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]

[bell ringing] >> hi, supervisors, christie wong. thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on this proposal. we've strongly supported this

program since supervisor tang first introduced it in 2015. and we think we believe the intention has been for home sf to be a local attraction. unfortunately, there has been a lack of demand for the program, perhaps due to the affordability requirements, the examples in the staff report that included four projects that had filed applications or revised applications are really instructive. home sf would create 178 units and 58 affordable units instead of 8. a number of projects in these eligible areas passed up home sf and chose state density bonus or didn't use one at all. we support the effort, but we're

concerned the feasibility is still risky at the proposed levels coming out of the planning commission. it's great to learn from experience and data. we support setting a limited time frame for approvals and the approved process changes. and we support the recommendation to eliminate the limit on the zoning modifications allowed. we appreciate the intention of the legislation and hope the city will continue to monitor and adjust into the future. thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors, peter cohen, i just wanted to give a little context about this choice developers are making, about this time last year, as you all know, because you were sponsors of both, home sf and inclusionary were adopted as a pair and we tried to -- phil

tinge was try to true up the local inclusionaries so it wouldn't be impacted negatively. that bill lost. that's the experience we've had for the last year, state density bonus is not only more attractive to home sf, but under mines the inclusionary policies. that's still a fix we haven't been able to solve. so it is a frustrating situation, there needs to be adjustments to home sf to lower the requirements to meet state density bonus, but that is where we are at a city and local policymakers. it's just a cautionary tale about what can happen at the state. the planning commission had a couple of recommendations we think are smart in terms of policy. one you mentioned to have

indexing that mirrors inclusionary. there is no reason to not start that now, but it seems there should be -- five increase each year. secondly was a requirement that entitlements have an expiration date. lastly, there is worker around 100 affordable projects that need to be tweaked and we can help you with language on any of those projects. thank you, supervisors. >> hi, good afternoon. i just want to say thank you for the work around affordable housing. one thing that i do want to mention, when we first formed we did outreach to the community we reached 4,000 in the neighborhood, businesses,

homeowners, artists, youth, everyone that makes up the neighborhood in the mission. one thing we heard constantly was affordability, over and over again. affordability in renting commercial spaces or housing in general. one thing we're concerned about is making sure we maintain the affordability for those folks making -- and maintaining the percentage of 15%. i think any lower will be detrimental to the latino community. the mission has been completely decimated in the last couple of years as far as the displacement happening within the city, the gentryification. we want to make sure that the families making average of $44,000 a year, are able to stay. they're our most vulnerable population and their safety nets have been removed. that's why we're seeing them become homeless.

we have to make sure the mission is protected, thank you. >> good afternoon. neighborhood council. yes, i believe that providing these three different tiers would definitely entice development community to actually take advantage of home sf and maybe there are going to be -- there is going to be more affordable units created using the tier solution. now, here's one criticism that i have of this program and that is the removal of the conditional use authorization. commissioner hillis, president hillis, was saying that they've yet to see a home sf project at the planning commission, so it doesn't look like the planning

commission is a stopping block for people to bring home sf projects online, because there are plenty of developers that do the state density bonus, go through the planning commission and they're not terrified of showing up before the commissioners. i would appreciate it if you maintain the conditional use authorization for all tiers of home sf projects. and to second what mr. cohen says, use it or lose it is important, not only because it's go to entice builders to get busy and build it, but it will dampen the speculative behavior in the development community. and in general what has fueled the fire of affordability crisis we're facing. one last thing that i would like to request. i know it came up at the planning commission. the map of the eligible sites.

particularly now that myself we are faced with a possibility of a site that might actually become available. well, it is available for construction of just -- >> that's your time. i think her time. >> sorry, i didn't hear it. i apologize. everyone has two minutes. >> i'm sorry. if you want to submit it, you can submit it to us. >> just wanted to mention we would appreciate if the planning department would give us the site of eligible sites throughout the city, because the map exists but it's very hard to get. >> ok thank you. >> hi, my name is kevin. i'm with the latino democratic club and housing activist. happy birthday to supervisor jane kim. so i wanted to speak on home s. and the modifications.

we did a lot of hard work. and you know, we've had the map 2020 planning process that came out of that. so we're looking for equitable outcome in the mission and we need to make sure that 25% affordable is required for the mission at all tiers. and especially the lowest tier when it comes to 55% of ami. we should keep conditional use for all tiers, because it seems we rarely have a home sf coming through the planning commission. it's a great policy we should implement, so they're not holding onto projects and just doing the two years out and keep extending it out. and we also need to include some level of very low income affordable housing as a traditional development of the state density development in the mission. there is a major concern with

all allowed unlimited modifications concerns. the map we saw shows that we have 13 sites that are developable, specifically down the 20th street range. we have bite unite, a startup project that is coming for cooking. they're like $3-400 classes to the project on 20th and south van ness, which has 75 units, they use the state density bonus. lingerie, high class coffee shop. the one is that of concern is in the middle of the district, 24 and sought van ness, where we have two murals that depict carnivale, so we need to protect that area. thank you for your time. >> hello again, land use attorney. i want to speak to use it or lose it. it's been ten years since our great recession of 2008, we're beginning to perhaps forget about it. but the economy can crash

quickly. it doesn't go back to normal very quickly. i remember the days after 2008 when the planning department would call people like myself and say, please, where are your clients' projects, please bring them in? and there was legislation to entice people to build their projects. that could happen again. and i'm afraid i haven't read the use it or lose it provision, but if it provides, it's automatic that it's not through a vote of the planning commission, that is if the revocation is not through a hearing at the planning commission, i really believe that is important. forgive me if it's already in there. and i ask that you consider making it longer, again, when the economy goes, it doesn't come back very fast. there are very few reasons that a developer would just hold onto things. the issue is usually cannot find

investors, or can find the investors but not the loans, or find the loans but the interest rates have gone too high. i would like to hear back as to how that is written. i urge you to consider giving that a little more time. thank you very much. >> thank you, any other members of the public who wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we actually don't have a provision, we're not planning to adopt the planning commission recommendation around the use it or lose it provision. currently, entitlements already have a three-year time frame, so if product sponsors don't create something within that time frame, they have to reapply -- reapply or go through another hearing in does the planning department want to weigh in? >> so i think what we're hearing

from the community, they wanted it shortened by one year. at this time, i'm not planning on making that change, but maybe you could speak to the current process. >> entitlements do expire, so currently i think the projects, they have to basically come back and ask for an extension, but it's not automatic. >> after three years, the planning department and planning commission can revoke permits if they haven't started to build, but it's not something that happens automatically. if they're still making due diligence to pursue the project, then we don't institute something until they stop making due diligence and we feel it's solved. >> thank you for that clarification. i heard a lot of comments from individuals from the mission community. a lot of the mission is off limits to home sf. the mission mostly comprised of

urban mixed use zoning is also not -- does not qualify for home sf. i wanted to reassure the community about that. i heard a lot of comments about eliminating the cu requirement. that's not something we're doing, so i'm not sure where that came from. it's still the same approval process. still has to go through a planning commission hearing just like it was before. planning staff, i don't know if you want to speak on the mission area, just because we heard so many comments and concerns about that. i'm looking at the map, i don't see how home sf, a lot of it applies to the drblth. -- district. >> sure, with planning department staff, so much of the mission was rezoned as part of the eastern neighborhoods and so much of the mission zoning is density decontrolled. so it's the specific type of

zoning that does not allow. where home sf is not allowed. also it's not allowed on any parcel where there is an existing residential unit, so that takes out a vast majority across the city, but especially in the mission. there are parcels within the mission that were not rezoned as part of the area plan, so those parcels, if there is no housing on them, could potentially be eligible for home sf. but largely the vast majority of the neighborhood is not eligible. >> supervisor tang: area plans were excluded, neighborhood transit corridors and then on top of that, all the restrictions around no demolition of units that have existing rental units. so again, a large, if not the vast majority of the mission is

not eligible for home sf. colleagues, any other questions or comments before we adopt any amendments? ok. so, if we can get a motion on the amendment that i proposed. i also forgot to mention one part, for the 100% affordable housing program, we no longer have to make amendments about this because it was part of the mayor's process legislation. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you, i want to thank supervisor tang for working on the revamping of this pilot program. i do want some consideration around different levels for homeownership. i'm happy to support this out of land use committee today. i do understand that the tack will be studying the proposal and looking at how we should appropriately tier. i didn't understand the big difference between a two-year versus a three-year, use it or

lose it, amendment, so i'm happy to support the three years. finally, i'm happy to see there is -- this is the discussion, a strong requirement two and three bedrooms which we know we need to see more of being produced throughout the city. looking forward to what if this does incentivize develop understand to look at the home s --ers to look at the home sf program. since we have a little bit of time before the board meeting next tuesday, i'll wait to hear and see there is alignment around a number of the different asks there. >> supervisor tang: originally, we were going to add that 100% of affordable sf home projects could be approved by the director of planning and that provision was taken care of in

the previous legislation. >> got it. >> just point of clarification, do these amendments require us to hear at a following meeting, or do we send this to the full board? >> supervisor tang: we can send it to the full board. if we can get a motion on the amendments. >> motion to approve the amendments as proposed. >> supervisor tang: on the item as amended? >> so supervisor? proposed to send this item as amended to the full board as committee report. >> supervisor tang: with positive recommendations. >> with positive recommendations. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and next items 4 and 5. >> item 4, summary street vacation portion of burnett avenue north, parcel black

number 2719 c, assess block number 2745. and item number 5, ordinance amending the planning code to rezone parcel block number ab 2719 c, lot number 023 located at burnett avenue and burnett avenue north. >> supervisor tang: thank you. with that, i'll have a representative from sheehy's office. we'll have to correct something. >> thank you. our office is in full support of the zoning amendment as well as the summary vacation. as well, we have audrey butkus from the planning department to answer any questions, as well as mr. capper from the city attorney's. rob here? no.

and then we also have kevin birmingham who is the property owner to answer any clarifying questions you may have as well. >> good afternoon, supervisors, the planning department shlg here to just give you an idea of what happened at the planning commission. the commissioners and i heard the item on december 21, 2017. three members of the public spoke against the rezoning and one member of the public requested that copper alley be extended to connect burnett avenue as part of the rezoning. the commission voted to continue the item. the planning commission heard this item again an january 18 of this year and were presented with scenarios if the ordinance was approved. after hearing, they voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. colleagues, ok. i guess we'll have the presentation first. >> hi. my name is gary ross. i'm the president of the burnnet -- >> hold on, i'll call you up during public comment. but are there no other staff? i will open this up to public comment. flush flush i want to start by saying that our homeowners association is endorsing this resolution that is long in coming. there is a detail in this that is worth addressing now.

we refer to this as burnett avenue, north. this land is not on burnett avenue north. the land is part of, a piece of land owned by the city on which you'll find a street called old burnett avenue. not burnett avenue north. the reason for that is if this street, if this is ever approved, it's going to be confused with our street, which is burnett avenue north. and their driveway and their access to that land will have nothing to do with ours. it will be confusing. and it's currently very confusing as is, because our street intersects directly onto burnett avenue. so a lot of our mail and visitors and packages are constantly redirected to the wrong place. so i'm just pointing out, we talk about this being burnett avenue north, but it isn't, that's the street to be vacated.

thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on the items, 4 and 5? ok, seeing none, public comment is closed. and i also understand that there will be legislation following gao and the government audit and oversight and this is a long time issue i'm happy to see there was a settlement. colleagues, any questions, comments? ok. seeing none, can we get a motion on items 4 and 5? >> so moved. >> supervisor tang: we'll send this out as committee report to the full board, and we'll do that without objection. thank you very much. colleagues, i apologize, we need to go back to item 3 because -- well item 3 should not be sent out as a committee report, first of all. >> i noted it. it was recorded not as a

committee report. >> supervisor tang: great, thank you. can we resume the vote for item 2, because we need to duplicate the file and keep the building code portion in land use for follow-up amendments, specifically as it relates to the pre-application meeting requirements? motion. and item 2, if we can glen again, like to duplicate the file and we'll send out the other one as amended to the full order of recommendation. >> second. >> supervisor tang: thank you. without objection. items 6 through 8. >> ordinance amending the general plan by adding the central sfarkt area plan on the western portion by 6th street, on the eastern portion by second street, on the northern portion by the downtown plan area and on

the southern portion by townsend street. land use, index and the east soma and west area plans and making appropriate findings. item number 7 is ordinance amending the zoning man of the planning code to create the central south of market special use district and making other amendments to the height bulk district map and making appropriate findings. item number 8, ordinance amending the business and tax regulations of the central smarth housing sustainability district. >> supervisor kim: thank you, chair tang, i will be extremely brief because of some procedural issues we are actually not going to be hearing this item today, but will be hearing it next monday, july 16, because it's been agendaized we do have to

allow time for members of the public to speak. for those who did not come, we did ask people not to speak, because we're not truly hearing the item, but if folks are worried they didn't come and speak their mind on this area plan, no worries, the real hearing is going to be next week where we will be making a series of amendments and having a serious presentation and discussion on these items. i do want to acknowledge that the planning department is here. both lisa chen, marie rogers, i appreciate you being here today. and our staff and my office is working very closely with this team to get central soma up and ready for next monday's hearing. we'll have a very long series of amendments that our office will be proposing and we're currently working through all of those right now. sorry, we will not be able to do that here today. madame chair, i ask that we open up for public comment on the

items and i don't know if planning department wanted to say a few words before we open up for public comment. >> supervisor tang: public comment is open on items 6-8. any members of the public who would like to speak? last call. ok, we'll see you next week. public comment is closed. madame clerk, any other items? >> no further business. >> supervisor tang: ok, this meeting is adjourned.