn't make it to the resolution. so they didn't make that recommendation. >> supervisor safai: right. but they discussed it. so the fact that they discussed it, we can take action, correct? >> i defer to the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney, john givner. the board could amend. not today, because with all the moving pieces, trying to minimize amendments on the floor. but that's an amendment that the board could consider either on tuesday or in a future land use meeting. >> supervisor safai: we could make it at the full board. okay. my second one is, and i said a little about this. i would like to hear the rationale behind the removing the requirement for the street

tree. i know that we have a department that's funded a little bit better in terms of street tree maintenance and overall new street tree expansion. and so i'm a little confused as to how that's being used as a rational to slow down a.d.u.s. when you submit your plans, you would do that in parallel with urban forestry. so i would not be in support of removing that. i would be happy if you had them come out and say that it's not available because of the underground wiring and so on. but just so we're clear for the record, doing it in lieu is more expensive than planting a tree. so i would say for folks, you would want to leave that as an option to plant a tree if i can do it. >> supervisor tang: thank you. so, yes, we're limiting the requirement, but of course, if a project sponsor wants to do it,

they absolutely can, and we're giving them the ability for in lieu fee. we didn't pull this out of thin air. i think mostly we had heard from a lot of different project sponsors as we were doing roundtables and focus groups about what was working and what was not, and it came up a lot. again, i would love more trees in our city. my own landlord has an issue with citing trees when he was trying to create a.d.u.s. i know, yes, public works will be well staffed and hopefully improve, but this is what we've been hearing as an issue. >> supervisor safai: tomorrow maybe we can invite public works to come and speak on it. when i've spoken to them, they've said, they don't see it as an issue. might have been an issue in the past. first off, and i know i dove into the areas, but i think it's a really great piece of legislation, supervisor tang. i know a lot of folks in the

community, focus groups, planning department staff, that have spent a lot of time thinking about this. i think it is forward-thinking. i think there are some adjustmen adjustments that can be made. i'm harping on trees. i used to work at the bureau of forestry. if we're going to expand in areas where we can add a.d.u.s, which is probably south-southwest part of san francisco, there's a lot less trees there. so i would want to encourage that and continue to encourage that. i would like to hear from the department of public works and hear what they have to say about this and if they have some thoughts on whether or not this actually slows things down. i can see how maybe undergrounding groups come out and mark them up, but getting the plans approved, you do that kind of in parallel process. i'm not exactly sure that that would be an impetus. >> supervisor tang: okay. and to clarify -- we can certainly hear from public

works, but we were originally proposing elimination, but now this said, you plant the tree or pay an in lieu fee, so we'll get a tree. i hear your arguments about it would be more expensive. >> supervisor safai: i want to be clear. to pay the in lieu fee, it is more expensive than planting the tree. it may be a thing where they pay the fee and -- because now the sidewalk is the responsibility of the city in terms of planting trees. it's in the code. city can plant the tree anyway. >> supervisor tang: okay. >> supervisor safai: did planning want to say something? okay. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other issues or -- >> supervisor safai: in terms of neighborhood association. there's a pre-app for -- >> supervisor tang: filling under canteleverd rooms or

decks. >> supervisor safai: other areas, administrative approval? >> supervisor tang: no. expanding into buildable area on an existing law, that requires the same neighborhood -- >> supervisor safai: so extension of legal nonconforming is the existing process? >> supervisor tang: yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. that's all i have at this moment. >> supervisor tang: okay. colleagues, any other questions or comments? anything else from staff? okay. thank you. and thanks to the public for their comments and helpful suggestions. 5 wanted to make all the amendments that i stated on the record except i will save the one about filling under cantileverd rooms and decks because that needs to go to the full board as well as cleanup on the buildable -- i can make that today? okay. so we can do that today. all right.

so colleagues, can we get a motion on the amendments that i proposed? >> supervisor kim: so moved. >> supervisor tang: without objection. and then a motion on the item as amended. >> supervisor safai: motion to send it to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. thank you, colleagues. all right. madam clerk, item 3, please. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to amend the housing opportunities san francisco, home-sf, and affirm appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. okay. another piece of legislation before us here today. this one has to do with home-sf. as many of you know, for several years now, our office has worked with planning department and i want to thank annika vaughn from my office and planning for their work on home-sf, an optional

program that will incentivize affordable housing for families and middle-income households. about a year has passed and we're seeing that more are opting to use the state density law and hybrid version. we had to take a long look at home-sf to see what change wes could make to make our local program more attractive. the hallmark is about middle-income households as well as b bedroom sizes. this is a pilot program, where we say we would like to make the changes, but have the technical advisory committee study affordability as they con feign after december 31, 2019. it's not an experiment, but ways to see if we can make adjustments so more are

incentivized to do this. we required 30% more on site. but we have heard challenges with meeting the 30% affordability rate. so we're proposing different tiers that project sponsors can opt into, depending on if they take height increases or not. with that said, i will turn it over to planning department then to go over this home-sf 2.0 version. >> good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. i will just briefly go through what the planning commission's recommendations were. the planning commission heard this item at june 28 and recommended approval with the following amendments. first, to amend section 206.3d4 to allow home-sf to receive the

listed zoning modifications, rather than the three allowed. the commission recommended the affordability levels in proposed tier 1 as follows. for projects of 24 units or fewer requiring 20% on-site units at the proposed affordability levels and for 25 units or more requiring 23% on-site units, distributed at 10% at the lowest tier 55 or 80% a.m.i., depending if it's rental or ownership. 8% at $80 or 105% a.m.i. the commission recommended setting all affordable levels at maximums, so providing deeper affordability and still qualify

for the program. they recommended a 180-daytime line of approval instead of 120 days proposed. and recommended starting the clock at the completion of the environmental review. the commission included a use it or lose it provision requiring sponsors to file a building permit application within two years of entitlement. that concludes my presentation and i'm cable for any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i'm going to go over the changes that we're making to home-sf and what recommendations we are taking or not. as i mentioned, we're trying to create three different tiers for the program. right now, developers have to provide 30% affordable housing on site if they want to opt in to home-sf. we will be taking the planning commission recommendations

around the tiers. so the first tier, if you have projects that are under 24 units or 24 units or less, you could provide 20% affordable housing. and you get any zoning modifications. if you build over 24 units, then affordability rate is 23%. the second tier we're proposing, you developers can add one additional story above height limits and affordability would be 20% on site. third tier, two above existing height limits, you need to provide the full 30% afford ability. for all the tiers, we are saying that we would like to allow project sponsors, an unlimited number of zoning modifications. state density bonus allows up it three. so we thought this would be an attractive way to be incentiv e incentivized to use home-sf.

we thought it was important to provide some certainty. so there's a hybrid of the planning commission recommendation and what we proposed. and we're saying that we would like the timeline to be 180 days for completion unless an e.r.i. is required. we also wanted to ensure that home-sf provides affordability levels that are higher than the amount required by inclusionary housing ordinance we do have a proposal in here to clarify that. that was a concern raised by community members that home-sf could dip below. there is a change in terms of a new section in the planning code that we'll have to delete and reinstate because of the mayor's

process of improvement. so that's a change to make today. and we're asking for home-sf rates similar to housing inclusionary program. we've wanted to make the change before but never included it in the legislation, so it will be after committee. those are the major changes that we're planning to make today, but happy to answer any questions or comments from colleagues. >> supervisor kim: one of my questions was something brought up by community advocates, which is why we're not tiering different inclusionary percentages based on whether the proposed projects has been building rentals or home ownership, which was part of our larger, inclusionary ordinance, understanding there is more value to home ownership. i think one of the concerns here is the way home-sf 2.0 is build,

it will incentivize condo developments here on these parcels. >> supervisor tang: great question. the city law has requirements home-sf didn't break it out in that. our change today, we're trying to build on top of home-sf. if we were to change to rental, it would overhaul the program. we are trying to make little tweaks to home-sf, the first version, to see what we can do to make it more attractive. >> supervisor kim: would that require re-referral to planning? >> supervisor tang: i believe so. it's a rewrite of home-sf in general. >> supervisor kim: i may press on that later, but wanted to ask that question first.

>> supervisor tang: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i have thought about this and i know supervisor kim and i spent a lot of time working on inclusionary and i know i've worked with you on home-sf, but i wanted to ask out loud and see what the reaction was to the requirement on the two bedrooms. i wanted to hear what supervisor kim had to say because i cannot talk to her about this until we're in the committee room. but one of the reasons we're back here right now, and i know you probably said this, supervisor tang when i left the room, but we've had this in effect for over a year and pretty much nobody has taken advantage of it now. and now we have the state density bonus law. people are starting to file applications and invoking that. so we're trying to take a step

become and maybe it more attractive and more of an engine for development than the state density bonus law. and so one of the things we've heard over and over again is the cost of construction when you are dealing with additional floors, the type of construction changes. so the type of construction accelerates, goes up. and so why would you want to do this program with added affordability? added affordability, the driver behind middle-class housing, work force housing. so there's a lot of things we're trying to wrap into this policy. i like giving it complete density decontrol. and then the two full floors with the original required affordability. another thing we've heard from folks in the development

community, and we pushed hard for a minimum of three bedrooms and two bedrooms and that was at 25%, but this goes as high as 40%. it's not meant to say we want more singles or one bedrooms or studies, but the flexibilities having a mix my engender more people to lock at it. if we were looking at that, would i not have a different requirement for two bedrooms. we're at 25 with minimum 10% three bedrooms. is there a way to think about the two-bedroom requirement in the context of this tiered system? i wanted to hear what supervisor kim had to say about that. >> supervisor tang: what is the question? >> supervisor safai: sorry. [laughter]

so a tiered system now based on density, no additional floor. high level of affordability for one floor, a -- full level of affordability for two floors. what i was saying is, could we approach the bedroom count similar, where you would have a tiered structure, so we're already -- there's a floor there at 25%. that's what we've set in our inclusionary conversation. we have 25% twos and threes with 10% threes. so could you have a tiered system on the 40% bedroom count for two bedrooms? does that make sense? >> supervisor tang: i think i understand. you are suggesting that we amend the percentages to have tiers based on -- >> supervisor safai: unit mix. >> supervisor tang: i'm not the author of the ordinance. i do support the 40% to include

two bedrooms. part of the -- if this is targeting middle-class households and we're upping the levels of a.m.i. to target 80% to 130%, we should also keep high levels of two- and three-bedroom units in the middle-class projects. i support it as-is. >> supervisor safai: i get it. what i was saying is, we're thinking about this in terms of levels of affordability and also impediments to construction. so you get -- you would get some more units in a different version, but you have a minimum of 25% two bedrooms. i guess you could say, on tier one, can go to 30% i also want to hear from the project sponsor, but i wanted to hear from you first because we spent a lot of time going back and forth over the two bedrooms. >> supervisor tang: once we're

targeting 80% to targeting income, we should look at housing families, more than individuals. >> supervisor safai: i agree. >> supervisor tang: i think out 40% mix, whether it's tier one, two or three is what i would support. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> thank you for that question. i think there are two central hallmarks of home-sf, the first version, middle-in come housing and family sized units. and i would agree with supervisor kim. we were one of the first programs to require a high rate of two bedrooms. i thought that was important, because if you look at what the city has built, it's studios and one bedrooms. so we're trying to change that here. again, i know it's an optional program and we're trying to make it more attractive, so you are trying to figure out what

barriers to remove. >> supervisor safai: right. we've worked on this together and we had a lot of conversations before we were on the same committee. there's a project in my district right now we're working on that is -- trying to take advantage of home-sf and we're hitting some roadblocks. is it worth -- if we're talking about smaller margins, if it's 40% two-bedrooms, we have 35% two bedrooms? is that something that at the end of the day, we have someone to have this higher level of affordability and yet we still have 35% twos and threes? that's what i'm really asking. we spent a year on this program and are not getting many applications and are taking a look at why we're adjusting it. the tiered system for the affordability is a big step.

i want to throw it out there. if folks want to leave it at 40%, let's see where the dust settles, i'm fine with that, too. i wanted to put it out there because i heard from the sponsor that we're driving our best to get it to work. when you are scaling at 200 to 300 units, it's a different conversation than when you are in the 100-unit. so it may make that difference. that's all. i get it. >> supervisor tang: point well taken. this is a temporary change to home-sf. so perhaps when we re-evaluate the program in a year or so that maybe we could take up the different issues that were raised. >> supervisor safai: i wanted to throw it out there, but i'm fine. and i think it's great amendments. thank you for your hard work on this. >> supervisor tang: if there are no other questions or comments or any feedback from planning, then i will open up the item to public comment. anyone like to speak on item 3, please come on up.

okay. wow. okay. >> supervisor safai: bang the gavel. kidding. [laughter] >> good afternoon, peter papadopolous, mission economic development agency. i want to thank supervisor tang and your office for the discussions on the legislation. it's been helpful. i'm not 100% clear on what potential amendments are in play in some ways, so i want to stress a couple of things in that context. keeping, maintaining the floors that we have in the mission, i know the mission inter sects with this legislation in different ways than other neighborhoods, as well as the same in others. so just making sure that we're maintaining a 25% away -- affordability on each of the tiers. and also making sure that we're

maintaining our tiers of very low-income housing, particularly given the critical need for that low-income housing we need in the commission. that 55 a.m.i. housing, we think, is crucial, making sure that we see an improvement over the state density, which is what we're after here. it doesn't apply to that. units in the mission. >> supervisor tang: it might be one. >> we were shown 13, i believe, which are sort of like lining across the middle of a crucial area right now, seeing a lot of commercial and residential development. so, yeah, it would be great to if we could review the sites there. i think whether the conditional use or an option to have the ability to take an appeal to the supervisors is an important right that currently the

neighborhoods have. we haven't found the board of avenue -- appeals to be significant to address concerns. thank you. >> supervisor tang: i will ask my staff about the map. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. carlos bokenaro, mission neighborhood centers. i'm coming up to echo the comments that peter was just making. it's great that you are trying to make this program more attractive for developers, but there's a fine line between us being a city ands being a private corporation. i think that line is drawn once we see a program that is going to create a greater detriment and have a far worse impact than what i was intentioned. i'm speaking to the mission. once we have a program that will

incentivize and attract more developers, that program will diminish with the was achieved in the mission, i know that this program is for middle-income residents, but low-income should be considered as well. their ability to stay in mission should be concerned. having an amendment what was a long, thoughtful process, and looking at that in other neighborhoods as well and not painting a broad brush, looking at each district, each of the housing percentages and making sure that we're meeting the bar for each of the neighborhoods, because the minute we lower that bar for development, is a minute that we should do hard introspection and realize we're doing something wrong. in terms of this legislation, there could be amendments to the legislation to protect places

like the mission that have higher affordability percentages and protecting lower-income citizens. we would be doing ourselves a great service. thank you. >> corey smith, san francisco housing coalition. generally supportive, but a few amendments we would like to see. eliminate all conditional use requirements altogether. san francisco all housing is necessary and desirable, especially housing that is dense along transportation corridors. we want to support commercial corridors need more sensity and requesting that we get rid of demolition controls. there is ground floor retail with residential above and we would be able to open up a lot more housing if we were able to

capitalize. there are plenty of strong rates of return and moving fees to make sure that no one is getting evicted or displaced. [please stand by]