>> thursday october 112,018th. i would like to reminds members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. silence your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission stage your name for the record. [ roll call ] item 1, pca, the mission alcoholic beverage special youth district in transit district planning code amendment for continuance to october 18th, 2018. two case number

2016-0043hsdfolson street. shadow findings for continuance to november 8th, 2018. item 3, case number 2016-007303env at 503rd street. the negative declaration is proposed to november 18. item 4 prohibiting employee cafeterias within office space. at the time of issuance was proposed to be continued to november. it is now being proposed for continuance to october 25th, 2018. item 5, case number 2018, 003464cua market street use authorization as been withdrawn?

there's an agreement to continue this matter to december 20th, 2018. i have no other items proposed for continuesance and i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, jonas. any public comments on the items being proposed for a continuan continuance? >> move to continue items 1, 2, 3, 4 to the date specified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue items as proposed. [ roll call ] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. all matters listed here are considered to be routine by the planning commission. and maybe acted upon by a single roll call vote of the can commission. there's no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, the public or staff

so request. in which the matter shall be removed from the consent calender and considered as separate item at this or a future hearing. item 6, 2017-011155c 3122 16th street. items 7 case 2018-conditional use authorization. >> any public comment on the items on the consent calender? would anyone like to pull these off the consent calender? >> seeing none, we'll close the public comment. >> months to approve items six and seven. >> on that motion to approve items six and seven under your consent calender,[ roll call ] so moved. that motion passes 6-0.

this places us under 8, consideration of adoption draft minutes. >> any comment on the draft minutes? >> we'll close public comment. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> thank you on that motion to adopt minutes from september 27th, 2018. [ roll call ] so moved. that motion passes 6-0. item 9, commission comments and questions. >> seeing none. >> very good. >> department matters. director's announcements. >> why is that good? >> no announcements. thank you. >> item 11 review of past events. there may not be any reports. there was no board of supervisors report in the

historic preservation did not meet yesterday. i don't see -- there is one item. the board of appeals met last night and considered one item that may be of interest. the building permit for a rear horizontal addition at 575 belvedere. the item was heard discretionary review earlier this year and voted unanimously not to take d.r. and approve the project. last night the board voted to deny the appeal and approve the permit as proposed. the board noted the project was designed in a matter that respected the adjacent properties and complied with the residential design guidelines. general public comments at that time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. with respect to agenda items, you will address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i do have two speaker cards.

>> good afternoon. commissioners. i sent you an e-mail with a change in the list i gave you last week. about demos from the past number of years. i think the important point, and i addressed it specifically because commissioner richards brought it up, it's not potential for violations or complaints on this list. it won't be like the notorious demolitions. those are terrible demolitions. the projects on the list i gave you last week are somewhat more insidious. there are more of them. and they're speculative projects skirting through the loophole in section 317. with their vertical expansion and facade alteration and removing walls and absorbing second units.

mr. sanchez adjusted the values to allow approval in march 2016, november 2015 and in december 2017. to keep pace with him, the commission could have adjusted the demo perception 317-b2d. it would have created a balance and limited these stream alterations that are really demolitions which add to the high cost of causing and the speculative fever inspecting our city. on a happier note, this is a one-year anniversary of the residential flat tomorrow see. they did it one year ago today. short of eliminating section 317-b7 from the code. there was a project completed in 2015 that is now going on the market that shows why it's a good thing that you put that policy in. it would have been caught. >> may i have the overhead, please. here it is here. i covered up the address.

there it was before. there's the door there. there's a door there with two addresses. they had permits for balconies added. i went to the open house and this sign caught my attention. laundry second legal kitchen. here is the kitchen. and you see it's all open to the upstairs part. i remember in 2014, a former commissioner made an interesting comment. he said, for a project the walk-in closet is as big as his bedroom. that's the case here. there's a walk-in closet as big as anybody's bedroom. here is more detail of it. you see this. my suggestion to further the plat policy, as i put in the e-mail last evening, is with the corrected list. i hope you will write to mr. hughie and request the

c.f.c.s are only issued when the second unit kitchen has a real refrigerator and a freezer and refrigerator. and a real stove with a cook top and oven, not just a microwave. that's t thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioner, president hillis and fellow commissioners. the conditional use hearing for 3939 24th street last week, at that hearing, the attorney for the project proponent stated that the building is designated a historic resource. this presented an obstacle to ragged housing to the project because a study would be required to demolish the existing structure. his testimony is false.

based on planning department documents from 2007 when they had housing ovary tail. the project site at 3939 24th street is not considered a historic resource. and i sent you a link in your e-mail today. first document is exemption from environmental review. dated october 19th, 2007. page two states because it's not a historic resource under ceqa, demolition would not result in the effect on a historical resource and the project was found to satisfy criteria for exemption under class 1 and

class 3. document number two. a memorandum historically resource evaluation response dated august 20th, 07. the subject property is not located in a historic district. it does not appear that the subject building is a contribute or to a historic district and on page three, under determination -- see the x mark there? that's not considered a historic resource and under number six, for purposes of ceqa, no resource present and number six, whether the proposed project may have an adverse effect on off site historical resources such as adjacent historic properties,

the answer is no. this is an issue for our community, commissioners, because housing is really needed in our neighborhood. i'm dismayed that you had to base your decision on inaccurate information on behalf of the project sponsor at that hearing. you may have reached a different conclusion with respect to housing above retail if you had the facts. it's insulting to you and unfair to our community. hopefully the project sponsor will reconsider building housing at this location? >> thank you, very much. any additional general comments? >> seeing none. we'll close general public comment. >> just a question for the director. between 2007 and now we did a historic store front survey that the property on 24th street could have been reclassified as historic because of that? >> i don't recall on the top of

my head. >> there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to your regular calender items 12a and b. at 430 29th avenue, these are planning code and zoning map amendments. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. before i give staff's presentation i believe that ian from supervisors fewer's office is here to speak on the item. >> just kidding. hopefully he will show up during the item. if not, i can try to summarize the supervisors' comments that i received yesterday. the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code and zoning map to create 430 29th avenue. the s.u.d. would allow management, executive, or administrative services part of a social service or philanthropic facility to locate

in the back building of a lot at 430 29th avenue. it's zoned rh2 and rm1. both philanthropic uses and social service or philanthropic facility uses are not in rh2 and rm1 district. it's owned by the st. peters church. the church owns the lot immediately to the north at 420 29th avenue. that lot is the north previous contains the main church structure, while the subject lot contains the still-standing single family home at front and the subject building in the rear yard. the church suffered damage from the earthquake and unable to be repaired. the subject lot was used by the church with the home at front housing various clergy and the structure in the year providing the church hall space. there's no evidence in our planning records the back structure use used as housing. the tenner of the comments

received are regarding whether the property owners will act as good neighbors if the office use is granted and concerns over the impact of office uses located in a residential neighborhood. the department recommends the commission approve, with modifications, the proposed ordinance and adopt that draft resolution. the proposed recommendations are to replace the language that describes the allowed uses in 430 29th avenue s.u.d. as the executive management administrative clerical service and support or social services as defined in planning code 102. instead of that language, describing the allowed use this is 430 29th avenue s.u.d. it should state general office uses. when operated by a non-profit organization, as defined in the code. they are both defined and make it clear the use type must be general office and that general office must be operated by a non-profit. the second recommendation is no direct services can be provided

on site. general office uses may provide some on site services to clients. the building proposed to be used as general office is in a residential neighborhood with few commercial uses. any services being provided on site, whether it's district of services used to support a non-profit would likely cause a significant impact to the neighborhood due to an increase in foot traffic of clients entering and exiting the back building at 430 29th avenue to receive services from the non-profit. because of the impacts, it will be much greater if services are provided on site. they should be amended to clarify that in the s.u.d. on site services are not permitted. office uses that are contained to the add stray tive and supporter services of non-profit organizations may benefit neighborhood based on profits and finding locations closer to the communities that they serve. and may be more affordable than the rent closer to the downtown. the impact of the surrounding residential community, however, must be of the utmost consideration. in order to minimize the impact

of the surrounding neighborhood, no services should be provided on site. that concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for comments. >> ok. >> i believe ian is here. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. legislative aid to sandra fewer. i have the statement from supervisor fewer. i introduced this legislation to create 430 29th avenue special use district at the request of st. peters' church. they wanted to renovate their building in the rear yard of the lot and lease the space to community-serving non profits. i felt it would be much better for the structure to be revitalized and used to serve the community rather than allow it to be a derelict building in disrepair. i agreed to this proposal on the condition that the church would do outreach to neighbors about

their plans and help mitigate any concerns that they may have. i am sensitive to neighbor concerns that this could have on parking and traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood, which is why i wanted to ensure this special use district would be exclusively for non-profit office use with no direct services provided on site. limiting this to non-profit office use, only, will prevent the influx of traffic that would result if people were visiting the site throughout the day to receive services. as such, i support planning staff's recommended modifications which clarify these use limitations and make it clear that no on site services will be allowed. i hope that further clarifying these use limitations will ease neighborhood concerns about parking in traffic. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm reverend patricia cunningham from st. peters, which is now blended with trinity a piscapole church. the church has owned that property since the late 19th century. the church was destroyed in 1989 and subsequently supportive housing for disabled mentally was built on that site. i occupy the residents at the front part of the lot. we have in deed, undertaken to renovate the derelict building that was not in use as a former parish hall. it is now looking very, very good and we are -- our desire is to serve the community by allowing non profits that would not normally be able to find a beautiful space to operate their administrative backroom affairs

from two of the opportunity to do that and we've been approached in the area and multi services being one and asian family support services being another and so our hope is that you will go ahead and approve this so that we can put this space to good use for the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional public comments? >> i'm sew fee hayward. we live a block from the site. they've been excellent neighbors for the past five years. anything they want to do we're supportive of. thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional public comments? >> seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioner johnson. >> so, i think that i am fully in support of the legislation. i understand the balance that we have in the avenues of spaces

that haven't been used for a long time or have sat vacant for a long time. needing to find new uses and life for those. i think that this effort has really done a good job of balancing the concerns of the community and the implications of a change of use to their livelihoods, while, statement, e time, recognizing a important space could be activated to meet a need our city has and providing affordable commercial space to our non profits. i am in support of this legislation and move to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. >> just for clarity that was approved with modifications. >> yes. >> thank you on that motion to approve these planning code and zoning map with modifications. [ roll call ]

>> so moved, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 13. updates to the inclusionary housing procedures manual. >> you can put it on the overhead. >> good afternoon.

carlie grove, department staff. our updates to the inclusionary program moderning and for short. planning said connection 4150 requires the mayor's office to have a community development to publish this manual which contains procedures for monitoring and enforcing the policies for the implication of the inclusionary housing program. the manual includes information for buyers, renters, project sponsors, property managers, city staff. in a moment, our colleagues from the mayor's office will have changes to the manual. i'm distributing a packet with non substantive corrections and clarifications identified after your packets were published last week. we've also noticed that the land dedication section of the manual is omitted from the draft that you have in front of you. so this packet also includes the land dedication section, which would be reincorporated into the

final manual. most city staff can answer any questions about any of the changes before you. in order to accept the proposed changes to the procedures manual, along with the corrections and the packet, the commission must approve a resolution to adopt the proposed updates to the procedures manual as modified by staff. the department recommends the planning adopt the manual with the proposed modifications as the updates will improve the implementation of the inclusionary housing program for renters, owners, seeking affordable housing, project sponsors and city staff. this concludes my portion of the presentation. and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. at this time, i'd like to introduce maria benjamin, the director of home ownership and below market rate programs. she's going to present an overview of the changes to the manual. thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. benjamin, welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. maria ben ma jin, mayor's office housing community development. i'm so excited to be here.

[laughter] in my excitement i walked out with my power point on the stick. make sure you pull the mic over so we can hear you. >> since 2013, since the last manual update, we've been collecting input and our own experience has provided us with changes that we saw fit to better implement the program. we've been collecting those. in 2016 we began meetings with stakeholders to encourage their input and get community stakeholders' comments on the different aspects of the manual.

in particular, i want to thank two advocacy groups that have really helped us all along. they help us everyday, to implement this program. one is bishop with bill sorrow rental -- they focus on rental advocacy and and housing counseling. and home ownership sf which is another group that works with our homeowners to prepare them for home ownership. we got their input and ideas. we sat down with lenders and leasing agents to see how the program could better serve them so they can better serve us. we worked with our wonderful planners. i can't do this without shouting out to carlie grob and kate conner for the help they give us everyday in implementing this program. our city attorney's office and of course, our developers.

there wouldn't be no units without the developers, right. we met with them. we talked with them on how to improve the program. so the changes that you have before you now -- >> the change you have now, are in four catagories. we made changes to improve barriers for applicants. both on the rental side and the home ownership side. we made changes to improve sustainability. it's a lot of units now. we need to improve -- we needed to improve some of the protections that we have in place so that the people the

units were intended to get and were getting them. we just needed to modernize for our sponsor requirements. we had rules in there that were applicable in 2012 but they really aren't anymore. and we have made some technology changes. we're in this area of technology that the manual needed to be updated in those areas as well. and then of course, the planning code amendments that were made last year needed to be incorporated into the manual. we did that too. to give you a little taste of some of the stuff we did, because we did a lot. we also found a need -- the manual was bulky and hard to go through and like where is that and where does it say that. we tried to make it a little more -- it was very high -- you

needed a masters' degree to read some of the stuff in there. so we tried to make tay little bit reader friendly and i think we have. what we heard is what they wanted transparency. how are we calculated income? what are the rules behind the curtain. we hesitated to do that. when you put rules out, someone is going to figure out how to go around them. we feel strongly that the rules that we have in place are helping people to qualify and protecting.

with regard to ownership burial removal, there were a lot of changes that we made. one of the major ones is to apply for home ownership unit you had to send in a full packet with a lender pre approval, home buyer education, pay stubs, bank statements, updated assets, all of your tax returns, all of this before the lottery. and so if we had two units and we had 200 applicants, those 200 people were jumping through those hoops before the lottery and they might not even get a phone call. we shaved down some of that just as we had for the rental program and so the full application is due after the lottery, once they're offered a unit. it makes sense.

for the rental program, one of the things we did was in the 2013 manual, the eviction history was left up to the project response o. whether they would consider someone that had a previous eviction we eliminated the eviction to the last three years. we are now going to require their mitigating circumstances in the event and if the eviction was caused because of fiction or owner and they couldn't leave until they gotti convicted. we require a project sponsor to not consider those types of evictions. >> that's the burial removal we made for the rental program.

>> we clarified policies with regard to renting out your b.m.r. home ownership unit and having insurance to cover the unit. we clarified resale pricing, what it means to have a financial hardship title changes. we made some pretty our hormones understand that we are monitoring these units for occupancy. for the rental sustainability,

ok, in the 2013 it didn't say anything about the b.m.r. unit when it is owned by a rental unit. we found some of those renters have been in there for 10 years and they've never had their carpet replaced. all the market rates in the building had their carpet replaced. si'm moving through. marketing and for project sponsors updates for marketing. so, we used to require the big adds in the weekend newspaper.

and that was beginning to cost our developers like in excess of $10,000 to run those adds. that were not very fruitful. so, we took the shift away from that and we're now expanding the requirement to do more community-based outreach and in local newspapers and news letters, we expanded that a little bit and also social media, there was no requirement to put anything on a website or have anything in a facebook page. we also required them to have a sign on the building that says b.m.r. units are coming here. that was not required

previously. >> the final things were around the amendments. the new tiered affordability levels. we added information about home s.f. and the bonus program. we expanded the condo conversion a little bit. over all, ladies and gentlemen, we strengthened the program for improved access and sustain ability and we're happy that a lot of these standard practices that we have been doing are now codified and we have a way of saying no, look, you really have to do this. >> any public comment on the changes to the inclusionary manual update?

mr. smith. >> >> san francisco housing action coalition. they were proactive in reaching out to us and getting developers for feedback as possible so props to staff. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm from bill sore housing program. first of all, we're part of because the bulk of the actions are low market rate, we're really pleased to see a lot of changes. there are more specific now than it was before. one of our inputs that is actually incorporated in this one is looking to alternative credit, not everyone as good credit and not everyone has

credit. so, we're glad to see that. still, you know, in part of this we understand this is still a draft. but one of our major issues with or wanting to bring up is income calculation. i know that this is being referred under the calculation with a low income housing tax credit but of course we want to make sure that people really get housed and. if there can be allowance on $100 over of the maximum income that maybe there should be room for flexibility on it. so, people really want to be housed in affordable housing and we also really want it to be accessibility. there's changes in the program with we sent a letter about

added recommendation and clarification on the language that from hearing today that i think most would be open to it as well. but over all, we're very happy on these enclosure manual updates. hopefully, there can be more process that some clarification on the language can still be addressed. i also brought it up to other commissioners as well on this issue. the major thing is allowing flexibility on the income calculation. >> thank you. any additional public comments on this item? >> we'll close public comments and open it up to commissioner comments. any questions. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you. thank you to the mayor's office

of housing. i do think that it makes the process more accessible and more transparent for renters, potential renters than home buyers. i also think it's sort of balancing out needs more in favor of the end users rather than the developers. i like that. it keeps up with technology in a better way. my question was, ms. benjamin in your presentation, you didn't cover the land dedication value. you know, procedures. you just got those today. i'm wondering, i'm just skimming them quickly. they don't seem to have changed anything. >> there are no changes. we just inadvertently didn't put them back in. >> but we need them.

we need them to be in there. >> i think that, i had raised this issue before, there's still, to me, these calculations of value is very vague. it could be -- it's missing something. i was told that it was needed legislation to make them, you know, different. so, is this included in the resolution? are we just kind of -- we need them? >> we could modify the resolution to possibly look into the valuation of land dedication. >> i'm just asking. >> it's not -- just the reincorporation of the land dedication section is in the resolution currently. >> ok. >> as the proposed changes from staff. >> i don't want to hold it up. because of this, i was just asking. ok.

>> we can definitely do some more follow-up on that too. >> i don't think it's our jurisdiction. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> i just want to mirror the excitement that you shared in sharing this report. i was so excited to read this report. it was a real page-turner for me. [laughter] but also, the fact that i do have seen firsthand that this manual needed to be updated to really reflect the true reality of well-income people's lives. both as potential owners and potential renters. i think having worked in as set development there are policies that penalize people for having family members live with them or life happening to them or not

having credit and this takes a step to address those things and also reflect some of our city's values including the fair chance values. i think it couldn't come as a better time, especially as we are going to talk about another topic today. assuring this piece up. i just want to recognize the comments that were made that i think, when thinking about getting people housed, they're always does need to be a level of flexibility, which is hard when you are trying to clearly define something. so, i think the spirit of these amendments is to try to be inclusive of more people. so, i definitely think there's probably going to be recommendations and additions that will need to come down the road. over saul, i just want to commend staff and department on a great job on this. and, move to adopt a resolution

updating the manual. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> i share the feeling of happiness and pride that this is happening and i do also want to echo my support for consideration flexibility because in low-income, $100 is huge and important experience of renting a b.m.r. or owning a b.m.r. and i do think we feed to look at $100 being a very small incremental given the day's value of the money. >> can you address that? >> sure. >> there flexibility or the ability to have flexibility? >> yeah, um --

>> they will address us. the person over income for one tier will qualify for another tier, it's going to be more expensive for them when they're over that income and they go into the next tier, however, there will be units available for them. and we try to get rental subsidiaries for folks that are -- that can't make the cut off and we'll continue to do that as much as possible. the there's a cut off somewhere. i think income certification across all industries, you know, there's an income cut off. it's a very slippery slope when you start to say, well, can't you just let this person go and that person go. i understand, and we also do everything -- i'll tell you,

someone not qualifying for $100 over, we might see five people a year that are in that out of thousands of people that making over that income limit. we will do everything in our capacity inform analyze their income so that we can get them to qualify. and if we just can't, then yeah, it usually happens with the home ownership units. again, we encourage folks to keep trying and keep applying for higher tiers that they'll be able to qualify for. we also provide down payment assistance to those folks if they are out of reach of a higher tier but they're over the income limits for a lower tier. we would definitely, when funding balances allow us to provide down payment assistance we would do that so they can

afford that too. >> thank you. in over all, is the over all program obviously very demanding. are we seeing it increasing the applicants for each unit? where are we heading? >> so we had 95 units available recently and we had 6500 applications. >> wow. >> there are, for home ownership units, it depends. it's all location, location, location. so it depends upon the unit and the size of the unit. there are at least 50 applicants per home own unit. >> thank you, very much. >> commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to adopt the resolution updating the manual and just for clarity,

with the sheet with the amendments submitted by staff. [ roll call ] so moved that passes 7-0. places us on item 14 for case 2017-000565cwp for the community stabilization and anti displacement informational presentation. >> i thought i would make a few opening comments on this. this is the first time you are seeing this presentation. i want to to open up with a few comments, if i may. at its fundamental level, this community stabilization strategy is part of the work to keep the city affordable and also stabilize communities that are facing some serious displacement pressures. most of our work is related to housing production.

we all recognize that housing production doesn't speak to all the cities' housing needs. so this work that andy will present to you shortly is really, i'm looking at that part of the city that is being effected by the growth and the demand for new housing. but it's not directly receiving that growth. it really grew out of the work we did in map 2020. it's taking that work and seeing how that work can kind of look city wide and create a menu of activities that can address stabilization city wide. most city nights ar neighborhooe facing these issues. for those that are not yet facing the most serious anti displacement issues, that we can get ahead of it. and try to put some displacement measures, anti-displacement

measures in place before it effects them more seriously. so, it really does -- broad analysis responds to some of the social yo economic and the mission in the tenderloin and we're trying to get ahead of that as well. i started to address that in a memo a year ago to the board. we're trying to follow-up on that work as well. you will see that, what we're doing is trying to compile a lot of what other departments are doing as well? so we're trying to get a handle on all these efforts city wide. put them in one place. see what is missing and put together a menu of options moving forward. so, with that, i will ask andy nelson to present. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners, andy nelson with the city-wide divisions community, opportunity and equity team. i'm here to speak with you about the community stabilization strategy, which we have been working on for a year. intandem with map 2020 and other neighborhood-specific efforts,

we launched the community stabilization strategy to analyze and make additional recommendations to address issues of displacement, gentrification, and growth with the focus on equity city wide. we recognize that these issues are not unique to any individual neighborhood in the city. >> first, why this project? as we all know, san francisco continues to experience a chronic affordability crisis. this crisis is effected vulnerable populations, low income and households, people of color, renters, seniors, youth and people living with disabilities. [ please stand by ] stan

>> will begin broader public engagement efforts this winter. planning is collaborating with various city agencies. we are thankful to mohcd, oewd, the rent board, public health, d.b.i., among numerous others, on their continuing involvement. in addition, we are coordinating with various department initiatives, including the housing needs and trends report, the housing affordability strategy, and our neighborhood based plan. so while the department continues our housing production work, this project is about protecting and stablizing our existing communities to ensure that those who live and own businesses and work here can stay. the strategy will provide city agencies, decision makers, and the public the comprehensive analysis and tools they need to make stratjiek decisions to stablize communities and

particularly our most right lane -- strategic decisions to stablize communities and particularly our most vulnerable communities. the strategy has three primary components. i'm going to walk-through them here and then i'll go into depth on the following slides. so first we are working with mohcd and berkeley as well as san francisco to understand the specific types of gentrification going on through san francisco. i will explain the map here on the next slide. at the same time we are reaching out to leading agencies and community organization stakeholders to comprehensively compile and assess the city's existing policies and programs.

based on the analysis and understanding of needs, the strategy will contain recommendations to exist or modify coordinating programs and policies to improve enhancement for our work. the urban displacement project analyzes graphic housing and metric data. that resulted in this map. essentially, the census tract shaded in purple are low-income or 80% a.m.i. or below. the darker purple shade indicates that the track is ongoing displachl and losing low-income households, and the lighter shade tract indicates that assist not losing low-income households or in the very early stages of displacement. the census tract shaded in orange are primarily moderate to high income. the darker orange shade indicates that the tracks

includes the least affordable options, so for both housing and goods and services and fewer low-income people are able to move in or moving in. and the hashed areas are areas that swept to high income to moderate between 1990 and 2000 or between 2000 and 2015. staff is also compiling additional data to achieve a more nuanced and holistic understanding of trends in the city. while we are deepening our understanding of the trends in san francisco we have compiled a list of programs and policies that help to stablize communities and prevent displacement. a benefit of this is we are able to share everything the city is doing in one place. we are working with the leading

agencies and community experts and stakeholders to comprehensively assess these existing tools. they fall within the six broad categories that are shown here on the slide, from affordable housing production to economic development. in addition totionti -- to agencies mentioned earlier, we have spoke with the s.r.o. collaborative, ccdc, the tenants union, among others. this is a snapshot of some of the tools that we are assessing. we included the complete draft toolkit in the case report. we are continuing to speak with city partners to ensure this toolkit is comprehensive. for example we heard from commissioner melgar that we should add transportation related programs such as free or reduced muni passes to this toolkit. as we finalize the toolkit, we are working with these city

partner and community organization stakeholders to better understand what are the costs, the benefits, the major challenges and ideas for improvements or enhancement of existing programs and policies. we are interested in understanding how best we can advance these programs' purpose and reach. for example, we are assessing s.r.o.'s in the hotel conversion ordinance. to do that, we are analyzing data collected through the annual unit usage report such as vie can't see rate and hotel locations, among other metrics. additionally, we met with d.b.i., planning staff and community organization stakeholders listed on the slide here to learn about the challenges and opportunities related to protecting s.r.o.s. and thirdly, based on the analysis and understanding of needs, we'll develop recommendations to enhance or modify our existing tools.

the strategy will also include recommendations for new programs and policies. and staff will continue to hold meetings with community organization representatives that implement, utilize or interact with the city's existing programs and policies that help stablize and prevent displacement. the strategy will offer opportunities for a broader range of public stakeholders to offer input and help shape the toolkit, beginning this fall in coordination with mohcd's housing plan efforts, and the housing department's affordability state gee. we will host a number of meetings with community based organization and distribute an on-line survey and print out of that print havesurvey. here's the overall timeline and the next steps. the draft community stablization strategy for public review is anticipated to be released in early 2019 with a final to be released in the spring of 2019.

and thank you for your time. our project team is all here, and we were looking forward to taking your comments and questions after public comment. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. we will open this up first for public comment, if there is any, miss sciutic. >> hi. i know i'm going to preface my remarks by saying i have tunnel vision, and i talk about demolitions all the time, but when i saw this item was on the agenda in map 2020, i went back to my file and back in march of 2017, when you had the map 2020, i submitted it again, and i

basically said please fix the democalcs back in that area for march 2017, because i did a wuk through some of those blocks, and i submitted a bunch of houses that were i thought endangered or changed, you know, some added units, they blew them up, the usual -- the stuff i always say. so when i saw this map, which i really liked, the thing that most impressed me, can i have the overhead, is that area there -- >> president hillis: pull that down a little bit. >> i will. that area there, that's kind of ground zero in noe valley. that's where we've had the three and 4 and $5 million increases in housing. they're alterations, but they're not alterations. they're very expensive. when i started talked about